Have humans disrupted the flow of nature by diverting "survival of the fitt

After a few hundred years of medicine, technological advances, and advocates for civil rights for the handicapped and mentally ill/challenged/etc. do you think that the human race is becoming weaker? Damaging the earth more than necessary for human society? Preventing exponential progress technologically or within society?

I feel as if things are much more complicated than they need to be. With all emotion aside, if the weak died, would it be so wrong? Everywhere in nature, those who can't will fall by the wayside. Only in humankind do we do everything we can to make the weak survive. It doesn't make things better. They will almost always remain weak and survivally (made up word, I think) inferior. Doesn't it seem like filling a bottomless pit?

It's like the old saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he can eat every day." (or something along those lines)

It seems like we've become over-populated, over-extended, and overly taxing on the environment unnecesarily.

A lot of people would think it brutal to let the weak fend for themselves and/or die off, but why is it brutal? That's how nature is intended. That's how everything strives. Even though we're not doing it so much in a primitive sense anymore, we still focus on competition, survivability, resources, and what-not. We just use more of our brains and technological advances and social constructs to "survive."

Do you think the world would be able to balance again if we just said, "Those who can, will. Those who can't, won't?"

Do you think it's unfair? Do you think it's a necessity to keep others alive when they can't do it themselves?

Let's have a discussion.

Survival of the fittest is all of a sudden the most logical progression of human society?

We are a modern society so to say that "survival of the fittest" is the best way to go just because of personal opinion is not a great opinion in my opinion.

Survival of the fittest is all of a sudden the most logical progression of human society?

J-man45

Genetic weaknesses in our population can now be "cured" by man-made methods.LiftedHeadshot

Genetic weaknesses in our population can now be "cured" by man-made methods.LiftedHeadshot

No we're not doing another genocide stop asking.

[QUOTE="LiftedHeadshot"]Genetic weaknesses in our population can now be "cured" by man-made methods.Brozekial

Yes Sir. I should be dead. Seriously, if it wasn't for modern medicine I should be dead and ask myself why I'm still alive everyday.

It's not fun.

I don't know what's worse, that this is a clever troll thread that's actually trying to create a pretense of civil discussion, or that you truly hold this thought of what essentially is Social Darwinism.hiphops_savior

What about every soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever the US or any other country has put men and women in? What about the ones that were shot in the chest or the heart or the face and lived to tell about it? They only lived because of modern medicine and nothing else. If they were by themselves, infection would have gotten them and they all would be dead.

Modern man has saved them all.

Possibly, but so what?

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]I don't know what's worse, that this is a clever troll thread that's actually trying to create a pretense of civil discussion, or that you truly hold this thought of what essentially is Social Darwinism.lo_Pine

What about every soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever the US or any other country has put men and women in? What about the ones that were shot in the chest or the heart or the face and lived to tell about it? They only lived because of modern medicine and nothing else. If they were by themselves, infection would have gotten them and they all would be dead.

Modern man has saved them all.

Atlantis and other civilizations had modern technologies. who's to say what the right way or wrong way to live? Based on an 1800 unsophisticated Charles Darwin?

I think Darwin's survival of the fittest still applies, just in a different sense in today's world. Stupid people are going to end up either poor, suffering, or dead if they willingly remain ignorant of modern sensibilities.

I think it's silly to ignore the intellect of human beings who at one point would have been cast out or shunned by society. What would our world be like without the genius of Einstein or Stephen Hawking?

It's foolish to me to ignore modern advances in technology that can better our species as a whole. The opposite argument that you've provided is valid, but I disagree with your standpoint from a humanitarian perspective. Our society would be thrown back into the hunter/gatherer time periods if we relied on our physical rather than mental capacities.

You wouldn't be writing this on a computer without technological advances that almost certainly came together by a collaboration of individuals who would probably not have passed muster for physical strength if such a thing existed at the time. As a human species, our brains are by far our most important asset. Ignoring that over brute strength and "survivalism" isn't particularly ideal or realistic.

No, I think humans are becoming smarter and stronger. With the way current technology is going, people will someday become robots.BranKetra

no, we are not becoming smarter and stronger naturally, now we depend on the few out of billions to create technology to sustain us and at the worst senario is we are becoming the society like in the movie "idiocracy".

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]I don't know what's worse, that this is a clever troll thread that's actually trying to create a pretense of civil discussion, or that you truly hold this thought of what essentially is Social Darwinism.hiphops_savior

What about every soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever the US or any other country has put men and women in? What about the ones that were shot in the chest or the heart or the face and lived to tell about it? They only lived because of modern medicine and nothing else. If they were by themselves, infection would have gotten them and they all would be dead.

Modern man has saved them all.

It really is...we have it so good now and I hope my generation doesn't forget that and keeps progressing. The 89-93 or something generation. Not sure how the whole generation thing goes, but we can never forget to 'count our blessings' every day. Cliche, lame, tacky I hate it too, but its true. Nothing is for granted.

This is an easy question. No. How did we divert the survival of the fittest. Fittest doesn't necesarily mean physical strength. In the future the human race will either still exist or die off. We just don't know which one

Probably, but Eugenics will become very popular in the next couple decades due to medical advances and alot of problems will be fixed in humans.

Other animals are just gonna have to deal.

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

Survival of the fittest is all of a sudden the most logical progression of human society?

Brozekial

Evolution gave us brains to survive instead of physical strength or agility compared to other species. Our brains allowed us to pass that social darwinism barrier. Saying we should go back to it because the rest of the animal kingdom uses it is stupid.

in this day and age define survival of the fitest?

After a few hundred years of medicine, technological advances, and advocates for civil rights for the handicapped and mentally ill/challenged/etc. do you think that the human race is becoming weaker? Damaging the earth more than necessary for human society? Preventing exponential progress technologically or within society?

I feel as if things are much more complicated than they need to be. With all emotion aside, if the weak died, would it be so wrong? Everywhere in nature, those who can't will fall by the wayside. Only in humankind do we do everything we can to make the weak survive. It doesn't make things better. They will almost always remain weak and survivally (made up word, I think) inferior. Doesn't it seem like filling a bottomless pit?

It's like the old saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he can eat every day." (or something along those lines)

It seems like we've become over-populated, over-extended, and overly taxing on the environment unnecesarily.

A lot of people would think it brutal to let the weak fend for themselves and/or die off, but why is it brutal? That's how nature is intended. That's how everything strives. Even though we're not doing it so much in a primitive sense anymore, we still focus on competition, survivability, resources, and what-not. We just use more of our brains and technological advances and social constructs to "survive."

Do you think the world would be able to balance again if we just said, "Those who can, will. Those who can't, won't?"

Do you think it's unfair? Do you think it's a necessity to keep others alive when they can't do it themselves?

Let's have a discussion.

Brozekial

First off if we followed this idea all babies in the world would die.

Secondly, humanity it could be argued have moved away from biological evolution and into a form of technological evolution where people like Stephen Hawking contribute more to society.

I don't wish to live in a Darwinian socitey but I have often thought that much of the increases in diseases such as cancer and diabetes has to do a great deal with the fact that 100 years ago people with diseases which are now treatable would have died off earlier not passing on their genes. I also believe this explains a major part of the increase in obesity. Obesity brings with it many life threatening but treatable disease in which in the not to distant past would have resulted in death. Even child birth can come with many complications for obese people that would have resulted in death of the child, parent, or both.

If we were a race on the RTS game of life. Then we'd be considered disgustingly over powered and completely unbalanced.