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

[Conrod]

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?

[mikem8634]

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?

 

Come on now, let's get you back under your bridge.

[Conrod]

Come on now, let's get you back under your bridge.

It's a serious issue.

[onewheeldave]

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?

 

It's not a reversal of evolution, for several reasons.

 

In evolution, it's about surviving, by any means necessary. Those creatures that aren't 'strong', survive in different ways.

 

For example, hyenas cannot run down and kill animals in the way a lion can- they are, however, very good at scavenging the remains of lion kills.

 

By the tone of your post, I expect you see the unemployed and disabled as 'parasites'? IMO, a bad attitude, but, even if it were true, it's pretty standard in nature, and, certainly not a 'reversal of evolution'.

 

I'd also point out that those who work rubbish jobs for 40+ hrs a week, are not necessarily what many would call 'strong'

[harestone]

It's a serious issue.

 

So is being a drunken troll.

[harestone]

It's not a reversal of evolution, for several reasons.

 

In evolution, it's about surviving, by any means necessary. Those creatures that aren't 'strong', survive in different ways.

 

For example, hyenas cannot run down and kill animals in the way a lion can- they are, however, very good at scavenging the remains of lion kills.

 

By the tone of your post, I expect you see the unemployed and disabled as 'parasites'? IMO, a bad attitude, but, even if it were true, it's pretty standard in nature, and, certainly not a 'reversal of evolution'.

 

I'd also point out that those who work rubbish jobs for 40+ hrs a week, are not necessarily what many would call 'strong'

 

You should post more.

[Rupert_Baehr]

No.

 

What constitutes 'weak'?

 

If somebody who would ordinarily be classed as 'strong' and a good candidate for procreation is injured is that person now weak?

 

What if you repair him and he subsequently becomes even stronger?

 

If somebody with an IQ of 160 becomes acutely ill and the NHS heals him/her and that person subsequently does something which provides dramatic benefits for the whole of humanity? - Was it a mistake to heal that person?

 

How would you know?

 

I'm 'weak' - in that I need extensive repair and society (the bit that looks after me) faces some pretty hefty bills to carry out those repairs.

 

Am I worth repairing? - Who knows?

 

I've done one or two 'good things' - but not recently. My dogs like it when I take them out for a walk (2 votes in my favour) I'm pretty good at brewing beer (200 votes in my favour) but other than that - and the fact that my wife seems to like having me around - am I really worth the money for the repair?

 

It's debatable.

 

Had society operated a system which required everybody to pay for their own repairs, then I would've made sure I had enough money to pay for mine.

 

So in my case, I might've kept the money I gave to charities (including the RNLI - a favourite charity.)

 

My money would have paid for my repairs ... but what if the money I would've given the RNLI might've saved the life of somebody who would have done/invented/ discovered something which would have saved millions?

 

There are too many imponderables to provide a definitive answer, but allowing for chance and assuming that intelligence is neither hereditary nor related to wealth ... (and I can argue that!) if society protects as many as it can (though it can't heal every ill) then I suggest that the chance of healing/protecting an individual who will benefit society immensely is greatly increased.

 

Should we help the weak and the sick?

 

Yes.

 

Why?

 

Because it's logical and because it makes us feel good.

 

(I cheated. - I made sure I had a job which paid for repairs after I'd retired.)

[chem1st]

If the Royals did not have their power, perhaps they would not procreate as much. What about the blue blood that defies evolutionary theory...

[Rupert_Baehr]

If the Royals did not have their power, perhaps they would not procreate as much. What about the blue blood that defies evolutionary theory...

 

How does that work?

 

Bill the Barsteward (AKA Willie the Conk) came over from where I come from, beat the crap out of Harold the Oathbreaker and took over England.

 

Was Harold planning to give the landless Brits an allotment? - I doubt it.

 

The 'blue bloods' are , arguably an argument in favour of Darwinian theory.

 

But Darwinian theory is flawed.

 

I have a rather high IQ. - That's not my fault (and I'm certainly not going to apologise for it, but nor am I bragging about it. I was born with it. My IQ is a very high number. almost [not quite] as big as my height.I'm not bragging about either because I have no control over either.

 

( I have Duck's disease and I'm fed up with banging my arse on the kerb when I step off the pavement ... will you please do something about that?)

 

How does this 'evolutionary theory' you're talking about work?

 

Would you care to explain your (as yet unquantified) inheritance theory?

 

I was born naked (albeit covered with a rather long coat of hair.) No money. No silver spoon.

 

Nobody gave me any money (though both my parents and my grand-parents worked very hard to give me whatever advantage they could.)

 

I rode my bicycle through your window last night and I did alright for a girl.

(I tell lies, too. )

 

When I die, my children and my grandchildren will be far better off than I was when I was born. I consider that I have earned the right to make them better off, because I earned the money, I paid tax on it and what I do with it is my bloody business!

 

Most Sheffielders (so I gather from this forum) would disagree with me.

 

Apparently (or so the members of this forum say) I'm supposed to work my arse off and then give the money I earned - money on which I've paid all taxes required under the law - to the government so they can give it to somebody else.

 

Somehow, I don't think it's going to work out that way.

 

I'm not blue-blooded.

 

Any time you would like to come around and take my money away - feel free!

 

I'm not armed ... but I can probably find a stick big enough to induce you to go elsewhere.

[SevenRivers]

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?

 

Completely understand your sentiment. Me and my partner have always worked since leaving school. We have two kid, and would have one more but we can't afford another child so we're not. People that have kids to get a bigger house off the state or more benefits don't have to make that sort of consideration.