Be it fittest mentally or physically, do you think the weak will die off. Should this form of evolution be supported, or should things be left as is?

I do want your honest no holds, fully bared opinions people, not what society tell you.

For me I gonna have to say fittest. Not that we should just kill off the weak. its just that they really are so stupid and weak the they would eventually kill themselves off, no intervention needed.

We co-operate, thus even the worst bugs can
manage. Computers are our worst enemies, since
they just keep getting better and better and might surpass us later on, making the whole mankind just a swarm of bugs.

Ethically it is usually seen bad to not care for the weak,
but it is true that every weak being we save
passes the weakness forward. If a child with
no spine gets a fake spine, s/he is saved,
but the saved lives affect the total genepool
of the future, thus causing such defective
characteristics surface in numbers later on.

It's like saving a dying otter.
It's hard to leave it there, but
we are messing with the balance
of the nature as we save it.
One might not matter, but we
feel like we must save everybody,
but as we save somebody or something,
something else cannot be saved.

I don't really get what you're trying to ask. It's kind of a given that the strong prevail over the weak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the weak will die off.

I myself am a creationist and believe in intelligent design, so I can't really say I believe in "survival of the fittest."

[img]http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c211/FullArmageddon/Signatures%20and%20Avatars/FullArmageddonsig_mini.png[/img]

Well i would say its never right to kill or let the weak get killed or kill themselves. Its Important to care for everyone because sooner or later they may benefit society. Plus all life is important. If we killed off the weak or abandoned them to let them fend for themselves we lose a valuable life. A Example would be Einstein he didn't talk when he was little if his parent were like hes weak throw him in the dumb society would lose a brilliant mind. I know that is not the best Example but you get what i mean (i hope). 😀 Also if we jsut let them kill themselves off i think would cause more problems. Such as them attack other people for stuff they need.

If you want to be religious Catholic social teaching (and im sure a whole bunch of other religions) have something called Option for the poor (poor as in the powerless or the weak of the society) The lowest person on the scale is still part of society and when we fail to help them it hurts society as a whole not just the weak. 😮

Also it brings into question what is the severity of a mentally or physically illness that labels a person as weak and thus needing to be eliminated or separated from society to die off.

I might have twisted your question a little. 😀

This evolution should not be supported. 😔 It was not their fault. Its like saying your parents F ed up and you will suffer for it.

[img]http://valenth.com/lab/62267.png[/img][br]Feed Me! Lets see what he becomes![br]Adopted from Valenth

Sorry. I don't quite understand what you're asking either. Therefore, I haven't voted in the poll. Maybe you're oversimplifying (or wrongly applying) the theory of evolution --- you mention evolution so I assume you mean the biological theory. This is starting to look like Social Darwinism; only the fittest will survive?

Quote from magmarneal

Should this form of evolution be supported, or should things be left as is?

I do want your honest no holds, fully bared opinions people, not what society tell you.

You're asking a moral question (should). Implicit in the second paragraph you single out deontologial beliefs of morality, specifically about non-action, as only being an external societal pressure rather than something one would believe regardless of "what society tell(s) you." 😮

I won't hijack your topic anymore; I'll only ask a redundant: What can you truly say is your own opinion seperate from "what society tell(s) you"? 😕

When you ask for our opinion, are you asking for a logical ethical argument or are you simply asking for an opinion? Opinions without defense aren't worth much.

Can you imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie?

Society makes it obsolete, that is what I believe. Things are way more complex than what a simple theory can state, and sometimes it's more simple than what complex theories can state.

This week's favorites:

• Golden Kamui

ççççççç[Ô.Ô] tsutopodus© will eat your manga and steal your cats!

hubris to tell you the truth your post mind crushed me 😕

anyhoo when i said evolution i really didnt mean any theories i just couldnt think of a better word, and when I mean society, I mean those little white lies you tell people around you in RL so they wont avoid, dislike, ostrasize, etc.. you 😀

Yeah, I believe we should all practice this form of evolution. We can call it the Final Solution.

I may be violating Godwin's Law here, but food for thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life

First, since you mention the Evolution theory, these are my take on that:

IMO, Evolution theory:

• Focus more about the physical / biological aspect than social aspect

• The effect of Evolution theory on the human is not as much as you might think on other animal. Human, with technology advance, interferes on every aspects of natural environment to transform them to fit within the human "comfortable range". Human also created stuff to "fix" their "weakness"; "increase" their comfortable range and "enhance" the chance of reproduction, etc..etc

• Ofcourse, we're no God, so there're lots of stuff that human still prevail over natural selection. To be fair, I'd say that human delays the process of natural selection.

Second, your statement about the fitness of "mentally or physically" is over-simplistic @ best. If you try to talk about the "fitness" in the human world, most of the time it's the combination of many aspects, not just mentally or physically...

Here's my over-simplistic opinion for your over-simplistic statement (in social aspect only, and put aside the impact of artificial stuff like moral and religious):

IMO, the "strong" class understand that their "fitness" depends on the "weak" one. There must always exist the "weak" class, so the "strong" one can be continue being "strong"...

• The "strong" class not gonna kill/exterminate (lolz) the "weak" one. They gonna guarantee the "weak" class survive (barely) AND continue...being "weak"

• The "weak" class also know that the "fitness" of the "strong" class depend on them. And despite their "weakness", they outnumber the "strong" class. So they'll use that to increase their level in the society...

• Since neither of them can survive on their own, they'll compromise with each other. That's the state of our current human society.

Again, this is my over-simplistic opinion...

"As long as we're seeing the same kind of musical vision, yeah, sure. But sometimes when things get hard, you balance out the pros and cons and say, am I being a wimp if I stay or am I being a wimp if I leave?" - D'arcy Wretzky

first of all i think yougot the theorie wrong survival of the fittest means the one who has the best chance of reproducing cause as long as there is ofspring the species live on so the best adjusted is "strong"and the least "adjusted" to the enviorement is the weakest

to get back to the topic i think it's right that humans are heading to the brink of extiction because the less adjusted, people who need suport from others to survive and people who have needed serious mediacal care, survive. the malfunctions are passed to the offspring and the human race is allowed to digress. so if you'd want only the strong to survive you'd have to completly stop medical care.

don't get me wrong i think in mabye a few century's the human race can be extinct but this doen;t mean i wanna go out and kill every being who is weak.

[img]http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww187/D_dragon/omfgpudding-1.jpg[/img]

Quote from Mamsmilk

We co-operate, thus even the worst bugs can
manage. Computers are our worst enemies, since
they just keep getting better and better and might surpass us later on, making the whole mankind just a swarm of bugs.

Ethically it is usually seen bad to not care for the weak,
but it is true that every weak being we save
passes the weakness forward. If a child with
no spine gets a fake spine, s/he is saved,
but the saved lives affect the total genepool
of the future, thus causing such defective
characteristics surface in numbers later on.

It's like saving a dying otter.
It's hard to leave it there, but
we are messing with the balance
of the nature as we save it.
One might not matter, but we
feel like we must save everybody,
but as we save somebody or something,
something else cannot be saved.

My thoughts exactly.

not anymore, really...
unfit people with rich parents might do better than clearly fit people with worse conditions.
but if society were to crumble, the fittest would survive, just as it have been since the first little life awoke in the seas...

If humane compassion didn't exist, then there'd be even more mass extinctions than ever before caused by people. Also, people tend to prey on the weak for other reasons besides obtaining and maintaining food, water, and shelter...it's disturbing and a little depressing.

On purpose without a purpose
[img]http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/maestro82/aura_jpg.jpg[/img]

Everyone has an equal chance to live on.
But they don't have equal opportunities to live safe, healthy, and happily.

[color=#ff0000]"“That's the difference between me and the rest of the world!
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!” "[/color]

I agree with it, but imo the fittest are the ones who want to live and make it count... not the "stronger", neither the "smarter"