i have to say that i dont like it happening but it cant be helped in the society..well..the almighty created as equally after all..were all human..but there are just people do that make them to be considered strong..it can be physically, emotionally and mentally...

i disagree with the idea of the survival of the fittest..after all the strong can still falter..just look at the history of dinosaurs!! BAM!! some meteor came and then they all died..what a story..

strong and weak...both should live on.. 🙂

oh please do click this!
The sweeter the apple, the higher the branch. The quieter the fart, the nastier the smell.
GUESS WHO??

Humans have other ways to survive, even without being the "strongest'.
That what really differentiate us from animals.

Animals can't afford to have genetically defected cases, since it would hurt them all, and they might die off.
Those weaker ones are usually pray for other animals.

True, you can't save them all, but you also shouldn't ignore the ones you can save.
Comparing humans to animals isn't right in this case.

Using Darwinism like this would only lead to another genocide...

Hrodulf and Bjornolfr, you will not be forgotten.
[img]http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp199/SyberAngelGabrielle/couplesig.jpg[/img]
[color=black]And if the world were black and white,
you would be my rainbow in shades of grey.[/color]

Click 'n Play!

If I had a fantasy self, it'd be a tentacle monster.

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.

So you are also against retards loving each other and passing on their genes?

I can't say I disagree with you, but I also can't say I agree, Humans don't need to be the fittest in order to survive because society is build to think that helping the weak is always a good thing, this means that even if the weak are a burden to society, society would still help them and make their survival a lot easier.

It sounds to awesome to say "We will share the pain" but as more people get hurt there will be a moment in with the pain will be unbearable.

Is a path that may lead to self destruction...

Anyway We can always support gene therapy and take mankind to where we should be.

[img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs14/f/2007/026/1/1/Into_Werewolf_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/Tank_soldier222/Into_Werewolf_RETURNS_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

Quote from Chaoswind

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.

So you are also against retards loving each other and passing on their genes?

I am not against anything since I do not surface in the text.
I am giving an objective description of the case where the
"good" and the "bad" sides are put to a scale, an analysis that does
not aim to find a settlement for the problem. It is up to you,
since we have different views on the good and the bad for
we humans tend to find things that displease us bad and
things we enjoy good, albeit
our judgements might be everything but rational.

Quote from Mamsmilk

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.

Human evolution has outright halted, if anything humans are slowly becoming weaker.

But in place of the human bodies failure to evolve, the human mind (collectively) has developed exponentially over the past century, with food products, better shelter, and better medicine.

Therefore, where we humans are slowly deteriorating genetically, we have our developed minds to create cures for said baby with no spine. Our developments in science are slowly allowing us alter the genetic code that we hindered by ignoring natural selection.

Our bodies merely play host to our minds. "Thought" just might be the most powerful thing in the universe. Though are bodies are flawed and mortal, collectively we are nearly immortal. Collectively, the human mind is ever developing, refining it's knowledge of the universe, trying to grasp the impossibility of perfection.

[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]

Quote from Caliber

Quote from Mamsmilk

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.

– – Therefore, where we humans are slowly deteriorating genetically, we have our developed minds to create cures for said baby with no spine. Our developments in science are slowly allowing us alter the genetic code that we hindered by ignoring natural selection.

Those faulties could affect our brain as much as other parts
of our body, thus they might even hinder our thinking and
science, not to mention the amount of people who even qualify
to reseach anything. The road that fuses the man with a machine is
a road paved of our own lifeline, a road to the sundown of the
mankind. In the end, machines are keeping us alive if we
fix every faulty with scince. Then we have become parasites to
artifical worlds.

meh.. dunno duncare

Edit:

actually... i support transhumanism and cybernetic enhancement.
so.. i vote yes to survival of the fittest

Quote from Mamsmilk

Those faulties could affect our brain as much as other parts
of our body, thus they might even hinder our thinking and
science, not to mention the amount of people who even qualify
to reseach anything.

Don't you see it? Those that are qualified got there by walking on the backs of those who failed before them. Everyone has a purpose in life. Even if ones purpose in life is to fail, they will be helping those who are to succeed by showing them what NOT to do.

Quote from Mamsmilk

The road that fuses the man with a machine is
a road paved of our own lifeline, a road to the sundown of the
mankind. In the end, machines are keeping us alive if we
fix every faulty with scince. Then we have become parasites to
artifical worlds.

I disagree.
~Firstly, because recent scientific advancement in health is moving towards the creation of all new body parts that can be easily assimilated into one's body.

~Secondly, Machines aren't going to take over humankind. Those that control the machines will take over humankind.

What we humans need to learn to do is to turn off the TV and pick up a book, therefore we won't blindly walk into our own enslavement.

[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]

Quote from Caliber

Quote from Mamsmilk

Those faulties could affect our brain as much as other parts
of our body, thus they might even hinder our thinking and
science, not to mention the amount of people who even qualify
to reseach anything.

Don't you see it? Those that are qualified got there by walking on the backs of those who failed before them. Everyone has a purpose in life. Even if ones purpose in life is to fail, they will be helping those who are to succeed by showing them what NOT to do.

Pfffft.
Like we'd ever learned of any mistakes. The very same
ones get repeated in loops. Otherwise we'd run out of
trouble. Well, perhaps a little polarising, but we've still
got our human mind that won't let go of the prime troubles
that being human cause.

Quote from Caliber

Quote from Mamsmilk

The road that fuses the man with a machine is
a road paved of our own lifeline, a road to the sundown of the
mankind. In the end, machines are keeping us alive if we
fix every faulty with scince. Then we have become parasites to
artifical worlds.

I disagree.
~Firstly, because recent scientific advancement in health is moving towards the creation of all new body parts that can be easily assimilated into one's body.

~Secondly, Machines aren't going to take over humankind. Those that control the machines will take over humankind.

What we humans need to learn to do is to turn off the TV and pick up a book, therefore we won't blindly walk into our own enslavement.

Well, perhaps we are finding new treasures in the field
of bioengineering, but money drives the goals and most
likely the tech used to help us will also be used against
us. Not many scientist aim to create something they could
use to wipe out everything that lives, but their finds can
still be used for those purposes.

Machines nowadays might be just simple computers that
simply compute and manipulate data, but when we reach
the gutter so that we need to use all kinds of widgets to
survive even in the smallest situations, our machines
will most likely be something more than just iron boxes
with data streams.

Machines can control people as much as living in society.
Many of us would just die if left in nature. We've grown
out of it and it has become outlandish to us. The same
can happen with machines. All who can read this are using
the intrabutts right now, unless they've copy-pasted this.
Guess how many of them are addicted to internet?
They won't die without it for now, but who knows what
the future brings. It's not lethal if one must get home in haste
to watch TV, to play CS or whatever and neglect everything else
around them, but this is just the dawn of it. Even those that
control those machines are dependent of something, such as
money that held little value 750 000 years ago, but time has
granted it a whole different meaning. In worst-case scenario death might await you if you have no bucks.
The people of the stone age would've not been moved the tiniest
bit even if they hadn't had even the first bill.

If we start to build our life on machines, they will become our
roots and thus vital to our lives. Machines are still tools to
us, but we've come a long way from those flint axes to
something that can control our daily lives and we can still
drown to the basin if we try.

Quote from Mamsmilk

Pfffft.
Like we'd ever learned of any mistakes. The very same
ones get repeated in loops.

That's because people keep coming up with ways to make old garbage look brand new.

Quote from Mamsmilk

If we start to build our life on machines, they will become our
roots and thus vital to our lives. Machines are still tools to
us, but we've come a long way from those flint axes to
something that can control our daily lives and we can still
drown to the basin if we try.

The only way that would happen is if human society becomes unmotivated and lazy enough to create automated programs to control daily life.

But as I said before, every computer has to answer to someone.
Said person will be the one controlling everything.

[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]

as much as i would have liked it to be different, i agree. just look at how we are today. i also think we are devolveing. weaker people who wouldn't have survived earlier, or people with various diseases, can now pass it on, while earlier they would've died.

I to an extent do believe in survival of the fittest. Mainly in the Darwin Awards sense of the incompetent and stupid cleaning up the gene pool by removing themselves from it.

I don't believe in going around killing the weak or anything like that but I'd really prefer it if the do gooders of the world stopped wrapping everything in bubble wrap in order to protect the incompetent.

Inconveniencing the majority to protect the idiotic minority achieves nothing in the long run but stunting our evolution and lowering the average IQ of the human race.

A Petaluma man showed his gal a trick
He took a needle full of cocaine and shot it in his prick
They say he got the gangrene the pain it wouldn't stop
And when he took a hot bath that night his pecker floated to the top

Quote from Personbot

I to an extent do believe in survival of the fittest. Mainly in the Darwin Awards sense of the incompetent and stupid cleaning up the gene pool by removing themselves from it.

I don't believe in going around killing the weak or anything like that but I'd really prefer it if the do gooders of the world stopped wrapping everything in bubble wrap in order to protect the incompetent.

Inconveniencing the majority to protect the idiotic minority achieves nothing in the long run but stunting our evolution and lowering the average IQ of the human race.

agreed.
the average well-educated family have one child i think, while the average uneducated family gets how many children? not saying they shouldn't get kids, but society will not improve if the vast majority is uneducated, and theres a greater chance that the children of well-educated parents get a good education than the children of the less educated parents.

I disagreed with the topic, survival of the fittest is not happening in our population, but I'm not sure that survival of the fittest should be the best rule for evolution. Just look at genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia, if you're a carrier of the disease, you have resistance to malaria, and needless to say they aren't going to be the most fit.
Also, when you look at the population, you see that the most successful group of people (the richest) have very few offspring, while the poor and unsuccessful, usually the ones that we would consider unfit, have enormous families. The entire basis for survival of the fittest is who can make the most offspring to carry on a more fit population of a species.
But isn't it odd how social status gets passed on to children, I mean, education isn't an inherited factor (genetically), but in a way it is in our culture, because poor people can only afford to send their children to poor schools to become poorly educated and send them to work manual labor, and continue the cycle. This in no way propagates fitness to our species.

Survival of the fittest acutally means, The one who adapts best to the current situation will live and breed so smaller bodied creatures for dense narrow areas will get food more then larger eqivlant and have a greater chance of passing their genes on etc. and humans are prehaps the most adaptable creature on the planet. mainly cause they manipulate the enviroment around them to maximise their chances of survival. However at our current stage the weaker ones arent dying off but pleading to the stronger ones for help, the stong ones help and the weaker ones out breed the strong ones. Well that is my view on how the world/human population seams to be heading.