Society protects the weak

[CatLove56]

So if anyone is familiar with DC comics specifically a character called Vandal Savage you would know this is something that character says. Thought it was kind of interesting. The more I think about that I believe it makes sense why we're so overpopulated because we don't let natural selection do what it was supposed to do and that's weed out weak people like me. many of us are "supposed" to die says nature but it's not like that anymore because of advancements

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Nature? Oh please, we are not even close to being in a natural environment. No need to pour salt on your wounds by adopting this sort of (false) thinking.

 

[summers]

So if anyone is familiar with DC comics specifically a character called Vandal Savage you would know this is something that character says. Thought it was kind of interesting. The more I think about that I believe it makes sense why we're so overpopulated because we don't let natural selection do what it was supposed to do and that's weed out weak people like me. many of us are "supposed" to die says nature but it's not like that anymore because of advancements

We don't need natural selection - we can achieve the same thing more efficiently and consistently through genetic manipulation. Now if all these scientists and politicians would get off their moral/ethical high horses, we might actually see some progress. We've stagnated as a species for well over 300k years.

 

[Julgran]

So if anyone is familiar with DC comics specifically a character called Vandal Savage you would know this is something that character says. Thought it was kind of interesting. The more I think about that I believe it makes sense why we're so overpopulated because we don't let natural selection do what it was supposed to do and that's weed out weak people like me. many of us are "supposed" to die says nature but it's not like that anymore because of advancements

I fully agree with this. If we had a society that was based on the needs of society, rather than the well being of individuals, all "losers" in life would need to die out. The "losers", in this sense, could be anyone who doesn't fit into the predefined mold of currrent society, for any reason.

I believe that this was a small part of the philosophy of the very unpopular man from the 1930's with the funny moustache, and I'm not talking about the direct atrocities that he committed - but, rather, what the resulting society would look like down the line.

We don't need natural selection - we can achieve the same thing more efficiently and consistently through genetic manipulation. Now if all these scientists and politicians would get off their moral/ethical high horses, we might actually see some progress. We've stagnated as a species for well over 300k years.

Eugenics was also in vogue during the time of the man with the funny moustache, so the whole of society seemed to be on this track, for some reason or another, back then.

 

[Dragon's Heart]

OK. But who gets to determine what weakness is or what strong is? Is it possible that we, as a species, are evolving past the need for "strong"? Maybe... what's seen as a weakness is purely a man-made judgment that is unable to see the value of what is happening. As an example, nerds were considered weak and unimportant. Now, they are someone to seek out for their wisdom in certain areas of life, thus, balancing out the population. I believe that the human species is far too complex to be included in natural selection. That being said, balance seems to be the word of the day, we just need to learn how to see it.

 

[Snake of Eden]

OK. But who gets to determine what weakness is or what strong is? Is it possible that we, as a species, are evolving past the need for "strong"? Maybe... what's seen as a weakness is purely a man-made judgment that is unable to see the value of what is happening. As an example, nerds were considered weak and unimportant. Now, they are someone to seek out for their wisdom in certain areas of life, thus, balancing out the population. I believe that the human species is far too complex to be included in natural selection. That being said, balance seems to be the word of the day, we just need to learn how to see it.

i second everything you said. We are way more complex than animals or plants that are bred to have certain desirable characteristics. We as species are too short sighted to discern our full potential and often get lost with what we deem desirable now and would like to have full control to get the type of citizens we desire and deem as perfect even though it is a total facade. While I do recognize there are many genetic flaws and undesirable traits that cause suffering and get passed down one generation to the next but I dont believe in the approach taken by the unpopular guy from 1930s with a funny mustache is the way to go to bring our species to a better state

 

[Grey-zoner]

I think eugenics, in principle, would be possible for humans--we routinely do it to other mammals... BUT ethical concerns aside, the selection for whatever physical or cognitive traits decided on would take so long (at least hundreds of years) that by the point it begins to take statistical effect society would already have changed its standards many times over, or blown itself up.
As for helping the weak, the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper had this relevant remark during World War 2:
"The theory that the human race might live a little longer if it had not made the fatal mistake of helping the weak is most questionable; but even if it were true—is mere length of survival of the race really all we want? Or is the almost perfect man-beast so eminently valuable that we should prefer a prolongation of his existence to our experiment of helping the weak?"
Strong people, in other words, can often be ass-holes. I've met plenty of kind people who are developmentally challenged, and many quick-witted bastards.

In any case, it's not like we're living in anything like a "natural human environment", as others have noted.

 

[demuic]

I think eugenics, in principle, would be possible for humans--we routinely do it to other mammals... BUT ethical concerns aside, the selection for whatever physical or cognitive traits decided on would take so long (at least hundreds of years) that by the point it begins to take statistical effect society would already have changed its standards many times over, or blown itself up.
As for helping the weak, the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper had this relevant remark during World War 2:
"The theory that the human race might live a little longer if it had not made the fatal mistake of helping the weak is most questionable; but even if it were true—is mere length of survival of the race really all we want? Or is the almost perfect man-beast so eminently valuable that we should prefer a prolongation of his existence to our experiment of helping the weak?"
Strong people, in other words, can often be ass-holes. I've met plenty of kind people who are developmentally challenged, and many quick-witted bastards.

In any case, it's not like we're living in anything like a "natural human environment", as others have noted.

I feel similarly.

But I think OP means it's the fact that we're not living in a natural environment that is the cause of problems, that "weak" people are artificially made to live when they would have died "naturally." Correct me if I'm wrong @Greg

Society has already shown it doesn't give a shit about protecting the weak so in the long run it would be "better" if everyone deemed weak by society disappeared rather than prolonging their existence to be tortured and abused by the "strong". But I don't think a world of only "strong" people would be much different anyway as they would still find some way to abuse each other. Humans can't handle people who are different than them or don't conform but also seeks to create differences and divisions out of the tiniest or inconsequential things, the tribalistic mentality is too engrained.

The humans left after all this would probably just be extreme psychopaths/sociopaths so maybe they would wipe each other out quicker.

Or another perspective is I doubt whoever is in charge of selecting traits would try and select for things like empathy, compassion, or creativity rather than things that would make people more obediant or productive as workers. Humans are prone to evil especially those in power so I don't trust that whatever changes made would truly be a benefit witout ulterior motives. And what is desirable changes very quickly.