After initial angst, would society benefit if the weak were not supported?

[andyofborg 11]

Evil? Be serious, do you suggest that the evolution of every species has been 'evil'?

 

it's not evolution that i'm suggesting is evil

 

That's the whole problem, social care and medical advances have removed selection, allowing the weak to procreate rather then protecting the future gene pool by failing to compete against the more healthy/stronger/more resourceful.

 

that's not the problem, if anything, it has protected the gene pool by ensuring we have retained a wide genetic variety.

 

i think you need to define clearly and unambiguously what and who you mean by the "strong" and "weak" and why you feel they are

[tinfoilhat 11]

Evil? Be serious, do you suggest that the evolution of every species has been 'evil'?

 

That's the whole problem, social care and medical advances have removed selection, allowing the weak to procreate rather then protecting the future gene pool by failing to compete against the more healthy/stronger/more resourceful.

 

Are you going to turf your parents out into the cold tonight, and let them "sink or swim". ?

 

You could end up with a bumper pay day !

[Happ Hazzard 10]

Watch the film "Idiocracy". That's what we are doing to ourselves as a species.

[boyfriday 21]

Another thinly veiled supremacist thread.

 

Maybe it's now "weak" to confuse the word with disadvantaged? In which case conrod by his own admission should go to the left with the kids, old, and infirm.

 

Very true, Connie's excelled himself this time.

 

It reminds me of a heated argument I had with a black nationalist and supremacist a few years ago (they're as big arseholes as the white variety btw), he believed that 'racial supremacy' could be broken down to basic 'fundamentals'-speed, strength and stamina.

 

To illustrate his argument he pointed to the prowess of blacks in the Olympic Games, superiority which isn't replicated in the wider world-his parting words were "if you took the guns away from the white man, the black man would rule the world", perhaps forgetting that necessity is the mother of invention and 'ingenuity' should be added to his list of fundamentals, as Rupert pointed out earlier if he had to pay for his own healthcare he wouldn't go without, he'd find ways to do it, most of us are the same.

[Conrod 10]

It appears someone doesn't understand what evolution is.

It appears that Darwin had a vague idea, and he referred to it as natural selection. Herbert Spencer, not quite accurately, introduced the term 'survival of the fittest' after reading Darwin's ideas. It's not a huge leap of inference to assume non-survival of the weakest - after all, natural selection favours those of a species that are most successful at surviving, procreating and providing for their young against the challenges of life.

 

If we take away the challenges of life and the difficulties that must be overcome to live and provide for the next generation, we take away natural selection - the natural removal of weak genes from the pool. We invite deterioration of our species over a potentially short timescale (in evolutionary terms).

[iron sky 10]

National health care keeps the weak alive, and the welfare state positively encourages the weak to reproduce. In today's society, the weak more than the strong are helped to survive and procreate.

 

Are we destroying ourselves as a species by reversing evolution?

Hilter would came out with such ideas as yourself. kill the Jews,disabled and others deemed unworthie of the greater idea. Yet you seem fit to use a Winston Churchill speech a man who frought agaisnt such ideas and 60 million people dead. Looks like they shouldnt have bothered.

[Anna B 1,414]

Survival of the fittest might apply to animals, but we as a species have the compassion to take care of our weak and vulnerable.

 

It's one of the things that makes us human, and seperates us from animals.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a world where that was not the case.

[Conrod 10]

Survival of the fittest might apply to animals, but we as a species have the compassion to take care of our weak and vulnerable.

 

It's one of the things that makes us human, and seperates us from animals.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a world where that was not the case.

That's all good, but by being compassionate are we destroying ourselves?

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

The gene pool of every species relies on the strong using their genetic birthright to out-breed the weak, ensuring the genetic quaity of future generations are at least preserved, if not improved. With best intention, we're messing up our gene pool.

This is the writing of a person who has a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Chris_Sleeps

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

If we take away the challenges of life and the difficulties that must be overcome to live and provide for the next generation, we take away natural selection

We temper it, not take it away. We take away the cutting edge of brutalism that nature can deliver. We're still evolving, and nothing can stop that.

 

If a child of yours contracted a disease; would you visit a doctor or would you let natural selection take its course?

[Conrod 10]

This is the writing of a person who has a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Educate me, oh wise one, as to the error of my comprehension.

[Super Hans 10]

Not really, humans don't breed with somebody because they're the fastest/strongest, they breed with them because sex feels good and they're drunk.