Natural selection means the weak will be stripped of life, because, well, they are weak. But in our world today, we support the weak, and so they are kept alive.

"Weak" would mean, (and this sounds heartless and mean but scientifically and emotionlessly its true) those that are disabled, mentally or physically, or those who grow abnormally small, maybe large. Also those with sever diseases.

By keeping those that are weak alive, they will reproduce, and their genes will be passed along. This means that our population is actually weakening from doing this. If we were to allow natural selection to do what it does, our race would become stronger.

Moving on to overpopulation, our world is covered by over 6,000,000,000 people. And we keep hearing about campaigns to save people from all these natural diseases. I think theres way too many of us. Let those that are destined to die, die. Then our world will be thinner, peoplewise. Nature will be allowed to flourish like it once did. People will be less ignorant, and those that are alive will be stronger.

So, should we stop saving the weak?

Well if you had cancer, what would you want to be done to you?

Yeah, this whole argument crumbles when you try to look at it from the viewpoint of the "weak".

If we let them die, I'd most likely be dead by now. So, with that in mind, I can say this: That idea is ****ing shit.

Hitler had similar ideas...

I've thought about this, and i realized that there's a better solution thatn eugenics: genetically altering fetuses so they don't have anything bad, to a certain degree. I don't propose the practice of improving them, just making sure they don't have any major genetic defects, that they aren't obese, etc.

Well surgery is usually involved.
But, killing is out of the question.
If we had 20 people in an elevator and there was supposed to be 19, would you kill one?

I wouldn't.
I'd let someone else do it!
:p

Quote from Ash

I've thought about this, and i realized that there's a better solution thatn eugenics: genetically altering fetuses so they don't have anything bad, to a certain degree. I don't propose the practice of improving them, just making sure they don't have any major genetic defects, that they aren't obese, etc.

Then you create a sticky scenario where people who have been "modified" will undoubtedly feel superior than those that haven't been. Not to mention, this would only add fuel to the fire in terms of Western superiority, as most countries would not be able to afford that.

EDIT: And genetic modification doesn't even help solve the problem of overpopulation anyways, I might add.

Quote from BluGil

Natural selection means the weak will be stripped of life, because, well, they are weak. But in our world today, we support the weak, and so they are kept alive.

"Weak" would mean, (and this sounds heartless and mean but scientifically and emotionlessly its true) those that are disabled, mentally or physically, or those who grow abnormally small, maybe large. Also those with sever diseases.

By keeping those that are weak alive, they will reproduce, and their genes will be passed along. This means that our population is actually weakening from doing this. If we were to allow natural selection to do what it does, our race would become stronger.

Moving on to overpopulation, our world is covered by over 6,000,000,000 people. And we keep hearing about campaigns to save people from all these natural diseases. I think theres way too many of us. Let those that are destined to die, die. Then our world will be thinner, peoplewise. Nature will be allowed to flourish like it once did. People will be less ignorant, and those that are alive will be stronger.

So, should we stop saving the weak?

Natural selection does not only occur on an individual level. An entire species can be subject to natural selection simultaneously, usually in periods when the natural environment changes.

Have you considered that maybe, instead of being pulled down by the weaker members of society, humanity is pushed up by its willingness to care for them? The very fact that we don't just kill people if they aren't physically fit is what makes us strong as a species.

I would also like to point out Stephen Hawking. Let's face it, he is by no measure the most likely to survive in the wild, but he brings an immense amount to our understanding of the universe.

Quote from Ash

I've thought about this, and i realized that there's a better solution thatn eugenics: genetically altering fetuses so they don't have anything bad, to a certain degree. I don't propose the practice of improving them, just making sure they don't have any major genetic defects, that they aren't obese, etc.

Watch the movie Gattaca




(i'm gonna guess you already have because its so ****ing awesome)

Quote from Zed

Natural selection does not only occur on an individual level. An entire species can be subject to natural selection simultaneously, usually in periods when the natural environment changes.

Have you considered that maybe, instead of being pulled down by the weaker members of society, humanity is pushed up by its willingness to care for them? The very fact that we don't just kill people if they aren't physically fit is what makes us strong as a species.

I would also like to point out Stephen Hawking. Let's face it, he is by no measure the most likely to survive in the wild, but he brings an immense amount to our understanding of the universe.

How are we being pushed up by our willingness to care for the weak?

Also, natural selection isn't about being "the most likely to survive in the wild." It's about being the most likely to survive. Be it through force, camouflage or development of tools. Stephen Hawking is successful in the environment he is in, and it is irrelevant whether or not he would make a good Robinson Crusoe.

Quote from Kegman

Watch the movie Gattaca




(i'm gonna guess you already have because its so ****ing awesome)

BEST MOVIE EVER. end was sad though, when the guy got into the giant rocket thing and incinerated himself while the other guy flew out into space.

Quote from alive

How are we being pushed up by our willingness to care for the weak?

Also, natural selection isn't about being "the most likely to survive in the wild." It's about being the most likely to survive. Be it through force, camouflage or development of tools. Stephen Hawking is successful in the environment he is in, and it is irrelevant whether or not he would make a good Robinson Crusoe.

But Stephen Hawking's environment only exists because we care for the weak instead of shooting them. That's my point. When you care for the people who are perceived as weak you may get unforseen benefits, ie. a genius who would not otherwise have existed.

But we have no need to kill him, weakness is not only physical :]

Ah. So we are only talking about the execution of those with limited mental AND physical capabilities?

Slipery slope argument applies.

What about people in a coma who may or may not come out again?