TJC1 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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? The welfare state is not linked to the survival of the species, however the stupid are. Unlucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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? No society would not benefit. There are plenty of examples of places without state provided healthcare or any kind of welfare, why not just look at those examples. Re:the NHS. It keeps alive the injured and sick, last time I checked being injured wasn't some sort of congenital weakness, neither was getting old or being sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Regarding evolution and darwinism, it's about the survival of the fittest. Fitness is defined by being in the group that survives (and procreates most effectively). There is no such thing as 'devolution', it is simply evolution for different pressures. As a species we are creating our own pressures, but it's not possible to call any resulting changes (which I doubt we can see yet given the timescales) devolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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? So many false assumptions in there it's hard to know where to start. In short however, no, we aren't destroying ourselves by 'reversing evolution' (sic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 Regarding evolution and darwinism, it's about the survival of the fittest. Fitness is defined by being in the group that survives (and procreates most effectively). There is no such thing as 'devolution', it is simply evolution for different pressures. As a species we are creating our own pressures, but it's not possible to call any resulting changes (which I doubt we can see yet given the timescales) devolution. My bold. Yes, that's the point - but we're interfering horribly with who is able to procreate effectively. Society's obsession with 'equal opportunity' removes the advantages that nature gives to the stronger examples of our species. The weak - be that in terms of their physical strength, mental resourcefulness, medical health or other lack prowess, are provided every assistance to allow them the same chance to survive and procreate as the strong - more than that, our welfare system encourages them to reproduce because it rewards them financially while the 'strong' are expected to provide for themselves. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Your assumption that a persons worth to society can be judged solely by physical strength, 'mental resourcefulness' and wealth is of course a total nonsense. The reality behind this message of yours is repellent, implying as it does that those born early should be left to die, that people with disabilities be disregarded, that the poor be left to suffer without aid and that the elderly and infirm are a nuisance we're best without. The Fuhrer would have loved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Back in the days when the man with the biggest stick and the most powerful swipe was the winner, that was perhaps the case. As humanity progressed( ?) the rules changed. We now have weapons and somebody 5ft tall (who happens to be a very good shot) may be more dangerous than somebody 6ft tall who couldn't hit a barn from inside. I'm quite experienced with firearms and I'm also 'pretty good' - as in 'competition good'. Last week I had a go with an AA12. You don't have to be good if you've got one of those - Frank Spencer could see off Arnie any day. 'Survival of the fittest'? 'Survival of the fastest'? 'Survival of the smartest'? 'Survival of the one deemed to be the most valuable'? It's a complex question. The gene pool is less relevant nowadays than it was (say) 20 years ago and will (perhaps) be even less relevant as time goes on - genes can be altered and in a (comparatively) few years time, perhaps genetic defects will be irrelevant, because repair will be routine. The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. We know how to breed people who do not ooze hydrogen from every pore, but nobody has managed to solve the other half of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 Your assumption that a persons worth to society can be judged solely by physical strength, 'mental resourcefulness' and wealth is of course a total nonsense. The reality behind this message of yours is repellent, implying as it does that those born early should be left to die, that people with disabilities be disregarded, that the poor be left to suffer without aid and that the elderly and infirm are a nuisance we're best without. The Fuhrer would have loved it. You appear to be playing the drama queen somewhat, and you're dishonestly addding things that I never said (while you may have a point on the elderly/infirm, it is irrelevant to the gene pool issue). Do you think a farmer keeps his herd healthy by paying the poorest examples of his stock to have the most calves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 My bold. Yes, that's the point - but we're interfering horribly with who is able to procreate effectively. Society's obsession with 'equal opportunity' removes the advantages that nature gives to the stronger examples of our species. The weak - be that in terms of their physical strength, mental resourcefulness, medical health or other lack prowess, are provided every assistance to allow them the same chance to survive and procreate as the strong - more than that, our welfare system encourages them to reproduce because it rewards them financially while the 'strong' are expected to provide for themselves. 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. that's the sort of rubbish the nazi's, and others, spouted in the 20s and 30s it was wrong then and it's wrong now. the idea that the "strong" has a genetic birthright to breed would be laughable if it wasn't so evil. you can't define "strong" in a genetic sense anyway, and even if you could it could it would change over time as selection pressures varied. the survival of a species needs a big gene pool with lots of variation. anyway, beyond variation to immune response to pandemic type diseases modern society has pretty much eradicates any sort of genetic selection pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.