Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Natural Selection
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
|
Jacknife Registered user Last page view: 8140 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
As brought up by Palagram in the post "Stuff..?" (i think that was the post). Why do we as humans try to help the people which nature has decided are inferior? I'm not saying that we shouldn;t care for our sick, but I wonder why we put so much effort into elvating people who will never be capable of giving anything back to society. In example, at my school is a "cafe". It's a little shop that sells simple breakfast foods, like bagels to students, and is run by "special education" students. people with learning dissordes, mental problems, etc... The cafe, though useful to the "special" students, does little good for the community on a whole. The amount of money spent on teaching those kids to say "heres your bagel, that will be 50 cents", if spent on teaching the smarter stundents, could have tought them so much more. So instead of cultivating minds which would someday be turning out new inventions, porcesses, or upholding current one, people who better our live and our economy everyday through thier hard work and mental ability, weve instead tought a couple of kids to work at a McDonalds when they grow up. It seems to me a twisted value program. Debate welcome. -Peace Out, War In -Jacknife |
||
|
Amanda Sedai Registered user Last page view: 7926 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
I haven't read the thread that you're talking about, but I don't think you should judge people like that. If those kids learn skills, even if it's just to "work at McDonalds," then they'll be able to help support themselves and avoid being a burden on society. What do you suggest we do with mentally disabled people? Lock them up in institutions? How about physically disabled people? Or the mentally ill, or learning disabled? Where do you draw the line? And what gives you the right to draw that line? -Amanda Sedai, a save-scumming newbie. (Hey, at least I saved that little girl's dog. Gimme some credit... ;-)) |
||
|
Bear Registered user Last page view: 8157 days, 10 hours, 14 minutes and 51 seconds ago. |
alright amanda don't go nuts here. he has the right to draw that line for himself and in some circumstances he is right but in others he is wrong. what jacknife is describing is "survival of the fittest" and that is very controversial but it used to be in service that the weak people would die becuase they could not survive that long. but he has the right to have his oppinion on the subject just as you and i do amanda. i do not go either way in this argument and support neither side.it is good to debate but amanda just try and keep your temper in check while doing it =). i personally don't want to see a flame war going on here. "He who conquers the past controls the future. He who conquers the future controls the past. -Kain from Command and Conquer." -Bear |
||
|
Zauber Unregistered user |
Context....every society has a plethora of niches that need filling, I like McDonalds....I like having people there to work at McDonalds....that is a niche they are filling. Another note on Darwinism....we have evolved past individual darwinism to socetal darwinism...still survival of the fittest but survival of the fittest group not individual.....ref. USA compared to Ethiopia.... but more importantly....could someone please reply to my earlier post on gardening...I want a green thumb but dye isnt working well :( |
||
|
Amanda Sedai Registered user Last page view: 7926 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
Sorry, it's just that I'm kind of sensitive about this subject. [warning: RANT. Please do not be offended, because I don't mean this to be offensive.] Survival of the fittest works for animals because their needs aren't as complex as ours. Most wild animals spend the majority of their time trying to get food and escape predators and do other things related to survival. It's every man for himself. But the human race has thrived for millenia because we work together. There are very few societies out there where each individual provides everything for themselves. Most people don't grow their own food and build their own houses and make their own clothes and do everything else necessary for life. They may do one or two of those things, but the only practical way for people to live without having to worry about survival is for them to work together. Because of this, we instinctively respect each other (for the most part). Think of someone you don't like. Not someone who you hate because they're destructive to our survival (like bin Laden), just someone who really gets on your nerves. If it were legal, would you kill them? I guess my point is that a major feature in humans' "survival of the fittest" is respect for human life. At least that's my take on it. Just my 2 GP... -Amanda Sedai, a save-scumming newbie. (Hey, at least I saved that little girl's dog. Gimme some credit... ;-)) |
||
|
Palagran Registered user Furry Hybrid Last page view: 6364 days, 15 hours, 51 minutes and 35 seconds ago. |
.... This would be a good discussion for one of the other forums I visit. I will present this there and give some feedback later. My opinion? I'd rather not say, as of now. |
||
|
Jan Erik Administrator Last page view: 5 hours, 2 minutes and 43 seconds ago. |
As I was saying in the other thread I think "survival of the fittest" (not literally, that is, "strong" in this case include intelligent, charismatic, industrious and so forth. Basically all skills that can be used to stand out in a crowd, and by survival I don't mean literally life and death, but more who will prosper and gain power and who will just "get by" and follow orders.) to be a universal law. Not in the sense that it is something to be striving for or to imply that it's the best law. It's simply what will be left if all else fail. If you have a few hundred people at random, wipe their memory and put them on a deserted island it will be complete chaos for a little while, but very shortly a few strong individuals will emerge and take charge. Once a leader has materialised most people will quite happily follow him or her, and obey any rules this leader lay down. Over time a whole system of laws and rules along with a relatively coherent moral system and maybe even a new religion will "evolve", and it's all founded on the basic law that is that the strong lead and the weak(er) follow. It's natures way of maintaining order, most animals just follow this "law" directly, while we humans just have it like some sort of fail-save. It was the catalyst that caused us to form regulated communities (no community can survive without strong leadership) and eventually got us where we are today, but that doesn't mean we should follow it blindly now that we have "evolved" (in the cultural sense) past our primitive start. Survival of the fittest is still very much in effect today too, strong businesses take over or cause weak businesses to fail. Strong civilisations conquer or dominate weaker ones, strong nations influence or subdue weaker ones and so forth. However we are evolving away from that system. We have come up with laws and treaties that prevent businesses to do whatever they want to with their competition, we have lots of international laws and treaties that discourage nations to conquer their weaker neighbours, and each society have laws that prevent the strong to just take what they want (unless they can do it within the law). IMHO this is what makes us human, our ability to over-ride the way nature would otherwise work. Sure the human race as such would probably survive just fine if we never improved our society beyond what a pack of wolves have. But we are what we are today, the most powerful race on the planet, because we choose to try and achieve some measure of fairness between the strong and the weak(er). Those who are not strong enough to take charge may still have important skills that will make the society at large stronger than it would be it those individuals never got a chance to prove themselves because they are "weak" as individuals. So while we still need strong leaders and such, I don't think it's a step in the right direction to start to evaluate how useful a person is based on any disabilities they might have. After all there are examples of physically handicapped people achieving great things within for example literature or science, and there are also examples of people who while never maturing beyond the level of a 6 year old, have some astonishing abilities as artists or musicians because of the way their brain is wired. There are also plenty of capable "normal" people who never achieve anything, because they are just plain lazy. We should continue to do our best to educate and stimulate everyone because you never know where the next genius might pop up. Besides our compassion for one another, while not economically sound, is another important part of our collective identity that knit us together, and in the final analysis makes us stronger. In time we might develop sophisticated enough gene therapy and such to ensure that everyone is born relatively healthy, but in the meantime I don't think we should stop "wasting" money on handicapped or otherwise "weak" people just because it is the exact opposite of what would happen in nature. We need strength and power, but unless it's a life and death situation for the human race I don't rely see any conflict between helping the weak and trying to improve ourselves... Jan Erik Mydland HoF admin |
||
|
Bear Registered user Last page view: 8157 days, 10 hours, 14 minutes and 51 seconds ago. |
perhaps you may be right but still. My personal oppinion is if you wiped out everyones memory you would find not survival of the fittest but might would make right becuase the mightiest people would be able to kill everyone so the people would be ruled by fear.but otherwise i would generally add to this debate that nature has its own balance or at least used to.it seems to me once technollogy devoloped nature started to suffer and the animals who originally inhabited the planet were driven to small pens or the ever shrinking forests. thats my 2 cents on that subject. amanda you said survival of the fittest worked for animals eh? than let me ask you what are human beings? we are merely highly developed animals.but the higher things go the more our planet suffors from our mistakes. just me 2 cents. "He who conquers the past controls the future. He who conquers the future controls the past. -Kain from Command and Conquer." -Bear |
||
|
Amanda Sedai Registered user Last page view: 7926 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
Sorry, I was using "animals" in the context of "animals other than human beings." We're kind of unique in the animal kingdom. Not totally unique; some primates use tools, several species can communicate with other members of their species, albeit usually in a very simple way. (Bees can communicate the distance of pollen sources. Dolphins and other whales can communicate, although AFAIK no one knows how well.) But still, we're unique enough to allow for differences like "we take care of the weaker members of our species." And about the planet suffering, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to save the planet, but the way things are don't you think it's the lesser of two evils? I mean, I'd love it if we someday right our wrongs and end all the destruction we're causing, but given the option between having things stay the same and going back to living in caves and being like other animals, personally I would rather have things stay as they are now. In a primitive society, survival of the fittest would have weeded me out long ago. -Amanda Sedai, a save-scumming newbie. (Hey, at least I saved that little girl's dog. Gimme some credit... ;-)) |
||
|
Palagran Registered user Furry Hybrid Last page view: 6364 days, 15 hours, 51 minutes and 35 seconds ago. |
Okay. On another forum I visit, me and some acquaintances are discussing the incommensurability of humans. (That is, the thought that one human is infinitely valuable, so a mass of people is no more or less precious than one.) This relates to Kantian ethics. Anyway, I threw in a question about the topic we're discussing and learned a thing or two. The following reflects that. Humans are diploid. Genetic variations ensure that at least some humans would survive in the face of disease. These differences also sometimes produce weaker individuals, but those individuals may carry a set of chromosomes that defend against another (or more of a set of) disease(s). We have no way of knowing if a trait that makes us inferior physically also protects us from some disease that hasn't surfaced yet. Humans' compassionate natures got us where we are today, as we survive based group support. Edit: Changed the word "gene" to "disease(s)." :P [Edited at 12:01, Thursday, December 06, 2001 by Palagran] |
||
|
Amanda Sedai Registered user Last page view: 7926 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
That's really interesting, Palagran. -Amanda Sedai, a save-scumming newbie. (Hey, at least I saved that little girl's dog. Gimme some credit... ;-)) |
||
|
Palagran Registered user Furry Hybrid Last page view: 6364 days, 15 hours, 51 minutes and 35 seconds ago. |
Isn't it? :) We should have more discussions like this. |
||
|
Jacknife Registered user Last page view: 8140 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
Amanda: #1, I'm not making any personal attacks here. Bear: thank you for your support. Palagram: i agree, i do like the more intellectually stimulationg conversations, one of the main reasons i made this post. everyone: I don't want you to think that i am an inhumane individual. I dont think we should lock up mentally unfit people. nor do i think we should say "tough luck" and them fight for themselves. I however do feel that society shows a lack of support for the people who make our society a success. If it werent for the geniuses, our modern, "humane" society wouldnt exist. I think our thinkers deserve more backing. Thats all. -Peace Out, War In -Jacknife |
||
|
Jacknife Registered user Last page view: 8140 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
Another interesting thing, for those of you who have heard Bill Gates 11 piont speech for high school seniors, i suggest you listen to / read it again. If you havent read/heard it, find a copy. -Peace Out, War In -Jacknife |
||
|
Amanda Sedai Registered user Last page view: 7926 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
http://www.snopes2.com/language/document/liferule.htm Here it is, complete with debunking of the myth that it was actually written by Bill Gates and including the last three rules which are usually cut off the list. Anyone else love snopes.com? (I'm Amanda Sedai in those forums, too. Watch as I make a fool of myself falling for "Mr. Ed is a zebra" and "Bumblebees can't really fly.") Jack, sorry about the "personal attack" thing. I sometimes overreact about this issue. I have a mild learning disability and am slightly visually impaired, and when I was a child my two best friends were blind (and one of them had some kind of learning or maybe slight mental problem, not sure what though). So I guess I get over-sensitive when I read things like this. Anyhow, call me dense but what point are you trying to prove with the Bill Gates speech? I'm well aware of the fact that life isn't fair. It isn't fair to me, to you, or to those mentally handicapped kids your school is training for jobs. But we all need to deal with it the best we can, and I think training those kids will help deal with it. You say we should give more support to the people who make our society a success. What better way than to keep them from being burdened by people who can't be as successful? Say I'm this genius who might be able to find a cure for cancer. Now say I have a child or sibling or someone else who is completely dependent on me, and who is mentally disabled. Should I not work on finding a cure for cancer because I have to spend my time taking care of this person? Should I spend most of my money paying someone else to take care of him while I work? Or should he get training so that he can have a job, saving me time and money and, more importantly, giving him the ability to feel like he's good at something and that he can help support himself? (is it just me or does the above sound like it could be an opening question in ADOM? No, wait, there's no option for slaying him as an act of mercy...) -Amanda Sedai, a save-scumming newbie. (Hey, at least I saved that little girl's dog. Gimme some credit... ;-)) |