This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should we let the weak die

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

No you misunderstand. If we figure out who the strong people are (mentally and physically) then we can allow them to reproduce and have health services. However everyone that fails wont get any help and we will allow nature to do its work on them.

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

Should we let all the weak people (physically/mentally disabled and those who have been injured in accidents) die? Or should we just stop them from reproducing. Its evolutionary that the strong will survive init, and the weak die so future generations will be even stronger ya get me. I think we should prevent the weak and the unintelligent from reproducing and then humans will become stronger and smarter init. Maybe then all the horrible diseases will disappear, and it'd solve the population problems

So what about people who are "mentally and physically strong" who then develop a disease that weakens them. Will they be allowed the health service they were originally provided or shall they be exiled and cast off?

Reply 61

JakeAndTheFatMan

OP

Original post by Blueflare

As humans we have a society that goes beyond the basics of biology.
Also, not all disabilities and mental problems are genetically based; people would still be born with problems in the future. So letting large numbers die now will not even prevent suffering.

LOL no we aren't despite what you may think we are still following the biological laws. Just because we build planes and **** doesnt mean ****, its in our nature to be creative and to build, so it could be argued that all these things that differentiate us from the rest of the animal kingdom are in fact natural. There is no logical reason to help the weak and morals isnt an argument because we can easily change the morals of the majority of people.

Also to the bold sentence..what? If someone is born and develops a problem later in life it is still genetic/biological.

Reply 62

Ivanka

16

OP, you have to bear in mind that even by eliminating the weak the world will not get rid of the disabled - some people acquire disability during their life and, moreover, even when these people have children they do not inherit that disability because their parents are "healthy" from a perspective of genetics.

Disabled individuals can be beneficial for our society if they find activities they excel at. And if they are too weak to do anything, they will die anyway. The only problem I can see is whether these people should have their medical expenses covered - I am not into the idea of killing them (unless they have stated they agree on euthanasia in particular cases), but instead I support an idea that in such cases they wouldn't get anything subsidised and they would be dependent on their savings or someone else.

Reply 63

JakeAndTheFatMan

OP

Original post by Frankie

So what about people who are "mentally and physically strong" who then develop a disease that weakens them. Will they be allowed the health service they were originally provided or shall they be exiled and cast off?

exiled and cast off (once they have passed on their useful genes of course)

Reply 64

Blueflare

18

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

LOL no we aren't despite what you may think we are still following the biological laws. Just because we build planes and **** doesnt mean ****, its in our nature to be creative and to build, so it could be argued that all these things that differentiate us from the rest of the animal kingdom are in fact natural. There is no logical reason to help the weak and morals isnt an argument because we can easily change the morals of the majority of people.

Also to the bold sentence..what? If someone is born and develops a problem later in life it is still genetic/biological.

Genetic and biological are not interchangeable terms, they mean different things.
People would still be born with disabilities and low intelligence even if you killed off a whole generation of "weak" people, so your argument about preventing suffering is invalid.

Reply 65

JakeAndTheFatMan

OP

Lol why not? I am intelligent and I am now physically fit and healthy ya get me. You're a loser bro, start throwing around the insults when you dont have an actual point to make init looooooooool

Reply 66

lukas1051

18

No, that's just inhumane. The point you're raising about evolution is interesting though, because I've always held the belief that because we have the medical knowledge to allow 'weak' people to live decent and lengthy lives, and reproduce, we won't evolve any further as a race.

Reply 67

Frankie

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

exiled and cast off (once they have passed on their useful genes of course)

....I don't actually know what to say to that, except that I hope no-one with your views ever gets into any place of political power...again (we managed to stop the american eugenics movement thankfullly)

Reply 68

JakeAndTheFatMan

OP

Original post by Blueflare

Genetic and biological are not interchangeable terms, they mean different things.
People would still be born with disabilities and low intelligence even if you killed off a whole generation of "weak" people, so your argument about preventing suffering is invalid.

My argument is that over time the disabilities will be less common and they will eventually disappear altogether. This is a common evolutionary theory.

Reply 69

IGX_RSV2

17

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

Should we let all the weak people (physically/mentally disabled and those who have been injured in accidents) die? Or should we just stop them from reproducing. Its evolutionary that the strong will survive init, and the weak die so future generations will be even stronger ya get me. I think we should prevent the weak and the unintelligent from reproducing and then humans will become stronger and smarter init. Maybe then all the horrible diseases will disappear, and it'd solve the population problems

I agree.

Lets start with you.

Reply 70

Frankie

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

Lol why not? I am intelligent and I am now physically fit and healthy ya get me. You're a loser bro, start throwing around the insults when you dont have an actual point to make init looooooooool

Technically through your apparent inability to use the english language correctly I could deem you as unintelligent and euthanase you :smile:

Reply 71

The Dark Lord

12

Original post by Bulbasaur

Nobody is going to take you seriously whilst you use the word 'init' on a student internet forum.

Initt!! I was thinking the exact same thing =D

Reply 72

Helloworld_95

19

no, because the way to determine who's intelligent enough would be corrupted quite easily.

Being Intelligent and physically strong doesn't necessarily make you a smart human being, common sense, morals, ethics and values do. Things that can't be measured in an exam.

I agree that we need to reduce the population of the world to thrive but this isn't the way. Genetic superiority is an inferior argument, we've been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years, easily enough to weed out the weak. Nature messes up sometimes and helping these people to live is our way of showing that we're better than nature, we're not just narcissistic animals who prosper on lack of competition, bullying those which can easily be defeated.

Most of us are better than that, we are humanity, we show humanity, we're the only species that we know of who has managed to create civilizations, advance beyond the rules of nature and continues to find ways to better itself.

The only things holding us back are discriminates, those labelled as humans which don't show humanity who unfortunately have grown to be admired, and so we listen to what we have to say because they are alpha's backed up by other alpha's, money and power being their goal, not happiness and prosperity which should be, and is the goal of every member of humanity.

Reply 73

Harry-AA

9

lol bruv, you is a bare prick. ya get me?

Reply 74

im so academic

15

Sorry, but who decides who is "smart and strong"? What are the standards?

Can you retake? :rolleyes:

Reply 75

TheSmithsIndeed

14

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

Should we let all the weak people (physically/mentally disabled and those who have been injured in accidents) die? Or should we just stop them from reproducing. Its evolutionary that the strong will survive init, and the weak die so future generations will be even stronger ya get me. I think we should prevent the weak and the unintelligent from reproducing and then humans will become stronger and smarter init. Maybe then all the horrible diseases will disappear, and it'd solve the population problems

Hitler, is that you?

Reply 76

JenniRW

Original post by JakeAndTheFatMan

Should we let all the weak people (physically/mentally disabled and those who have been injured in accidents) die? Or should we just stop them from reproducing. Its evolutionary that the strong will survive init, and the weak die so future generations will be even stronger ya get me. I think we should prevent the weak and the unintelligent from reproducing and then humans will become stronger and smarter init. Maybe then all the horrible diseases will disappear, and it'd solve the population problems

There are several major flaws in your argument (your abhorrent misuse of the English language being one of them but let's leave that for later). You refer to evolution by natural selection in your argument; however the key point of natural selection is that the next generation evolves through the passing on of GENES through reproduction. Someone who is injured in an accident is made to be (as you believe) 'weak' through factors of their environment; not through their genes. Someone who is put in a wheelchair due to being paralysed in a car accident isn't going to give birth to a paralysed child. Alternatively, someone who is incredibly strong through exercise isn't going to give birth to a miniature weightlifter. It's basic biology.

Also; your claim that people who are physically disabled do not deserve a place in the world is laughable. May I remind you of a man called Stephen Hawking, a sufferer motor neurone disease which has caused him severe physical disabilities; yet he is a man who has one of the most influential and revered names in science. He has written a collection of comprehensive and intelligent books on the subject of our universe, which I suggest you read. Without him, we would not have many of the developments in physics and cosmology that we have today; for example the M-theory: that because we have the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

I also wish to point out your flaw of thinking all mentally disabled people should be exterminated as well. Autism is classed as a mental disability (it also has a strong genetic basis, making it even more pertinent to my argument) yet the condition can lead to impressive developments in an individuals memory and cognitive skills.
Another major windfall of your argument is your direct connection between the loss of horrible diseases being the solution to population problems. The fact we've already eradicated/ developed cures to the majority of horrible diseases aside; the loss of every single one would only INCREASE overpopulation more. Now; I am hoping you aren't quite that idiotic and it was actually a problem with your application of grammar, in which case I suggest you read up on the English language. In fact I suggest you do that anyway; the fact you used "ya get me" and "init" are already enough of a cause for concern.

This is a juvenile notion that was thought up a long time ago and discarded immediately because it is in fact, ridiculous. Society cannot function without wide ranges of human diversity, ranges that include levels of intelligence and strength. So I suggest that if you want to keep your computer and your Xbox or whatever other perks you have of living in a developed society, you stop spouting such ridiculous notions without thinking through the consequences before some even bigger imbecile than you mistakes it for a good idea and starts acting upon it.

Reply 77

edd360

15

Well I would hate for my lack of legs due to being run over my a big Tesco lorry to be passed on to any off spring I may have, it isn't right to bare a child into this world knowing that it will have no legs.