There are two schools of thought on a very important subject..

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." - Charles Darwin

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" - Emma Lazarus, posted on the Statue of Liberty


Is it right for any person to point at another, be they ill, infirm of body or mind, weak in spirit, or of differing political belief, and say: That must be purged from society, for the benefit of all of man.

Do we, as people, do our species a credit, or a dis-service by preserving and uplifting, and even enabling the lives of those who cannot survive on their own or even contribute to society?

__________________

When looking from a scientific point of view, I tend to agree with Darwin (hardly any surprise there) in that the survival of the fittest principle really doesn't consider humans anymore - putting us, kind of, above nature.
On the other hand, saving sick people does not necesarrily (sp?) mean that our 'species' will be 'handicapped'. Our greatest strength, after all, is our intelligence, not our health.

And since our society needs 'dumb' people for more physical tasks (building houses, picking up trash etc), there is nothing wrong with helping 'the folk' survive (ie nursing them back to health).

Considering mental and (severly) physical handicaps; with our 'great' intelligence also comes awareness of the environment and things like ethics.

Which is all, I see now, not really the question of the topic at hand. Ah well.

To put it simple black-and-white: yes, for all practical purposes we do handicap ourselves as a species to help/keep alive those who cannot contribute to society. But I don't think I could sleep soundly at night if we just put down all those 'we' help now.

We think about things too much I suppose. We wouldn't consider the well-being of our race if we weren't so intelligent, so we wouldn't do anything about sicknesses or injuries to the potential Darwin Award recipients in our midst, which, ironically, negatively affects our race's well-being. A Brave New World would be happy though, if you don't think about it. I for one live practically without thought, tending to my basest desires. That has to count for something, I mean humans are the only animals aside from dolphins which have sex for pleasure, that's a real sign of intelligence. The only reason dolphins aren't the superior race is because we kept one step ahead of them: do you think we REALLY need to keep fishing for tuna with nets?

__________________

So the more sex you have for pleasure, the more intelligent you are?

*raises hand*

I take umbrage with this statement. So, if you build houses, or pick up trash, you are dumb? Give me a break. Did you ever think that some may do these jobs for other reasons? And I'd hate to think what homes and other constructed buildings would look like if they were built by dumb people.

__________________
~~Keep it Reel~~

I'm confused, what is this debate about?

__________________

Sig created by mailduck

First and foremost, I did not mean to offend anyone by that statement.

By 'dumb' people I mean people that are (far) better skilled at physical labour than 'mental' labour. Folk that 'need' routine in their work as opposed to being able to 'make things up'.
As I see it, there's roughly two categories of working people. One group, the bigger and more important group for every day life, are the people skilled with handyworks, and the other group, smaller and more 'elite' in the sense that they tend to keep together and it being harder to enter that 'group', are the folk that have 'kept learning'.

Of course there are exceptions; these are the exceptions that confirm the general rule.

Again, I appologize if I offended you.

Absolutely, it'd take an idiot not to realise how good it is.

__________________

Do what I do and just sit back, nod your head, and agree with the person who seems to be winning.

__________________

• Check out the Members of ZeldaGamers.com Facebook Group
• Make sure you follow the forum rules

Heheheh, made me laugh.

I'm smart, but I'll probably end up doing a low-paid job for the majority of my life. That doesn't make me stupid.

__________________


I'm good at N, and N+.

Like what I just wrote? Add to my Reputation!

N: Inadvertently Homicidal Robots, Evasive Ninjas and A Whole Whack of Style