Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Depends on what society needs. We can keep them alive, resorting to sterilization only when the genetic pool becomes too unwieldy for the healthcare system to treat them. Until then, they are free to live and go about living normal lives.

Euthanasia will only be the final stage on that path, if things really become too much to bear. Say, if food shortages occur, and people are starving to death- instead of letting people live and die based on chance factors like poverty, geographic location, etc, we let people live and die based on how best to preserve genetic quality.

Listen, I know this sounds controversial, but it's only because of society. A few decades ago genetic population management had a serious place in political discussion in the United States, before the boom of social conservatism in the 50s.

It's going to come up again very soon, when the rising population and dwindling resources start becoming noticeable problems.

Wow. You're still sticking with you're REALLY slippery slope, aren't ya' Vinny?

The reason these ideas were basically abandoned in the 50's is because they were the same ideas Hitler used in the 30's and 40's to justify is extremination of 'inferior races.' And, yep, he started out like you in that he didn't want to outright execute them for belonging to a different race, but he put restrictions on them, restrictions specifically on reproduction for example, but as his war carried on he didn't want to have to waste any more resources on them so when he found a cost effective way to do it, he started executing people.

I don't know about you, Vincent, but if I find myself following the same path as the biggest madman in human history, I rethink my positions.

Unlike Hitler, I don't support racism. I don't support coercion or military involvement. Force is just ugly, and you gather more flies with honey than vinegar.

The way to do it is through cultural changes and the media. Post-Christianity, where people don't need "all men are created equal" bullshit. We need a more relativistic outlook on human worth. It's about time people get used to the idea of our evolutionary origins. Not some freakishly valuable "human souls" which is just an excuse to bring religious values into the picture.

What's wrong with just seeing ourselves as carbon-based life-forms? It's what we are.

Social darwinism ultimately creates a better, stronger human race.

At the expense of all the "weaker" people's well-being huh?

Valid question.

I think well-being is relative.

In fact, I think people 500 years ago were happier than we are now, because they didn't have artificial pressures on them like "I won't impress da ladies if I don't own fresh kicks", "I need to drive a Beemer to show im successful", "I'm worthless without my fashion sense", "I totally need to sleep with person x in order to gain social status in my social group", "If I won't make the team, my dad will reject me".

Well-being is an artificial standard. We can manipulate it to gain the optimal outcomes we desire.

The military is the perfect example. Can you imagine these guys, waking up at the crack of dawn, if they sleep at all, getting their asses kicked in boot camp, verbally berated. Going into battle, seeing their friends die, lose their limbs and come back, all to gain a small piece of metal called a purple heart?

Well-being LOLWUT

---

It doesn't make the ape human, I agree. But I'm saying "being human" is not special as opposed to "being a potato" or "being an orangutan".

They are all different categories of living things occupying different regions on the tree of life.


If your claim is that "being human" makes you special, than this is little more than discrimination based on species, no? You treat one species better than another, and the better species is yours.

Do you not know how this is discrimination?

Discrimination????????????? are you serious?
I`m guilty of commiting almoust daily genocide on certain spicies of animals. By eating them. And then you thing there`s something like "discriminating a species?"

The central point of my last view posts was "We have a understanding of our surroundings and ourselves which is way suppirior towards other species"

And I dont think I have to explain more until you can actualy show me a potato or cockroach civilisation with spacestation, religions, housing, inferstructure and all other essential parts which when put together - form civilisation.

I'm sorry, I think you are going round in circles.

No matter what you claim makes human beings special, the burden of proof is on you to show how your "factor x" makes a species special and morally valuable, or more so than any other living entity.

Ie, what is the link between "a civilization with space stations" and moral value? Before we could build space stations, were we less valuable?

I want you to be careful here, because you seem very emotional. Let go of the emotions and think rationally. I'm not interested in anybody's feelings on this matter.