OK, I hope my question doesn’t get misunderstood, I can see how that could happen.
Just a product of overthinking.
Idea is that we can live fairly easily even with some diseases/disorders which could be-life threatening. Many of these are hereditary.
Since modern medicine increases our survival capabilities, the “weaker” individuals can also survive and have offsprings that could potentially inherit these weaknesses, and as this continues it could perhaps leave nearly all people suffering from such conditions further into future.
Does that sound like a realistic scenario? (Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves along with the environment first…)
Sexual selection usually takes care of problems like this. People with antisocial tendencies find it extremely difficult to find partners.
Unfortunately, not when they have money.
Oh cool, it’s time to find out how much of a burden on humanity I am and whether I should have been left to die. Just hypothetically of course, I wouldn’t want anyone to misunderstand. I always enjoy this question with my morning coffee.
Maybe you should skip these threads in the future. Don’t you think it’s important for people to understand this concept? Not everyone knows everything. Educate.
And miss out on the reminder that my existence is precarious and dependent on the good-will of the able-bodied? Nah, that’s head-in-sand stuff. I prefer to remind everyone of what this line of questioning has led to in the past and the human consequences of discussing the rights of a group of people in the abstract.
Yes. Not educating is the way to go. That always works out well!
I’m sure you’ll be asking your first responder this question while he or she is in the middle of performing CPR on you, and calling for an AED, right? You’re not regretting the discovery of 30-2, are you?
- You did misunderstand the point of this question.
- Yes, I’d prefer not being resuscitated. If I am finally dead, let it stay that way.
I don’t think I misunderstood. You see dropping dead as your prize for losing in some type of social Darwin competition. You don’t see medical advances and life saving measures as being part of our evolution, as a species, to better survive? No offense, but regardless of how you feel about being resuscitated, some paramedic, or other first responder is still going to try to save your life. They can’t exactly stop the process and ask you for your opinion if you have no pulse, dude.
Bro you did not understand anything he asked about
First of all, it isn’t “bro”. Secondly, I’m trying to make a point that valuing the mental capabilities of people is worth mentioning, when the OP seems to dwell on the physical worth of a human. Part of the evolutionary process is long-term problem solving skills, isn’t it? We create ways to resuscitate people, cures for diseases, and solutions for other medical problems. OP insists that gives us weaker people that continue living in our society? Weaker in what regard? If all cancer is suddenly cured, then which people are weaker? I knew a girl that had an intellectual disability, but was fairly physically fit. She could run well, and walked and talked as well as most people. Would you want to encourage her to have children, while discouraging some woman with breast cancer from having children?
I think I understood OP fairly well. I just question if he wants to limit procreation amongst the disabled. Remember that Hitler wanted to do that.
You need to read a genetics textbook and then some evolutionary biology so you understand OPs question.
Yeah, I guess college biology textbooks and Charles Darwin’s origin of species weren’t enough for me. I shouldn’t try to stop OP’s hint at arguing against letting people with physical disabilities breed.
They never said nor implied that
This has been happening for a while now and the results of which are the voting populace of the anti-intellectual movement that is explained in the documentary film, Idiocracy.
