Compassion and indivualism will be the downfall of the human race

I was reading "Dr. Futurity" by Philip K. Dick recently, and it got me thinking. I honestly believe that in time, our inability to focus on the greater good, and our inability to seperate emotion from logical thinking will lead to us becoming a weaker species.

Through medical advancements and tretments that allow people with weak traits, deformities or susceptibility to disease to live longer and procreate we are weakening our gene pool. People with things detrimental to survival, ie: nut allergies, allergies to common insects(ie: bee stings) are constantly being saved by medicine and technology, and are thus able to pass on these weakgentic traits to thier offspring.

The same happens in people with mental abnormalities and defects who are medicated to the point where they can lead almost normal lives. They can appear fine, and produce offspring, who will or have a high chance to, inherit these same mental defects.

I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts be they similar or opposing.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by whiterabbit85]

Yes. Mess with Nature and Nature will MESS you!

Have you read Huxley's Brave New World? Science and medicine takes over the human reproductive function, new people are grown in labs and genetically programmed. Diseases have been eradicated, as has disability. But they grow physically small, intellectually stunted people to carry out basic menial tasks as befitting the needs of the society.

I haven't... but I will now. If you haven't read Dr. Futurity I'd recommend it, it's excellent.

The downfall of the human race will be due to the fact that the human race shows all the traits of a virus.

How so?

Humans have spread in mass numbers.

Humans will then leech off everything they can, which will in return cost every single resource on our planet.

Humans kill each other in mass numbers.

The fact is here, humanity is a disease and unless it changes by itself... Gods judgment will cause it to change, and his judgment will be must more of a punishment than it changing by itself.

Humans are in the very infancy of technological advancement. Yes, we are leeching resources right now at a rate that isn't sustainable. However, we are also examining and trying to put into practice the use of renewable resources, which will take time. That, however is not the point of this thread. This thread is to discuss the effect that individualistic thinking and compassion for the weak is having, and will have in the future.

I agree - but - ???
The problem is - the breeding of humans.
Who would be responsible for controlling the population?
Who gets to procreate?
Natural breeding acceptable between *sanctioned* couples or *making babies* strictly condoled in the laboratory, impregnating women under controlled conditions.
Once relegating sexual relations for recreational purposes and not for procreation what becomes of the family?
Marriage?
When sex is legal and when it’ against the law?
Sterilization of children when? At birth?
What happens with the *oops* scenario - the *against the law* babies?
Forced abortion or death at birth?
The loss of the rare incredible genius that springs from natural *love* children - though they might come from undesirable *stock*.

Ugh.
Oh I just don't want to go down this road any longer.
This can of worms is too big for me.

Though I agree with you in theory the ramifications are unthinkable.

peace

reply to post by whiterabbit85

So who decides who lives and who dies?
Where do you draw the line?
Who decides which traits are beneficial?
What about people like perhaps Stephen Hawking, or even Albert Einstein?
Who would decide who is worthy to procreate?
Weak traits? Deformities? Allergies?
You are on a rocky road my friend!
Compassion is our only hope for the future. What are we without it?

How healthy are you? Do you have any loved ones?
Hope they all pass your criteria!

Actually it is not that clear. The larger the gene pool - the less chance of be hit by some pandemic. Some genetic illnesses predisposition go hand in hand with benefits they give to lucky few. Shall i give examples of brilliant shcisophrenics? People with degenerative muscle deseases who get nobel prize?
What you purpose eugenics of some kind as i understand it) will boil down to few "allowed" genotypes. That might be free of a lot of "bad" genes but succeptible to future problems due to narrowness of the genetic pool.
Actually logic and technical progress will be human's downfall. You have to realise that eventually due to technological development one of your succesors would be a complete machine. I have no problem with diverse but genetically "contaminated" society which is still humane, but i have a problem with Earth full of pentiums/amds considering itself to be humans.

You picked a controversial topic to say the least..

The first time this topic appears to the best of my knowledge is in ancient Sparta. If you were born with any visible defects, you'd be taking a one-way flight down a mountain..

I doubt it helped them to survive, ultimately.. though it might have propped their feelings of superiority.

Kind of those other great proponents of the theory of genetic superiority, back in Germany, not that long ago.. never again, I'd say..

Besides, I've seen fully healthy people living 'productive' lives, begging, while I've worked with more then enough people who, by your definition, would have to be weeded out, where I really had to give it my all to just keep up.

I dare say our ability to use both reason AND emotion would do a lot of good for the world, if people using both would ever strive to be leaders.. the people leading are exactly the people who had their emotions surgically removed before taking up office..

that's just my 2 cents anyway..

reply to post by Phatcat


I'm not talking about sterilization or killing at birth, or limiting procreation. These are steps that are unnecessary. I'm talking about stopping treatment and caregiving for those that would be unable to survive without it. I'm talking about natural selection. We are the only creatures on the planet that try to go against nature and prolong the lives of the weakest members of our species. In nature, the weak are a buffer for the strong, the weak are the ones that fall behind the herd and feed the predators, allowing for the strong and healthy to go on. Why should humans be any different than the rest of life on our planet?

reply to post by whiterabbit85


OK, finally I am not incensed anymore by your thread here.

To be honest, I kind of agree with you to an extent, but, I think that human nature is such that, when it comes our time, we are usually not quite so ready to "go" just yet.

I had a friend with AIDS who had a plan to do himself in before he got too sick. Unfortunately his brain went and he never had the ability to make that decision and died a long, slow, painful death.

When it is someone you love, you will help them live longer if they so desire, and if some quality of life is ensured.

I think there is a time when its right to just let nature take its course, but I wouldn't want to make that decision for anyone else. I believe people should make that decision themselves.

To be sure, we often go too far in prolonging and delaying the inevitable.

reply to post by whiterabbit85



Perhaps we have evolved enough to rise above life’s apparent susceptibility to be at the whim of survival of the fittest.
Perhaps we humans no longer have to adapt the way other other animals do.
Perhaps we are not going against nature but in fact fulfilling nature’s ultimate goal.
All life should be preserved if possible.
All potentialities should also be preserved.
Humans in fact do appear to be different from all other forms of life on this planet!

Originally posted by whiterabbit85


I'm talking about stopping treatment and caregiving for those that would be unable to survive without it.

I understand where you are coming from, but, you make it sound like people are souless bags of flesh.

There are some brilliant minds out there that live in imperfect bodies.

You might just be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater," with your logic.

edit to add:

I was thinking of Stephen Hawking when I typed my reply. Then I look to the news section and see he is in the hospital. It would be sad to see such a human be not cared for with the mind he has!

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Blanca Rose]

Originally posted by whiterabbit85
reply to post by Phatcat

 

I'm not talking about sterilization or killing at birth, or limiting procreation. These are steps that are unnecessary. I'm talking about stopping treatment and caregiving for those that would be unable to survive without it. I'm talking about natural selection.

I wonder what your stance on the subject would be if somebody close to you was diagnosed with any of the 'ailments' you just summed up.

Allways nice to condemn people to death if they are not emotionally bonded to you, isn't it ? I bet your theorys would come under a LOT of stress if your mother would be having an affliction that is cureable with a minimum of effort.

We are the only creatures on the planet that try to go against nature and prolong the lives of the weakest members of our species. In nature, the weak are a buffer for the strong, the weak are the ones that fall behind the herd and feed the predators, allowing for the strong and healthy to go on. Why should humans be any different than the rest of life on our planet?

By your thinking, we should all still run around naked, sniffing each other's orifices when we first meet.

We are the only creatures on the planet "that try to go against nature" because we are the only species CAPABLE of doing so.. ain't too many doctors in the animal realm, and it's really a jungle out there :p

The weak still get weeded out. every day, people are dying from exactly those easy to cure sicknesses in countrys where people cannot afford this 'perversion of nature'.

has it made those countrys stronger?

And in our society, it's the economicly weak who get eaten by the predators, only the predators in our society come wearing thousand dollar suits, which some of them earned by selling farmaceuticals ...

I think you have to have a really empty emotional life if you even can consider letting people die who do not nééd to die.

The advances in medicine where made exactly so people would not hàve to die from those diseases etc.

If you do away with thàt, you might as well go back to living in a cage as well, cause it will be all you deserve!

edited for spelling

[edit on 21-4-2009 by Phatcat]

Originally posted by whiterabbit85
I was reading "Dr. Futurity" by Philip K. Dick recently, and it got me thinking.

Well that at least isn't surprising; if he can't get you thinking i can but wonder what will!

I honestly believe that in time, our inability to focus on the greater good, and our inability to seperate emotion from logical thinking will lead to us becoming a weaker species.

Weak how? Weak physically? Weak mentally? Emotionally immature? What?

Through medical advancements and tretments that allow people with weak traits, deformities or susceptibility to disease to live longer and procreate we are weakening our gene pool.

Do you know that 75% of children died before the age of five , in London, not a few hundred years ago? Were 75% of children born to British women the carriers of simply bad genes? Where do you draw the line for what sort of disease should be treated or how much sanitation, pollution and such are acceptable?

People with things detrimental to survival, ie: nut allergies, allergies to common insects(ie: bee stings) are constantly being saved by medicine and technology, and are thus able to pass on these weakgentic traits to thier offspring.

So if people with nut allergies have higher than average IQ's ( lets pretend) we should still just get rid of them? In fact how did you arrive at the idea that evolution or survival favors the fittest? I suppose you have not yet discovered that this is a common misunderstanding about what Darwin, and others, had in mind and that he didn't even mention it in his original books? Why trust the rather racist darwin with such a conclusion any ways?

The same happens in people with mental abnormalities and defects who are medicated to the point where they can lead almost normal lives.

That depends on what you consider normal but supposing that it's what we all consider normal what is so great about destroying mental processes/abnormalities that yields different results? How many of our greatest scientific and engineering minds can be said to have employed processes that were not easily followed by the 'normal' people?

They can appear fine, and produce offspring, who will or have a high chance to, inherit these same mental defects.

Presuming that it's inherited, yes, perhaps. Do you realise that genetic diversity is also very important? Where do you draw the line and risk the possibily side affects of narrowing the 'acceptable norms'?

I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts be they similar or opposing.

Many thoughts i have but isn't the question really if you want to or do not want to share the planet with what you believe to be 'inferior' specimens of the human race? May we ask what you think makes you so special or other less so for not being 'perfect'?

Hell, why do wild dogs care for and feed their sick and wounded till they get better? Stupid animals....

Stellar

I just want to point out the one thing that gets overlooked every time one of these threads come up.

We are still subject to evolution and natural selection. The term "natural selection" is often misunderstood to mean that the selection must be performed by "natural" forces like disease, starvation, weakness. But that's only one form of selection.

To really understand the theory of natural selection, think about it as "survival of those best fitted to reproduce under the conditions in which they live" rather than "survival of the fittest".

We tend to think of "fittest" as meaning "most physically fit", but in this context it does not. It means "best suited to the environment". And, of course, we are a part of our environment: our social structures and cultural norms are a part of the environment.

Worrying that the human race is doomed because we have superceded nature introduces a false opposition: we will never supercede nature because we are nature. (Unless you think we will eventually become disembodied souls or intelligences, but that's off topic here).

I just want to point out the one thing that gets overlooked every time one of these threads come up.

We are still subject to evolution and natural selection. The term "natural selection" is often misunderstood to mean that the selection must be performed by "natural" forces like disease, starvation, weakness. But that's only one form of selection.

To really understand the theory of natural selection, think about it as "survival of those best fitted to reproduce under the conditions in which they live" rather than "survival of the fittest".

We tend to think of "fittest" as meaning "most physically fit", but in this context it does not. It means "best suited to the environment". And, of course, we are a part of our environment: our social structures and cultural norms are a part of the environment.

Worrying that the human race is doomed because we have superceded nature introduces a false opposition: we will never supercede nature because we are nature. (Unless you think we will eventually become disembodied souls or intelligences, but that's off topic here).

reply to post by whiterabbit85


compassion is not a trait that is only found in humans. it is quite common in the animal kingdom, therefore it is a part of nature.

developing greater compassion may actually be a step on the evolutionary ladder. it might actually benefit the society - as people like stephen hawking survive, who would otherwise not be taken care of.

as far as compassion and evolution go, i have to say i dont think humans are doing particularly well as a species, so i guess we better hope its got nothing to do with it.

personally, i think we mainly follow the survival of the fittest mode in our societies and particularly world wide. i dont really think its working for us. or that its the way forward, evolutionarily speaking.

i think we would be a stronger race; and be in more control of our planet; and be more advanced, if we were following a different social organization where we made sure every member of our society was looked after. as it is we are led by the fittest/strongest - who are all corrupt; have destroyed our socieites; and maybe planning to leave us all to it. so yeah - well, maybe the strongest will survive. but if they do, its not a race id want anything to do with. personally i think they are more likely to die with the rest of us if this planet goes down.

i think if we werent led by corrupt idiots, we would have progressed more scientifically - wouldnt have cars or powerlines - wed be up off the ground; wed probly have antigravity and tesla's other inventions by now; as well as many other 'suppressed science' inventions; benefiting the whole of society, instead of being used secretively for military purposes.

i think wed have self regulated our population growth so we didnt have this natural imbalance thats now happening; and i think our children would be more intelligent instead of mind controlled zombies or worker drones - which is what most people are these days.

and i dont think many of us are very happy. and i dont think the animal kingdom is very happy; or the planet. so if that's success, according to survival of the fittest - which i think we basically DO follow at the moment - well, i dont call it very impressive.

I've said this idea before but here's what you do. You put the undesirables into a big arena along side with the people that don't like em. You throw some guns into the mix, have a bunch of camera, and you've got yourself a money maker. At the same time it accomplishes a reduction in morons, on both fronts!

Like the person who said humans are a virus. Why only go so far in killing only those that are "weak"? Why not just kill everyone and start over. I like that idea personally.
I mean, if I'm going to be a jerk I like to go all the way really.

reply to post by midicon


The ones with the power I guess ,