Survival of the fittest vs. the Nanny State

reply to post by Bluesma


Huh?

Second line....

reply to post by elouina


..hm, how can I put it simply? Well, the points about extremist individualism leading to it's complete opposite eventually would require lots fo background info added, and that might be more difficult for you to understand.

I can re-word the part that is less precise-

A society is a made up of parts,
those parts are individual people,
so the survival of the society as a whole
depends upon the state of it's individuals.

Therefore, when the individuals become self destructive,
The society, as with any organism,
needs to put into action some sort of defensive action, (like an immune system)
to stop, or at least slow down the destruction.

If you have cancer, does your body have the right to fight it inside?
Why can't those cells have the right to do what they want, unheeded,
no matter what the other cells, choose?

Ha ha ha. So I moved from Washington to Idaho recently, Washington is a liberal state (nice to live in) and Idaho is a conservative, free market state, basically. The interesting thing is, since I've moved here, individual liberals seem to be super not on top of their lives from my new perspective.

Around here, it's like WHAM! Get a job. WHAM! Get into politics. WHAM! Get a girlfriend. WHAM! Buy a house. WHAM! Buy a new truck. WHAM! Buy a hot tub. There is a lot of individual progress.

Back home, it was like, okay, I'm living with my parents playing Diablo 3 with friends online. There are positives to both lifestyles, but the nanny state definitely weakens individuals (mostly males, though). To be completely honest, though, it was getting frustrating not being able to move forward.

Also, when I look at political philosophies, I will look at *individual* interactions of those who follow them, not the overall picture, because that is who I am living with or socializing with. I am always interested in the bottom line - individuals.

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Since when is it your responsibility, or our responsibility as a society, to legislate "common sense"? Why do we feel we have to tell other people what to eat, what to do, and how to wipe their rear ends?

Seems like every day now there is another article about the advancement of the Nanny State. Its getting to the point where we are told what to do in every aspect of our lives. No salt, no large sugary drinks, no smoking, no guns, wear a helmet, wear a seatbelt, no trans fats, the list goes on.

Im going to be objective in my reply.
Never before in human history have we lived in a society that mass produces bad products, encourages people to be lazy and resistant to change. People NEED to be taught healthier eating lifestyles because they are raising themselves and their children on fat shi**y foods, which for one thing is bad for the brain (making learning more difficult) and bad for them in general (shorter lifespan, medical issues throughout life caused by poor diet)
Coupled with a poor diet people are not exercising and let me guess, that should be a choice left to them right? Exercise is natural and has a positive effect on humans. We feel better after exercise, its a great way to relieve stress and keep yourself fit. People used to exercise from working, for example men used to do labouring jobs where women would clean their house's or from working. People do not have to walk as much because transport is still widely available - although a little costly. Seat-belts and helmets have saved MANY lives since coming onto the scene, smoking is on the downfall in the west and that can only be a good thing.

And so, with these factors taken into account, it only seems right to me that the "Nanny state" pipes up and says something - Because its trying to do people a favour. You dont like it? To bad.

When did we get to a place in history where we decided that people were to stupid to make their own decisions? Actually, when did we decide that people should die from natural causes? If everyone in the world died of natural causes, we would all be old, wrinkly, and grouchy because at that age sex is just something to talk about.

At the current rate, people are less likely to die of natural cause's and more from disease's caused by poor living standards.

If someone wants to drink too much, smoke too much, or eat too much, if they want to blow their brains out, jump off a bridge, or drop a hair dryer in the bath tub........its their choice!

You dont seem to be grasping that there are actual reasons why people do these things? Its rather less out of choice and more of a coping mechanism?

I think its funny that the same people who are preaching evolution are trying to prevent everyone from dying. Its totally opposite of survival of the fittest. Look, its a fact of life.....people die!

Yes, but people are dying needlessly, that's what they're trying to stop... Have you not met the man in the hospital with throat cancer because he smoked 20 a day for 40 years? Nice way to die eh? Im sure his family love seeing him in that condition...

Survival of the fittest would allow stupid people to make as many stupid decisions as they want, if it kills them then that is one less stupid person in the world.

You do realise how idiotic you sound writing these kinds of statements? How would you feel if the people at Mensa decided you were stupid?

Do you think that the Nanny State and the idea of Survival of the Fittest are compatable or do they naturally oppose the other?

I think a little bit of the nanny state is needed to re-address the balance in a society that is being poisoned by processed food, media and a culture that's happy to accept a short life-span ended by disease because they just dont know any better.

Still makes me sick to see people feeding their small children Mcdonalds. They deserve better than that.

reply to post by AshleyD
You know it's funny that you posted that "remove the labels"to sort out the dummies but that fact of the matter is it's my opinion this sort of thing is actually taking place by our own FDA to reduce population.Hence all the hidden GMO's,Monsanto....etc.etc.

reply to post by MrBigDave


Nicely put.

It's as if humanity thinks that it can conquer death - the final frontier. If, for example, we'd just let people eat whatever they'd like, in 150 years human beings would be healthy and fit because those who weren't would have kids who were even worse-off, who'd have kids even worse-off, and eventually their kids wouldn't be able to reproduce due to poor health and its accompanying low aerobic-capacity.

It's through NOT realizing we're all connected that we get confused and try to save everyone. It's only when we allow our weakest-by-choice to whither that we'll move forward. Until then, we're just creating situations in which we feel justified in congratulating ourselves. Nature's cruel. We're part of nature. Moving along now...

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


What are you talking about with the shorter life span thing? Average life spans for humanity, especially in the 1st world, are at an all time high. It seems you are advocating the government telling people what they should and shouldn't do because they are living unhealthily. You bring up the past about how people used to exercise while doing laborious jobs. But you neglect that back in the day our medial knowledge was extremely basic. In the late 1800's and early 1900's during the industrial revolution air pollution was enormous. People where living in squalid living conditions and being paid barely enough to live. Let's not forget that you could die from something as simple as getting an infection. In the Middle Ages, you were lucky to make it out of infancy.

Do not make it seem like it wasn't until recently that humans have been living unhealthily either by choice or because of circumstance. Just because overall laziness in humanity has gotten to an all time high, does not entitle the government to tell people how to live. For example you brought up the example of the man dying of lung cancer from having smoked cigarettes his whole life and how his family feels. Well so what? The man made the choice to smoke his whole life despite many warnings telling him the health risks and now he is paying the price. Does it hurt for the family to see him like this? Yes it does, but the fact remains that we all die. It's a certainty of life, the family will still have to bury that man regardless of if he gets cancer from smoking and dies or just dies of old age. By the way watching someone die of old age and fall apart mentally and physically can be just as hard to watch for a family as someone who dies a lot sooner from cancer.

Survival of the fittest is a flawed doctrine to begin with. It selects not for intelligence or ability, but simple reproductive capacity.

Let's say we split humanity off into two species, call them the Morlocks and the Eloi after the two human species in H.G Wells' "The Time Machine." Morlocks are stupid, but reach sexual maturity at age 8 (for example) and have a gestation period of six months. The Eloi, on the other hand, are a race of geniuses by current standards. However, they don't reach sexual maturity until age 20, and have a year-long gestational period.

"Survival of the fittest" selects for the creature most able to pass on its genes rapidly. For evolutionary purposes, once an animal reproduces, what it does next is irrelevant. So while the Eloi are theoretically the superior species assuming nature selects for the most intelligent, survival of the fittest means that they'll be rapidly outbred by the stupid but prolific Morlocks.

survival of the fittest no doubt. breed the stupidity off earth. i used to work at a mom and pop hardware store...i could not begin to tell you the amount of unnecesary?sp? warning labels on products i have seen. this world is in a sad state.

reply to post by MrBigDave

If they can create the culture of "we know what's best for you" (ie, "Nanny state")....then they can treat you like children and take away your dangerous guns also. Is a curfew next? Nahhh....at least not until Martial Law.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Survival of the fittest is a flawed doctrine to begin with. It selects not for intelligence or ability, but simple reproductive capacity.

Let's say we split humanity off into two species, call them the Morlocks and the Eloi after the two human species in H.G Wells' "The Time Machine." Morlocks are stupid, but reach sexual maturity at age 8 (for example) and have a gestation period of six months. The Eloi, on the other hand, are a race of geniuses by current standards. However, they don't reach sexual maturity until age 20, and have a year-long gestational period.

"Survival of the fittest" selects for the creature most able to pass on its genes rapidly. For evolutionary purposes, once an animal reproduces, what it does next is irrelevant. So while the Eloi are theoretically the superior species assuming nature selects for the most intelligent, survival of the fittest means that they'll be rapidly outbred by the stupid but prolific Morlocks.

Survival of the fittest sure does select for intelligence. Your example didn't control for intellect! In order to control for a variable, it must be equalized via commonality or in the analysis.

Think about how this scenario would be different if the Morlocks were smart enough to kill off all of the Eloi. How much would sexual maturity and gestation periods matter then? Intelligence is a huge factor in evolution. You know the guy too dumb to run from a predator? Yeah, he got eaten.

reply to post by MrBigDave


Thing of the Pied Piper leading the liberal socialist lemmings off the edge of the cliff.

Whenever I hear liberal socialists say they are turning their guns into the Tucson Police...aka Mark Kelly or whomever.....I think to myself, "Wonder if the Tucson police will be putting that AR up for auction."

And that there is more ammunition to go around for us Americans. Cause when the supermarket shelves go bare, those liberal socialist lemmings are going to get hungry.

Why, I'll huff and I'll puff.....and I'll run out of breath.

reply to post by MrBigDave


Someday that person you wish would just kill themselves... will take you and the whole world with them.

Every person ive seen with a social mentality of survival of the fittest is a religious moron who thinks they have a one way ticket to heaven.

As technology advances apathy is a trait that makes civilizations extinct.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

What are you talking about with the shorter life span thing? Average life spans for humanity, especially in the 1st world, are at an all time high.

And i dont dispute your claim. However, if society continues as it is (with its poor habits) Then we'll be expecting people to start dying earlier due to disease's caused by poor diet, lack of exercise, lifestyle in general. If you want to out-live you're children then keep advocating this way of living.

It seems you are advocating the government telling people what they should and shouldn't do because they are living unhealthily. You bring up the past about how people used to exercise while doing laborious jobs. But you neglect that back in the day our medial knowledge was extremely basic.

I am completely aware of how conditions were for the majority in the industrial revolution. However, we are no longer in that period of history and we have progressed impressively in medicine - Which mean's we have no logical reason as to why people should be living shorter lifespans and dying of horrible illnesses that can (and should) be prevented.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's during the industrial revolution air pollution was enormous. People where living in squalid living conditions and being paid barely enough to live. Let's not forget that you could die from something as simple as getting an infection. In the Middle Ages, you were lucky to make it out of infancy.

Do you think the entire population of the UK just all decided at once to stop using coal to heat their homes? Of course not, the government recognised the problem of Smog, the effect on the population and pushed for people to use other means of heating their homes. Sometimes the population needs a push.

Do not make it seem like it wasn't until recently that humans have been living unhealthily either by choice or because of circumstance. Just because overall laziness in humanity has gotten to an all time high, does not entitle the government to tell people how to live.

Correct, people have a right to live how they like and if you want to eat at mcdonalds every day of the week that's cool, but i dont think the NHS (yes im british) should have to waste money trying to cure the illness you've willingly brought on yourself. People do not have an entitlement to abuse medical treatment because its there. People have a personal responsibly to help themselves. You are what you eat, its not a riddle.

For example you brought up the example of the man dying of lung cancer from having smoked cigarettes his whole life and how his family feels. Well so what? The man made the choice to smoke his whole life despite many warnings telling him the health risks and now he is paying the price. Does it hurt for the family to see him like this? Yes it does, but the fact remains that we all die. It's a certainty of life, the family will still have to bury that man regardless of if he gets cancer from smoking and dies or just dies of old age.

Not trying to prevent death, im well aware that no one gets out alive
That man was lying on his death bed regretting every single cigarette he'd ever smoked. He knew he wasn't going to be able to see his grandchildren grow up. His children were going to loose him prematurely from their lives and lets be fair here, who the hell wants to die that way? Can you imagine having to drugged up until you finally croak it? People want to die with a sense of satisfaction that they came, they saw and conquered - Not pain and regret.

By the way watching someone die of old age and fall apart mentally and physically can be just as hard to watch for a family as someone who dies a lot sooner from cancer.

I agree, But watching someone die from gluttonous eating or drinking themselves to death is even harder - Because you know on some level, the control to stop is theirs and theirs only.

We owe it to the next generation to give them the proper lessons about staying healthy and why its important. Mountains were made to be climbed, sea's to be crossed, continents to be explored. Its suicide to keep people fat and stupid because you don't want you're rights to be infringed on.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
"Survival of the fittest" selects for the creature most able to pass on its genes rapidly. For evolutionary purposes, once an animal reproduces, what it does next is irrelevant. So while the Eloi are theoretically the superior species assuming nature selects for the most intelligent, survival of the fittest means that they'll be rapidly outbred by the stupid but prolific Morlocks.

This is a fundamentally flawed premise. I will use America as an example - the poorest, laziest and the least intelligent in our society out breed the remainder because they fail to see the consequences of over breeding. The reason for that is in our compassion we have removed any negative impact of making the choice to have more offspring than one can reasonably afford to raise. We do this through multiple social programs designed to mitigate these poor choices. If this class of people where to have to endure and suffer the consequences of their own choices absent intervention they would out of necessity have to either change them out of compassion for the horrible suffering of their offspring or absent that compassion the level of mortality would be limited to their ability to provide the necessary food, shelter and clothing. In that case they would not be the dominant class or species.

However, we as a society are killing ourselves as we continue to mitigate these poor choices "for the sake of the children".

This is why we have reached the tipping point between having far too many takers than makers...

Once the makers are all gone – the takers will necessarily have to face their own problems.

This…



Ceases to be a funny movie and becomes a documentary.