|
McFunkerson posted:I wasn't actually trying to say anything so one sided. I guess my argument was that as a society we've reversed "survival of the fittest" by providing measures for those that nature would most likely deem unfit to continue surviving. We haven't reversed anything. Humans helping other humans to survive occurs in nature just as much as anything else that occurs in nature. We are just as much a part of nature as any plant or animal or rock. If someone with a disease or condition survives because their fellow humans helped them to survive, then nature deemed them fit to continue surviving, by definition.
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
turbomoose posted:What eugenics program ever gets press though? The entire concept of Royal Families and Nobility is in effect a eugenics program (albeit not a scientifically organized one), and has gotten plenty of press
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:it also wasn't eugenics when Donald Trump got a few million bucks from his daddy, but you didn't get a few million bucks from Donald Trump's daddy, as Hitleresque as that reality may seem to you i wasn't referring to wealth at all but rather the idea that nobility is a trait found in someone's "blood" and the corresponding idea that these traits must be preserved by selective breeding resulting in a class of people who are "better" than the masses of humanity
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 10:41
|
|