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

[maxmaximus]

Wow, these responses get even better!

 

So, do we assume that women are just as attracted to short ugly unsuccessful men with health issues as they are to intelligent, successful good physical examples?

 

Another one that misses the point. people mate with whom they see fit - yes, absolutely. They will be more attracted to a physically healthy and socially successful individual than a dim-witted runt - can we agree on that much?

 

I do know a couple that could be said to meet your description (dim-witted runts) and they had a son, he sadly didn’t turn out to be physically healthy and socially successful individual, he was a combination of them both and will require lifelong care.

[Phanerothyme]

Ok, I don't actually think fruit flies have SF accounts.

 

But I do think that if we change 'survival of the fittest' to 'survival of everybody with extra encouragement for the weak/dim to reproduce', we're not doing ourselves any good.

 

But you understand that fitness as you see it, and fitness as evolution finds it are two completely disparate states.

 

You picture superhumans but evolution has no picture, no teleology. Your vision of a super-humanity might be superficially desirable from a romantic standpoint, but it's likely that a) it's not achievable, even with the authority of a thousand year reich, and b) the unintended consequences are likely to be extinction of the species.

[mikem8634]

Sigh - okay - one last attempt. Perhaps a little history may shed some light on the nature of this thread.

 

Conrod has been around a long time. A bit like the poor, or prostitution. Some say he was previously known as 'B*******t'. I couldn't possibly comment.

He's well known for advocating extremely violent responses to most things. Problem in society? - Kill someone. That kind of thing; particularly partial to hanging ( Sadomasochistic tendencies? Surely not - I wouldn't take too much heed of that kind of gossip), but has been known to recommend shooting people he doesn't approve of too.

 

Most of the time these days he stays on the right side ( it's a thin line guys ) of downright trollery and though he's doubtless too shy to say so, rather enjoys the pantomime villain status he has attained in latter years.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1070678&page=8

[Conrod]

But you understand that fitness as you see it, and fitness as evolution finds it are two completely disparate states.

 

You picture superhumans but evolution has no picture, no teleology. Your vision of a super-humanity might be superficially desirable from a romantic standpoint, but it's likely that a) it's not achievable, even with the authority of a thousand year reich, and b) the unintended consequences are likely to be extinction of the species.

I don't picture 'superhumans' at all. If human evolution goes well, then maybe people will be a little bit smarter than we are now, in a very long time.

 

I do however picture a society in just a few hundred years with increasing medical issues, fertility problems, ever-growing underclass and other problems as a result of us introducing 'survival of all' to the game.

[Conrod]

Sigh - okay - one last attempt. Perhaps a little history may shed some light on the nature of this thread.

 

Conrod has been around a long time. A bit like the poor, or prostitution. Some say he was previously known as 'B*******t'. I couldn't possibly comment.

He's well known for advocating extremely violent responses to most things. Problem in society? - Kill someone. That kind of thing; particularly partial to hanging ( Sadomasochistic tendencies? Surely not - I wouldn't take too much heed of that kind of gossip), but has been known to recommend shooting people he doesn't approve of too.

 

Most of the time these days he stays on the right side ( it's a thin line guys ) of downright trollery and though he's doubtless too shy to say so, rather enjoys the pantomime villain status he has attained in latter years.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1070678&page=8

Ah, yes, heaven forbid that anybody might support the application of effective crime prevention and punishment policies.

[Phanerothyme]

I don't picture 'superhumans' at all. If human evolution goes well, then maybe people will be a little bit smarter than we are now, in a very long time.

 

I do however picture a society in just a few hundred years with increasing medical issues, fertility problems, ever-growing underclass and other problems as a result of us introducing 'survival of all' to the game.

 

I think you do actually. Whether you know it or not, you're reiterating the back-to-the-planet right wing green ideology. It's a fallacy and has been better dismembered by greater minds than little old me.

 

There is no silver bullet, but everywhere you go in the world you get improvements not from controlling reproduction by order, but by doing three things.

 

Ensuring excellent nutrition for all.

Universal high quality education.

Give people the ability to take control of their own reproduction.

 

These three things, when well implemented, always show positive results. Need more positive results? Spend more and more wisely on education, nutrition and birth control.

[Conrod]

I think you do actually. Whether you know it or not, you're reiterating the back-to-the-planet right wing green ideology. It's a fallacy and has been better dismembered by greater minds than little old me.

 

There is no silver bullet, but everywhere you go in the world you get improvements not from controlling reproduction by order, but by doing three things.

 

Ensuring excellent nutrition for all.

Universal high quality education.

Give people the ability to take control of their own reproduction.

 

These three things, when well implemented, always show positive results. Need more positive results? Spend more and more wisely on education, nutrition and birth control.

Agreed unreservedly. With extra agreement on the birth control bit.

[erebus]

Do not worry, the poor are well thought of, and their demise is slow but progressively effective. PFI, costs to build hospitals, backed by the greedy banks of course are just a clever cash cow corporations milk.

 

Obviously one cannot kill off the poor, as in march them into the undertakers, or death camps, as that is usacceptable. But you can kill off tens of thousands legally, and we are experts regarding this in the UK. When you mass kill, no one has to be able to be blamed, so the construct has to be clever. The victims must be the poor and not the individuals orchistrating the process. We are not NAZI's, but they did have some effective ideas that when modified, work like a dream.

 

We use a process that kills off tens of thousands every year, if not many more. The process is called NEGLECT. Neglect allows no blame or finger paointing to have any weight, people keep their jobs, and the system vcarries on full steam.

 

We neglect the OLD, grave dodgeers to those well paid in the system, and each corps adds to savings. The more that die, the greater the savings.

 

So we park the OLD, Helpless into homes where they die, some are exposed, but its always the minimum wage people that get into trouble, regardless of the size of the business concerned. Government money to care for the old, is really about care for corporate profits, which is the point. Watching the figures rise as cold snaps, snap up tens of thousands of extra corpses, allows the death business to boom, think of thiose crematoriums, reduction factories to you, think of the profits, to undertakers, and other corporate winners. Death is cetainly worth investing in, as energy prices allow more piles of corpses to gererate profits, and savings to government of course.

 

Don't worry by the time you die, the efficiency of the corpse profit machine will be unrecognisable compared to today. The poor, ill, and informed are aqctually worth more dead than alive, and don't take my word for it.

[I1L2T3]

Agreed unreservedly. With extra agreement on the birth control bit.

 

So why remove access to these things from the poorest in society? What would you expect to happen if these things were removed.

[ronthenekred]

Wow, these responses get even better!

 

So, do we assume that women are just as attracted to short ugly unsuccessful men with health issues as they are to intelligent, successful good physical examples?

 

Yes, think yourself lucky.

 

What about "successful with health issues", or "unsuccessful with no health issues"? When you denote a negative you support it with an equally negative attribute to drive your argument home.

 

Another one that misses the point. people mate with whom they see fit - yes, absolutely. They will be more attracted to a physically healthy and socially successful individual than a dim-witted runt - can we agree on that much?

 

Not unless we all agree on your definition. My niece who studies at Imperial college London and marries a joiner from Dover in March..how she could have done so much better:roll:

He's also the antithesis of male buffness and intelligence in relation to her..Hold on, he has so many other facets and factors which makes him attractive..to her and Vice versa.