Nature naturally weeds out the inferior, while humans seemed to have stopped doing that. We dump insane resources into people who don't really care to develop and become better. The day we stop caring is the day these people begin becoming extinct.
Is this what gives us our humanity, or is this well-intentioned shortsightedness, not realizing what we are doing?
Bumping once or twice.
Once or twice.
We have evolved past natural selection. We can cope with anything nature throws at us. You criticize humans helping each other, but cooperation is how people got out of the nature's touch in the first place. Now we just need to wait until more bad genes accumulate and we can't sustain the helping everyone policy. If technological progress is able to compensate for it, however, we must be proud, as we have become a successful species.
Put another way, take the continent Africa. Are they MEANT to perish into history? This isn't being asked at all as a racist question. They would naturally disappear or remain in irrelevant obscurity forever. It's obvious us propping them up is one of the main reasons they're as 'modern' as they are now. Despite grasping a bit of modern culture, and holding some modern items, like the various tribes still existing in the world, they mainly don't want to integrate with the rest of the world.
This is all relative/subjective, but my question is whether holding the hand and supporting the lowest band on the spectrum of human growth is development is in any way beneficial other than 'it feels good to help others in need.' Natural selection is a self-cleaning agent in reality. By removing that, what could we possibly be creating that may threaten the higher bands of the spectrum of human growth and development?
Bumping again. I'm not giving up on you thread.
A final bump. I wish this could be an interesting conversation.
I feel you m8. My point is that the most sociable and cooperative humans passed their genes, so it's natural to be eager to help the one in need. Maybe helping everyone has some negative consequences, but without this instinct we would have extinguished long ago.
Oh absolutely. Selfishness is actually one of the best mechanisms for self-preservation, you can see it practically everywhere with animals in the wild. Great at the individual level, but it scales very poorly. And then what you said, universal cooperation, I believe is at the opposite end of the spectrum. It can scale infinitely, but with the risk of inviting problems in (since looking at it in biological terms, its a petri dish that anything can grow in, without an immune system to stop problem entities from multiplying and becoming an issue).
The overall point I wanted to make with this thread is that I believe the solution/answer is somewhere in the middle. Being sociable and cooperative is certainly important; that's how we got to where we are today. However, I feel we have slightly lost touch with the other side of the coin, which has been a very underrated agent in the formation of the world we live in today.
this thread is basically the TRUE reason why civilization is collapsing now, if you think in 4D
We keep them around so that they will fuck up, so we won't. Think about it, the most effective method of taking the redpill is seeing what happens when someone faces the consequences of taking the bluepill.
Can you elaborate? I sortof see what you're saying, but despite the education some may be getting, it is setting force a process that very much threatens the exponential growth of our species.
Cooperation was good for us because we were to weak to stand a chance in wilderness on our own. We could have invented spears, but the process would have been much slower and it would disappear with each inventor. We were a bunch of bad genes from the start.
I think we are in the middle, precisely because selfishness exists and is socially acceptable under the form of free market. You just have to be yourself, do what you want and feel natural, and only time will tell if your behaviour was good or not, that's the miracle of natural selection. You claim you want to follow natural selection, but what you're trying to do is override it.
I think it's a natural part of our evolution as a species. Originally, helping each other gave us the advantage of working together as a community which made us stronger and more likely to survive. At the time evolution would still occur because even though we helped each other, we were all still vulnerable to disease. Now with advancements in medical technology people rarely have to worry about a natural early death which resulted in the spreading of defects in our genes.
In order to continue as a healthy species we should have mandatory gene therapies to remove defective genes like those that lead to cancer and such. We already have mandatory vaccines so this shouldn't be any different.
Of course there should also be an option to opt out of the gene therapy if someone wants, but then they'd have to be sterilized so that they can't risk the rest of the gene pool.
women have more empathy for others in need and are more protective, so it's no wonder once they got the vote and started getting more influence in politics that we experienced such a radical change
we are only delaying the problem in my opinion, by creating a group of people that lives just by leeching from others they will find it harder to adapt once money runs out or a large scale war begins
I see what you are saying, but you may be framing it in a slightly different way than I was. I might be wrong, but it seems like you're saying the mechanics OF natural selection change over time. I don't think I'm trying to change anything. The fundamental action behind natural selection is allowing the weaker traits to die off. We not only discourage that now, but we fight to keep everyone alive, and reproducing. As for the rest of your argument, I agree 100%.
To even make a thread like this shows how ignorant you are. You clearly have no idea what addiction is, or how these people get there. No, you just probably grew up with money and went "look at those poor people who can't support themselves."
We need to exterminate those like you, not the poor people.
With all due respect, you're projecting. No one mentioned addiction until you did. No one implied not helping people who want to be helped.
This entire discussion is centered around people who accept help, but don't care to change, contribute generally little or nothing to civilization, and are multiplying to become a larger problem.
Recalibrate your argument and don't resort to emotional name calling.
Good post. Being compassionate encompasses more than what most people think. Compassion isn't simply trying to make everything live and survive forever. Compassion deals with both life and death.
>mandatory gene therapies to remove defective genes like those that lead to cancer and such
The problem is the genes responsible for cancer and such are so deeply inbedded that you would not be able to cut just the bad ones out. Evolutions only goal was to get humans to breeding age, after that it doesn't care. Inflammatory disease and cancer cause a host of health issues after 30 but those mechanisms make for rapid healing in children.