Humanity vs Natural Selection

[Viscount]

I'm expecting flames, and yes, I expect to hear "They're alive, too!" I'm pretty sure I'll also hear "They really love them..." But these are not my point. I chose to leave you wish these before I began my rant so you had questions to be answered.

All right, I'm (supposedly) pretty liberal. I'm pro-choice on most things because I respect a person's right to choose what they believe to be right, even if I don't believe it's right(make sense, right?). So I'm sitting at the movie theatre one day when I suddenly hear a loud "NO THANKS!" line shouted in repetition as a teenager approximately 14 years of age streaks down the aisle throwing his popcorn through the air in order to cover his ears and sprint around like he was being threatened by the tenth plague of Egypt. Needless to say, many patrons of the theatre were not pleased, catch my drift? So this individual's guardian for the night, I assume a relative, though they looked nothing alike, confronts them and pretty much forces them into a seat, all the while making slap-gestures and yelling "No! Bad, Eric! Bad!" Name has been changed to protect identity and all that.

This didn't come back to mind after the event immediately, as Team America was on the screen and it was good to distract my idle thoughts. Probably a good thing, too, because I might have done something I would have regretted like follow them out in curiousity. So, anyway, after the movie, my friend brought it up and I had completely forgotten about it.

( Beginning of relevance )
So, here's what I was thinking when I decided to make this topic. Under the concept of Darwinism, natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to label it, we humans pretty much say "Cool idea." Then it comes to humans and we say "Hey, screw you." Nature dictates that only those who could add promise to the species be kept and those incapable not. Of course, we've advanced far enough, now, that these types of individuals don't slow us down. So, no, I'm not saying that the mentally handicapped(is that the new PC phrase?) and elderly should be lined up and shot, because I think elders deserve respect for what they have contributed, and those "mentally handicapped"(hereby referred to as mental retards(it's what the word means, what do you want?)) with enough intelligence to atleast think of their own are fine.

But what about those that can't? If you're thirty years old and you're still trying to write with the eraser end of an unsharpened pencil, I don't see promise for a new, cheaper fuel source. Maybe a future President, but only if they're rich. Don't get me wrong, I'm down with the whole "human life is precious" stuff that humans like to think applies to themselves over everything else ever created, but if they can't think for themselves, do they really...live? Is it really humane to force people who will never be capable of independence to go through life being pampered, controlled, fed on whim, and so on? I mean...are they pets?

(Added at the whim of my friend): Why do our taxes go to support them?

I'm expecting very little positive feedback from this topic, if anybody posts at all, but I want to see people's arguments.

Note: Just because I posted this does not necessarily mean I want to kill them or anything. It's merely food for thought.

[mord_sith]

No flames from me, don't worry. wink

I think that the whole survival of the fittest idea is interesting in theory, but not very practical. How would we begin? Would we just decide to start this one day, and start killing any humans who are weaker or less intelligent? How do we decide who the 'fittest' are? That's where the main probelms lie. Who would decide who's intelligent, beautiful, physically fit, and in general, useful? It's all based on human perceptions. And finally, where do we draw the line? Do we just get rid of people with disabilities? People who are slightly over weight? Children who are struggling in school?

It just really wouldn't work.

[Viscount]

mord_sith

No flames from me, don't worry. wink

I think that the whole survival of the fittest idea is interesting in theory, but not very practical. How would we begin? Would we just decide to start this one day, and start killing any humans who are weaker or less intelligent? How do we decide who the 'fittest' are? That's where the main probelms lie. Who would decide who's intelligent, beautiful, physically fit, and in general, useful? It's all based on human perceptions. And finally, where do we draw the line? Do we just get rid of people with disabilities? People who are slightly over weight? Children who are struggling in school?

It just really wouldn't work.

That was completely against the point altogether. Before, if you were fat or whatever, you would slow us down. Today? Nah. The point of this topic is to question the purpose of people who have no hope of contributing any, even a little, intellectual support to society. However, a lot of people don't contribute much and simply bum off other people's knowledge, making them a member of the "gray masses."

My point is that a lot of these people are controlled all their lives. All of their actions, meals, clothes, everything...always dictated for them because they are incapable of thinking on such a level on their own. I'm not saying to kill them, but asking how humane it is to make these people continue a life they will never achieve anything in.

[Halii]

To be completely honest, I'm so against mentally handicapped people, to the point of not being able to take care of themselves, that I do believe that they should be 'taken care of', if you get my drift, at birth.

If you are a parent, and you know your child will not ever be able to be out on their own without causing themselves harm, or other's harm, then how can you possibly make the choice to let them go on?

To much time and tax money go into this person. Some of these people are like zombies, there only because you went through the pain of having them. Not because they want to be there. They could probably care less.

I expect negative feedback to that, but in stating my opinion, which is inhumane, I'll glady send out an invitation for comments.

[mord_sith]

Viscount

mord_sith

No flames from me, don't worry. wink

I think that the whole survival of the fittest idea is interesting in theory, but not very practical. How would we begin? Would we just decide to start this one day, and start killing any humans who are weaker or less intelligent? How do we decide who the 'fittest' are? That's where the main probelms lie. Who would decide who's intelligent, beautiful, physically fit, and in general, useful? It's all based on human perceptions. And finally, where do we draw the line? Do we just get rid of people with disabilities? People who are slightly over weight? Children who are struggling in school?

It just really wouldn't work.

That was completely against the point altogether. Before, if you were fat or whatever, you would slow us down. Today? Nah. The point of this topic is to question the purpose of people who have no hope of contributing any, even a little, intellectual support to society. However, a lot of people don't contribute much and simply bum off other people's knowledge, making them a member of the "gray masses."

My point is that a lot of these people are controlled all their lives. All of their actions, meals, clothes, everything...always dictated for them because they are incapable of thinking on such a level on their own. I'm not saying to kill them, but asking how humane it is to make these people continue a life they will never achieve anything in.

Lol, I did miss the point, didn't I? Sorry about that.

Well, I don't think that it will ever happen, but we can always look at the what-ifs... It's wrong to take human life, on the one hand, but on the other hand, they will never be able to acomplish anything for themselves. People will dress them, clothe them, bathe them, and do everything else for them for their entire lives.

[Silver_Loki]

I've thought of things similar to what your discussing, but I never thought anyone else did. I think your analysis is very very well put. And i think you will get plenty more positive feed back wink They say that humans are extremly advanced, but if you think about it we are very similar to animals. We keep routine, go for the best mate. Protect our territory and offspring, etc. Just because we have made life more comlicated for ourselves doesn't exactly mean we are better. I think it's stupid.

[mord_sith]

Halii

To be completely honest, I'm so against mentally handicapped people, to the point of not being able to take care of themselves, that I do believe that they should be 'taken care of', if you get my drift, at birth.

If you are a parent, and you know your child will not ever be able to be out on their own without causing themselves harm, or other's harm, then how can you possibly make the choice to let them go on?

To much time and tax money go into this person. Some of these people are like zombies, there only because you went through the pain of having them. Not because they want to be there. They could probably care less.

I expect negative feedback to that, but in stating my opinion, which is inhumane, I'll glady send out an invitation for comments.

I definately see your point. I mean, there are some mentally handicapped people who are almost like everyone else, but for the most part, they are almost like empty shells, doing exactly what they are directed to.

[Viscount]

Halii

To be completely honest, I'm so against mentally handicapped people, to the point of not being able to take care of themselves, that I do believe that they should be 'taken care of', if you get my drift, at birth.

If you are a parent, and you know your child will not ever be able to be out on their own without causing themselves harm, or other's harm, then how can you possibly make the choice to let them go on?

To much time and tax money go into this person. Some of these people are like zombies, there only because you went through the pain of having them. Not because they want to be there. They could probably care less.

I expect negative feedback to that, but in stating my opinion, which is inhumane, I'll glady send out an invitation for comments.

And there's the point. whee I agree completely.

mord_sith:
It's completely fine. Maybe I should have made the title less misleading.

"It's wrong to take human life" is a comment that bothers me. We take the lives of other animals all the time, and don't get me wrong, I eat a lot more meat than Dr. Atkins probably ever did. I am not, however, about to discriminate against the tiger for going tiger on Roy when he hit it with a microphone, nor any other case of animals attacking a human being. If it's wrong to kill another human, it's wrong to kill an animal, we just feel worse about it because killing something that looks like us hits closer to home.

But this isn't an animal rights thread, so...ignore that if you can, please. That's my point. Is that even living? Why not just declare them animate action figures/dolls?

[mord_sith]

Viscount

Halii

To be completely honest, I'm so against mentally handicapped people, to the point of not being able to take care of themselves, that I do believe that they should be 'taken care of', if you get my drift, at birth.

If you are a parent, and you know your child will not ever be able to be out on their own without causing themselves harm, or other's harm, then how can you possibly make the choice to let them go on?

To much time and tax money go into this person. Some of these people are like zombies, there only because you went through the pain of having them. Not because they want to be there. They could probably care less.

I expect negative feedback to that, but in stating my opinion, which is inhumane, I'll glady send out an invitation for comments.

And there's the point. whee I agree completely.

mord_sith:
It's completely fine. Maybe I should have made the title less misleading.

"It's wrong to take human life" is a comment that bothers me. We take the lives of other animals all the time, and don't get me wrong, I eat a lot more meat than Dr. Atkins probably ever dead. I am not, however, about to discriminate against the tiger for going tiger on Roy when he hit it with a microphone, nor any other case of animals attacking a human being. If it's wrong to kill another human, it's wrong to kill an animal, we just feel worse about it because killing something that looks like us hits closer to home.

But this isn't an animal rights thread, so...ignore that if you can, please. That's my point. Is that even living? Why not just declare them animate action figures/dolls?

No, no, that isn't quite what I meant. I won't get started on the difference between human and animal life, because it would take forever, and it has absolutely no relevence to this thread. wink

No, I believe that human life is valuable, but in cases of mental illness, I'm not quite sure if that should count as "life." Technically they are alive, but they have no really mind of their own.

[Generic Hero #37]

I think the basic core of natural selection is that those who can and will survive, will survive. Obviously humans can do that. Although it's a bit primitive to think that way, and which is why it applies primarily to animals. People, I believe, can support each other with a combination of herd mentality and techonological advancement, effectively cancelling natural selection out. The unhealthly can be cured, the infertile can adopt, etc.

By the way, at the movie, was it during the puppet sex or the dicks/pussies/assholes part? Because then "Eric" may have had a reason to retreat, heh.

[Viscount]

mord_sith

No, no, that isn't quite what I meant. I won't get started on the difference between human and animal life, because it would take forever, and it has absolutely no relevence to this thread. wink

No, I believe that human life is valuable, but in cases of mental illness, I'm not quite sure if that should count as "life." Technically they are alive, but they have no really mind of their own.

It's not that they have no mind of their own, it's that they're inable to fully utilize it, but your point remains valid. I agree that all life should be preserved unless for use of sustenance(carnivorism), and even then not overly abused like we abuse it.


Loki: Technically speaking, we're a member of the Kingdom Animalia, which makes us animals. Us human-types just don't like to admit it. I disagree, though. Because we have advanced it DOES mean we are better in a sense, but only in the way that a lion is better than an antelope. We are stronger, but the double-standards we enjoy are...useless. And, like animals, I think the gene pool is a valuable thing to be preserved. I'm not saying to wipe out "imperfection" Nazi-style, but as I said earlier, what doesn't help us further simply holds us back.

Hero: That's what we do, and I like your counter-point. We've evolved to the point that we can herd-accomodate. However, in the wild, any member of the herd who can not carry their own weight is thrown to the wolves.

He was covering his ears, not his eyes. xp It was the very beginning, when they began the really loud intro "AMERICA! F*CK YEAH!" and so on. I think it spooked him.

[Halii]

mord_sith

Viscount

Halii

To be completely honest, I'm so against mentally handicapped people, to the point of not being able to take care of themselves, that I do believe that they should be 'taken care of', if you get my drift, at birth.

If you are a parent, and you know your child will not ever be able to be out on their own without causing themselves harm, or other's harm, then how can you possibly make the choice to let them go on?

To much time and tax money go into this person. Some of these people are like zombies, there only because you went through the pain of having them. Not because they want to be there. They could probably care less.

I expect negative feedback to that, but in stating my opinion, which is inhumane, I'll glady send out an invitation for comments.

And there's the point. whee I agree completely.

mord_sith:
It's completely fine. Maybe I should have made the title less misleading.

"It's wrong to take human life" is a comment that bothers me. We take the lives of other animals all the time, and don't get me wrong, I eat a lot more meat than Dr. Atkins probably ever dead. I am not, however, about to discriminate against the tiger for going tiger on Roy when he hit it with a microphone, nor any other case of animals attacking a human being. If it's wrong to kill another human, it's wrong to kill an animal, we just feel worse about it because killing something that looks like us hits closer to home.

But this isn't an animal rights thread, so...ignore that if you can, please. That's my point. Is that even living? Why not just declare them animate action figures/dolls?

No, no, that isn't quite what I meant. I won't get started on the difference between human and animal life, because it would take forever, and it has absolutely no relevence to this thread. wink

No, I believe that human life is valuable, but in cases of mental illness, I'm not quite sure if that should count as "life." Technically they are alive, but they have no really mind of their own.

I'm all for a super-race. Isn't it ironic that I'm German, as well? Huh.

I believe in abortion in cases of rape, incest, molestation, and mental illness. I believe in the death penalty. I feel morbid saying it, but that's really all there is to it.

*Mentally ill people are simply shells.

*=Mentally ill to the point of not being able to take care of themselves.

[mord_sith]

Viscount

mord_sith

No, no, that isn't quite what I meant. I won't get started on the difference between human and animal life, because it would take forever, and it has absolutely no relevence to this thread. wink

No, I believe that human life is valuable, but in cases of mental illness, I'm not quite sure if that should count as "life." Technically they are alive, but they have no really mind of their own.

It's not that they have no mind of their own, it's that they're inable to fully utilize it, but your point remains valid. I agree that all life should be preserved unless for use of sustenance(carnivorism), and even then not overly abused like we abuse it.


Loki: Technically speaking, we're a member of the Kingdom Animalia, which makes us animals. Us human-types just don't like to admit it. I disagree, though. Because we have advanced it DOES mean we are better in a sense, but only in the way that a lion is better than an antelope. We are stronger, but the double-standards we enjoy are...useless. And, like animals, I think the gene pool is a valuable thing to be preserved. I'm not saying to wipe out "imperfection" Nazi-style, but as I said earlier, what doesn't help us further simply holds us back.

No, I know you don't mean nazi-style, that would be absolutely wrong. Hm..it's one of those difficult questions, where there's really no right or wrong answer. I do agree with you though. I mean, there will likely never be a cure for a mental disease, so those people will spend the rest of their lives unable to do anything for themselves. It could even be considered a mercy, to just let them end it here and move on.

[Wes Kraven]

Yeah, I see your point about things holding us back from a lot of things but I think some things are not meant to be discovered.

[mord_sith]

Halii

mord_sith

Viscount

Halii

To be completely honest, I'm so against mentally handicapped people, to the point of not being able to take care of themselves, that I do believe that they should be 'taken care of', if you get my drift, at birth.

If you are a parent, and you know your child will not ever be able to be out on their own without causing themselves harm, or other's harm, then how can you possibly make the choice to let them go on?

To much time and tax money go into this person. Some of these people are like zombies, there only because you went through the pain of having them. Not because they want to be there. They could probably care less.

I expect negative feedback to that, but in stating my opinion, which is inhumane, I'll glady send out an invitation for comments.

And there's the point. whee I agree completely.

mord_sith:
It's completely fine. Maybe I should have made the title less misleading.

"It's wrong to take human life" is a comment that bothers me. We take the lives of other animals all the time, and don't get me wrong, I eat a lot more meat than Dr. Atkins probably ever dead. I am not, however, about to discriminate against the tiger for going tiger on Roy when he hit it with a microphone, nor any other case of animals attacking a human being. If it's wrong to kill another human, it's wrong to kill an animal, we just feel worse about it because killing something that looks like us hits closer to home.

But this isn't an animal rights thread, so...ignore that if you can, please. That's my point. Is that even living? Why not just declare them animate action figures/dolls?

No, no, that isn't quite what I meant. I won't get started on the difference between human and animal life, because it would take forever, and it has absolutely no relevence to this thread. wink

No, I believe that human life is valuable, but in cases of mental illness, I'm not quite sure if that should count as "life." Technically they are alive, but they have no really mind of their own.

I'm all for a super-race. Isn't it ironic that I'm German, as well? Huh.

I believe in abortion in cases of rape, incest, molestation, and mental illness. I believe in the death penalty. I feel morbid saying it, but that's really all there is to it.

*Mentally ill people are simply shells.

*=Mentally ill to the point of not being able to take care of themselves.

I believe in the death penalty for some crimes, and to some extent:

"Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent."

Abortion, I completely disagree with, however. If it's because you've had unprotected sex...tough. You cannot make someone else pay for your stupidity. If it's in the case of rape, it could be considered different, but it really isn't. You can't make a child pay for a crime that it didn't commit.