|
Dr. P. Silocybin
Would you like fries with that?



Registered: 09/09/08
Posts: 2,620
Loc: The Great Divide
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: Survival Of The Fittest [Re: NWlight]
#18970785 - 10/13/13 01:04 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NWlight said: as someone who has devoted their life to healing the sick, I pose this question to you:
Even if you were right, who is to be the judge of who we save and who we do not?
therein lies the "problem", if you could call it that.
Very true. Some people will be saved, maybe someone perfectly healthy and intelligent young woman is chocking in public.. she's probably deserving of the Heimlich, right? but, where do you draw the line diving those worth saving and those who aren't? I can't draw that line.
I prefer giving people easy and affordable access to contraception and abortion. If population growth doesn't slow dramatically we will have a serious problem within our lifetimes. We need to make it as easy as possible to empower people who don't want to procreate. Who makes the worst parents? people who don't want, and or can't afford to raise children.
Governments around the world should subsidize contraception and abortions for the poor. The investment will pay back exponentially.
|
Dr. P. Silocybin
Would you like fries with that?



Registered: 09/09/08
Posts: 2,620
Loc: The Great Divide
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
geazerpleaser said:
Quote:
The24HourMC said: Oh I read that wrong sorry. Wouldn't there still be gene diversity though from all the races from different parts of the world?
the diversity wouldnt be as great as it is now, and also depending on who decides what people are diserable and which arent we could end up with another Hitler (major Eugenius believer).
or we could end up with planned parenthood! (major eugenics supporters) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics Eugenics was pretty popular in the USA too
|
geazerpleaser
No one



Registered: 02/13/12
Posts: 274
Loc: Ny
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Survival Of The Fittest [Re: zZZz]
#18970800 - 10/13/13 01:09 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zZZz said: we are not animals. we are human!
we can be animals, but we are capable of much more. an animal has to survive by all means. i don;t think it can necessarily grow beyond that in its current stage. we can settle, we can create and manipulate the earth to fit our needs. we have hands with incredibly flexible fingers. that is what separates us and it is what makes us 'special', not necessarily more important, but the responsibility we carry is much greater because as uncle ben put its "with great power comes great responsibility".
Is a dolphin less of an animal then a gold fish since it's alot smarter?
animals don't have certain characteristics so you can't really say humans can be animals and you have the right to believe in what you want, but most people I know believe we're just highly evolved animals.
|
Dr. P. Silocybin
Would you like fries with that?



Registered: 09/09/08
Posts: 2,620
Loc: The Great Divide
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
|
zZZz
jesus


Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,478
|
|
ok, maybe we are highly evolved animals, but what we are talking about here is un-evolved animals, and what would happen if we were as such. as you put it that we are highly evolved animals, i agree with that, and that is why i am saying we are capable of much more and thus have a greater responsibility. we have the power to help. we can heal pretty much anything if we tried. this is our great gift. an animal for example a lion is all he can be, he is his highest self. they have great strength and use every bit of it. as should we use every bit of our strength. to act like un-evolved animals would to be like throwing away who we really are and becoming something we are not.
|
Chowder963
954-867-5309



Registered: 01/31/10
Posts: 4,768
|
Re: Survival Of The Fittest [Re: The24HourMC]
#18971031 - 10/13/13 03:46 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I dont think youre the best person to wonder why we do this.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: Survival Of The Fittest [Re: The24HourMC]
#18971215 - 10/13/13 06:41 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The24HourMC said: This has to have a negative Impact on the planet as a whole .
You started off with a sort of credible line of reasoning, and then jumped to a rather odd conclusion. Let me put it this way: there is no ideal state for the world to be in. Nature doesn't optimize for anything; nature doesn't care, period.
In addition, the impact we're having on the survival of non-fit members of the species is really recent from an evolutionary viewpoint. No real effect on the evolutionary path that we're on now can be expected from this recent development; this would only be the case if we kept this up for thousands of years, which is very questionable.
And another thought is this: survival of the fittest is really an inappropriate term of what happens in evolution. There's two main mechanisms at work here: sexual selection and survival of specimens fit enough to reproduce in their current environment. If the environment is beneficial to many specimens, including the ones you call ill or weak, it just means that more specimens survive. The fact that part of these environmental characteristics are made by mankind itself (society), really makes no difference, since we are simply part of our own environment.
So your argument, just like those you hear all the time these days, is based on some static, reactionary world view in which 'nature' is supposed to optimize for some state people suppose it used to be in 10,000 years ago. In reality, though, the ecosystem is in constant motion and can be seen as a punctuated equilibrium, with long periods of relative stable environments, alternated by phases in which the environment and the ecosystem changes relatively rapidly (usually marked by mass extinction). The tendency to strive for some (unnatural) static balance is a really human trait that only illustrates that human intelligence has not caught up yet with the reality of how ecosystems develop. Needless to say, deriving far-reaching society measures from such an essentially retarded worldview would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Now put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
|
junkyardgod
A psychedelic mess.


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 443
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: Survival Of The Fittest [Re: koraks]
#18971362 - 10/13/13 08:22 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty sure community, society, empathy, compassion, understanding, communication all have VERY BIG roles in our evolution. So no, the basic notion of self-preservation and extending life expectancy doesn't have negative impacts (at first). But as with any ecosystem, balance is integral. And with a high population comes environmental factors that work to curb this high population. It's nature.
|
|