Should we help the weak?

[username]

Consider this quote: "Individual organisms do not evolve; populations evolve. The individual's role is to survive and reproduce, or not. Those with beneficial variation are more likely to survive and reproduce."

With this in mind should we be helping those too weak to survive on their own to reproduce?

We have this thing called social security. People who plan for the future invest privately and do not rely upon governments to support them.

We have this thing called charity that helps those who cannot help themselves.

I could go on, but my point is should we be helping those who would die off if left to themselves?

If we wish to see a better age where people are smarter and wiser should we be helping those who cannot make it in this life without assistance?

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by username
If we wish to see a better age where people are smarter and wiser should we be helping those who cannot make it in this life without assistance?

It kind of comes down to what you are most concerned about:
- the state of the human species 10 000 years from now.
- the state of your own 'humanity' right now.

Also, evolution doesn't make something 'better' in a philosophical sense, it makes something more suitable to the environment they live in. We have not and can not prevent evolution, but people on welfare are already well-adapted to their environment.

[PixyMisa]

Basic welfare programs can make a lot of sense.

You have a highly trained, I dunno, a highly-trained network engineer. Pretty smart guy, useful set of skills.

Bottom falls out of the networking market due to economic fluxions. Networking guy gets laid off, finds it hard to get a new job. (He may be great with Cisco routers, but his social skills aren't up to scratch.)

It makes good economic sense in the long term to make sure people like this don't end up on the trash heap. Of course, there are many ways to do this, and state-run welfare programs are only one of those. And all government programs tend to grow without limit, so welfare needs to be sharply pruned from time to time.

So, yes, we should.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Basic welfare programs can make a lot of sense.

You have a highly trained, I dunno, a highly-trained network engineer. Pretty smart guy, useful set of skills.

Bottom falls out of the networking market due to economic fluxions. Networking guy gets laid off, finds it hard to get a new job. (He may be great with Cisco routers, but his social skills aren't up to scratch.)

It makes good economic sense in the long term to make sure people like this don't end up on the trash heap. Of course, there are many ways to do this, and state-run welfare programs are only one of those. And all government programs tend to grow without limit, so welfare needs to be sharply pruned from time to time.

So, yes, we should.
In that sense,the cream always seems to rise to the top.I don't know if I have ever come across someone who is smart and ambitious that is not working at something.But for those people that have been truly dealt a bad hand they have to be helped.Societies are guaged on how they treat their weak

[Marquis de Carabas]

The weak evolved a special pheromone that makes people help them, so they are "those with beneficial variation."

[iain]

Don't base your morality on evolution. Evolution is a biological process, not a moral one. Don't confuse what it with what should be.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by username
Consider this quote: "Individual organisms do not evolve; populations evolve. The individual's role is to survive and reproduce, or not. Those with beneficial variation are more likely to survive and reproduce."

With this in mind should we be helping those too weak to survive on their own to reproduce?

We have this thing called social security. People who plan for the future invest privately and do not rely upon governments to support them.

We have this thing called charity that helps those who cannot help themselves.

I could go on, but my point is should we be helping those who would die off if left to themselves?

If we wish to see a better age where people are smarter and wiser should we be helping those who cannot make it in this life without assistance?

Who is we? What do you mean by "should". See, there are all sorts our cultural assumptions in your questions which prevent you from getting meaningful answers. Someone would have to go through all the trouble of specifically redefining everything. There is no we. Who dictates "should". Your post suggests that you take at face value the definitions that society has given you for what constitutes the real social fabric. But all of this stuff is just a social construct that could have any number of configurations. Look at it this way. You are standing there and there is another person standing over there who is struggling. Strip away everything else - what do you feel inclined to do? There is no "should" and the is no "we". It is all an artifice.

[Tormac]

The basic definition of the "weak" is a tricky one.

For what ever reason a person that is "weak" in the sense that they are unsuccessful at finding a comfortable level of affluence in society may well be a good shot with a hand gun, good at bullying and intimidating people, and an excellent at organizing quiz-militaristic organizations (street gangs, organized crime mobs, etc.)

If people are given the choice between anti social behavior and starvation, from an individual's standpoint, anti social behavior makes sense.

The "weak", may well turn out to be social predators who find an easy path to affluence through violence.

Most societies, even authoritarian ones, have some basic socio-economic help for individuals who are unsuccessful as a means of discouraging the poor from engaging in anti-social behavior that is more costly in the long run than the cost of the help.

It is also very difficult to attempt to apply the theories of evolution (ones that requires a geologic time scale) to societies that measure time in terms of decades, and occasionally centuries.

[RamblingOnwards]

How about this to think about -

If every pregnancy by law had to be the result of artificial insemination and you were in charge of the Human Breeding Program, what characteristics would you select for in the donor 'parents'?

- IQ
- History of money making ability
- Artistic talent
- Good Health
- Appearance?

Would the donor need a certain level of 'general OKness' or would you permit donors who excel in one area, but are generally weak in others?

How much have we learnt from domestic animal breeding projects?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I would select donors based on their resemblance to Carrot Top. I'd only regret that I would not live to see the day, many generations hence, when all of humanity were pathetic prop comedians with shocking hair.

Seriously, though, I'm reminded of the story in the Hitchhiker's Trilogy (can we even call it that with a straight face?) about the planet that shipped off all their unwanteds, including telephone sanitation workers, and then all died of an infection caught originally from a dirty telephone. It takes all kinds. I'd probably select my donors completely at random.

[voodoochile]

Well, if we don't then Stepehen Hawking is toast and that would be a huge loss for all of humankind.

Social Darwinism does not work, period.

[username]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, if we don't then Stepehen Hawking is toast and that would be a huge loss for all of humankind.

Social Darwinism does not work, period.

I was probably not as clear as I could have been in my OP question.

Looking at humanity 10,000 years from now (assuming we survive) will we have nurtured well adapted, capable people or will we have adapted people who depend upon others for basic survival?

In the animal kingdom offspring that can't make it on their own are eventually cut off and allowed to perish. Survival of the fittest I suppose.

Humans seem to be the only animal that takes those incapable of surviving on their own and providing them with what they need. These persons are also allowed to breed.

I am not suggesting we (government) necessarily should proactively weed such people out, rather I am wondering what the net effect on humanity over a long period of time will be as a result of our doing this.

There is only so much dead weight that can be supported.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by username
Looking at humanity 10,000 years from now (assuming we survive) will we have nurtured well adapted, capable people or will we have adapted people who depend upon others for basic survival?

In the animal kingdom offspring that can't make it on their own are eventually cut off and allowed to perish. Survival of the fittest I suppose.

Depends on the species. Like most primates, humans are social animals, and rarely survive completely alone. A group of weaklings has a better chance of survival than a solitary strong individual. The genes that offer the best hope of getting themselves passed down are the ones that inspire social behavior.

Ironically, the best way to ensure natural evolutionary success is to build civilizations and technology and stop being so natural.



There is only so much dead weight that can be supported.

Civilization alters the definition of "success" so much as to make comparisons with the natural world difficult. For example, Paris Hilton is, in terms of money, security, and ability to obtain everything she needs to flourish, a far more successful person than, probably, everyone who will ever read this sentence. All of her "success", however far it will take her in the civilized world, amounts to absolutely nothing in terms of the natural world.

If she were among the people stranded on a deserted island with no hope of rescue, for example, utterly removed from civilization and its unnatural definitions of success, Paris Hilton would probably not have many skills to offer the group and would not be very successful. In fact, I'm willing to be she'd be dead within hours if left on her own, and utterly dependent on the mercy of the group if with others.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by username
I was probably not as clear as I could have been in my OP question.

Looking at humanity 10,000 years from now (assuming we survive) will we have nurtured well adapted, capable people or will we have adapted people who depend upon others for basic survival?
We already are a species that depends upon others for basic survival. Hell, most, if not all, species fit this description. So you're really asking about degrees of dependency, not a dichotomy between indepenence and dependence. I don't know about you, but I don't find myself smart enough to draw the line about how much dependence is too much and should be cut off.

In the animal kingdom offspring that can't make it on their own are eventually cut off and allowed to perish. Survival of the fittest I suppose.
We're in the animal kingdom. OK, so I know what you mean. As noted above by iain, you're confusing your is's with your oughts.

Humans seem to be the only animal that takes those incapable of surviving on their own and providing them with what they need. These persons are also allowed to breed.

I am not suggesting we (government) necessarily should proactively weed such people out, rather I am wondering what the net effect on humanity over a long period of time will be as a result of our doing this.
With any luck, we'll eventually create a culture that cares for and respects all its members. I doubt it, but I can't see how the other way has any brighter a furture.

There is only so much dead weight that can be supported.
Exactly. Please, then, support the dead weight that is your argument.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by username
I was probably not as clear as I could have been in my OP question.

Looking at humanity 10,000 years from now (assuming we survive) will we have nurtured well adapted, capable people or will we have adapted people who depend upon others for basic survival?

In the animal kingdom offspring that can't make it on their own are eventually cut off and allowed to perish. Survival of the fittest I suppose.

Humans seem to be the only animal that takes those incapable of surviving on their own and providing them with what they need. These persons are also allowed to breed.

I am not suggesting we (government) necessarily should proactively weed such people out, rather I am wondering what the net effect on humanity over a long period of time will be as a result of our doing this.

There is only so much dead weight that can be supported.

There is very little net effect so long as our intelligence continues to grow.

The ability to think rationally and process through complex problems that take many steps to solve and build apon past knowledge obtained by the species makes "physical evolution" less necessary for the survival of the species.

Now there may come a time in the far future when many able bodied people leave Earth leaving a home planet that is decaying in terms of physical ability, but that is so far off in the distance as to be moot for practical decisions.

The human species will survive so long as there is an environment to support it and so long as the superior aliens don't come down and build a super highway through the neighborhood, blowing up the Earth in the process in an act of Galactic Manifest Destiny before humans have managed to get off planet in any meaningful numbers.

The species does continue to evolve also. People are being born with out an appendix and without wisdom teeth already (I didn't have upper wisdom teeth for example).

This is before we even consider the possibilities of genetic enhancement allowing for trait selection.

Heck, you can already order sperm from various "geniuses" and I am sure that will be true of sports superstars also (if it isn't already). Give it time, if there is a buck to be made, someone will make it and we are just at the tip of the genetic manipulation iceberg.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by username
There is only so much dead weight that can be supported. hmmm, I find someone with so little regard for other human beings is more "dead weight" then those that are unable to help them selves. So using your logic, I wouldn't be making any long term plans if I were you :D

Seriously, while we may be "animals" we are thinking ones. I can't accept the notion that the goal of humans is simply to evolve and reproduce based upon someone's definition of "beneficial variation".

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Depends on the species. Like most primates, humans are social animals, and rarely survive completely alone. A group of weaklings has a better chance of survival than a solitary strong individual. The genes that offer the best hope of getting themselves passed down are the ones that inspire social behavior.

Ironically, the best way to ensure natural evolutionary success is to build civilizations and technology and stop being so natural.




Civilization alters the definition of "success" so much as to make comparisons with the natural world difficult. For example, Paris Hilton is, in terms of money, security, and ability to obtain everything she needs to flourish, a far more successful person than, probably, everyone who will ever read this sentence. All of her "success", however far it will take her in the civilized world, amounts to absolutely nothing in terms of the natural world.

If she were among the people stranded on a deserted island with no hope of rescue, for example, utterly removed from civilization and its unnatural definitions of success, Paris Hilton would probably not have many skills to offer the group and would not be very successful. In fact, I'm willing to be she'd be dead within hours if left on her own, and utterly dependent on the mercy of the group if with others.

In a reality game show, maybe, but in a realy life dessert island situation, everyone would have to work together to survive. No one would be left to die as a larger group has a better chance of hunting and foraging together.

On a small enough island with a large stranded group, there would be supply shortages, but someone like Paris is probably in pretty good shape and also eats less than larger individiduals and of course then there is the fact that she's an attractive woman and odds are more physically attractive than the other women she is stranded with. Don't discount that factor when considering your answer. She's also a celebrity. Ginger didn't exactly get left out in the cold on Gilligan's Island and the same would be said of any star stranded in a similar situation.

The dynamics of the group would cause them to expect to be rescued and if they killed or left for dead their only celebrity just becaus she appears to be weak, it wouldn't play well when they were rescued. It would definitely be a factor in their thinking.

Left completely isolated on a large enough land mass to allow the group to start to populate, Paris would be a prime choice for mate among the males in the group.

Trust me, she wouldn't die that quickly.

Just because somone is a pampered effete star in this reality does not mean they would become useless in a life or death situation. She would react like any animal and realize that her survival depended on her being part of the group. She could at least haul water or do other mundane tasks if she cannot be counted on to hunt or forage well.

Given time, her skills would improve like any person in that situation.

How many people would survive for a long time stranded alone on an island anyway?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by username
Humans seem to be the only animal that takes those incapable of surviving on their own and providing them with what they need. These persons are also allowed to breed.

And if you dont agree with that, why dont you kill your parents or grandparents?, they do not serve any purpose. No offense intended.

Because you care about them.

Well, humanity, as a whole, care about the ones who are, "weak" (that term, by the way, smells like racism).

In a sense I dont really care for people who make 2 dollars a month and barely have something to eat, and cant afford nice cloths. But I think they are part of humanity and have the same desire to live as I have. Just because of that, I donate to charity programs and help, from time to time, people who is "weak".

[TragicMonkey]

I guess I just don't find Paris Hilton attractive. She reminds me of one of those spindly lizards that leaves a tail and legs behind when escaping from cats. Her face is just so...pointy.

But you're right, she might survive the desert island situation, if only because they're isn't any meat on her to make cannibalism worth the effort.

[username]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
And if you dont agree with that, why dont you kill your parents or grandparents?, they do not serve any purpose. No offense intended.

Because you care about them.

Well, humanity, as a whole, care about the ones who are, "weak" (that term, by the way, smells like racism).

In a sense I dont really care for people who make 2 dollars a month and barely have something to eat, and cant afford nice cloths. But I think they are part of humanity and have the same desire to live as I have. Just because of that, I donate to charity programs and help, from time to time, people who is "weak".

I am not arguing for killing people. It seems some are interpreting me in a really bad light. I am not suggesting anyone do anything.

I am simply asking a question after having pondered evolution. What is likely to happen to a species that nurtures it's weak (define it however you like) rather than allowing their weakness to be their undoing?

Survival of the species seems to depend upon those most fit for survival in whatever conditions exist being able to meet those challenges. Given our fondness for democratic forms of government it would seem that an aristocracy of sorts should be preferred.

If we continue to nurtue those who are incapable (or just unwilling) to survive independently of support systems for the weakest (ie handouts), what will this lead to 10,000 years from now when we face a monumental challenge to our survival?

It isn't as if being human makes us unique in this regard, some cultures prior to the industrial revolution were migratory and those unable to make the trip were left behind.

I am not arguing we should do that today, I am just wondering what the effect on our species will be as a result of the fact that the genes of the fittest, most adaptable are not the only ones in the gene pool.

It further becomes concerning when one realizes that the most capable societies are also the ones with the lowest birth rate.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by username
I am not arguing for killing people. It seems some are interpreting me in a really bad light. I am not suggesting anyone do anything.

I am simply asking a question after having pondered evolution. What is likely to happen to a species that nurtures it's weak (define it however you like) rather than allowing their weakness to be their undoing?

Survival of the species seems to depend upon those most fit for survival in whatever conditions exist being able to meet those challenges. Given our fondness for democratic forms of government it would seem that an aristocracy of sorts should be preferred.

If we continue to nurtue those who are incapable (or just unwilling) to survive independently of support systems for the weakest (ie handouts), what will this lead to 10,000 years from now when we face a monumental challenge to our survival?

It isn't as if being human makes us unique in this regard, some cultures prior to the industrial revolution were migratory and those unable to make the trip were left behind.

I am not arguing we should do that today, I am just wondering what the effect on our species will be as a result of the fact that the genes of the fittest, most adaptable are not the only ones in the gene pool.

It further becomes concerning when one realizes that the most capable societies are also the ones with the lowest birth rate.

Are you actually arguing that a desire to live on welfare (for example) is a genetic trait that can be passed on? That seems pretty clearly to be a social issue to me.

This is starting to read like some anti-third world rant which borders on racism. Sorry to be blunt and I don't know if that is your intention or not, but if that is not your intention, you need to explain better.

What people are receiving handouts and have no desire to better themselves? People who live in deserts in Africa where there isn't even toilet paper?

Obviously as the dominant species on the planet, many of the traits that were highly necessary 5000 years ago are not as important today. Humans have domesticated all plant and animal food we consume for the most part and machines make it possible for a fw people to raise enough food to feed thousands. Very few people subsist by hunting and even they tend to use guns or at least bow and arrow so stealth is more highly prized than speed and strength.

Intelligence is the single biggest aspect of human dominance. Without a massive support team, does the POTUS survive?

All of us depend on others to grow our food - for the most part. All of us depend on others for jobs so we can buy that food. All of us depend on others to do medical research so we won't be wiped clean off the face of the planet by the next supervirus that comes along. All of us depend on city engineers to keep the water flowing so we have potable water.

I guess I just don't see what you are getting at and think you need to give some examples of problems you see turning into long term issues for the species genetic advancement if you are going to clarify it for me. Perhaps others understand you better, but I just don't see your point.

[username]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Are you actually arguing that a desire to live on welfare (for example) is a genetic trait that can be passed on? That seems pretty clearly to be a social issue to me.

Social issues likely play a huge role, but not all children born to 'welfare queens' live in poverty their whole life. Many do, but not all.

This is starting to read like some anti-third world rant which borders on racism. Sorry to be blunt and I don't know if that is your intention or not, but if that is not your intention, you need to explain better.

I wish you would simply stop trying to read between the lines. There is nothing there. I am not defining what "weak" means nor am I giving any examples of said weakness. It isn't relevant from my perspective. I want this to be a topic people actually think about, not a topic that just gets typical knee jerk reactions from people who read sinister motives into situations.

What people are receiving handouts and have no desire to better themselves? People who live in deserts in Africa where there isn't even toilet paper?

2 of my sisters in law would be examples. One is simply a drugged out loser with a few kids, each from a different father. One she never married, the other she did, but he is in prison. She lives on a combination of welfare, family support (grandparents bought her a house) and she runs an in home day care that is illegal due to her dozen or so cats and dogs that crap all over the house. The other sister in law has a seemingly irresistable attraction to men who are losers. The first guy killed himself in a car crash while drugged up, the other cheated on her, but not before he rapred her and impregnated her with her 2nd child. She didn't want another child, but she doesn't want to abort it either. She hasn't held a job in a decade and she refuses all jobs offering more than x dollars per hour because she would loose 'government' benefits.

There are 4 sisters in total, 2 are complete losers and 2 are not. Genetic, social, who cares, the point is that the children of the 2 losers are headed nowhere. It is already obvious in observing them.

Obviously as the dominant species on the planet, many of the traits that were highly necessary 5000 years ago are not as important today. Humans have domesticated all plant and animal food we consume for the most part and machines make it possible for a fw people to raise enough food to feed thousands. Very few people subsist by hunting and even they tend to use guns or at least bow and arrow so stealth is more highly prized than speed and strength.

I am not talking about specific skills. The skills most needed in any age will vary. What I am refering to are those who demonstrate no real skill because they don't seek to support themselves. They seem to expect that others will take care of them and get angry when someone says no. They seem to have offspring who have the same values (or lack thereof). Society helps these people with handouts. There is no gratitude for these handouts, no sense of responisibility to use the handouts wisely, just a feeling of entitlement.

I guess I just don't see what you are getting at and think you need to give some examples of problems you see turning into long term issues for the species genetic advancement if you are going to clarify it for me. Perhaps others understand you better, but I just don't see your point.


My point is that there are people alive who are breeding. some of these people don't seem capable of rising to any challenge. Either someone supports them or they would simply die off.

I am not talking about the person who is afflicted with bad luck and needs a hand to get back up again. I am talking about people who are dependant upon lifelong helping hands to even survive. Not mentally retarded folks as they don't normally reproduce, I am talking about those who do breed, consider it their right to do so, but accept no responsibility for thier lot in life and always look for the handout and complain if it isn't at the ready.

US (and other) culture seems to value providing for such people rather than allowing them to die off.

The fact is that such people are outbreeding those who are more responsible (and fit) to survive in our present age.

They can vote too.

Left unchecked, what will this lead to for humanity?

[LW]

Originally posted by username

I am simply asking a question after having pondered evolution. What is likely to happen to a species that nurtures it's weak (define it however you like) rather than allowing their weakness to be their undoing?

OK. I'll take the approach that "weak" is a person who dies if I shoot him with a pistol that I stole after I run out of money because welfarewas cut off.

Now, are you "weak" or "strong"?

Read Tormac's answer above. Modern weaponry is quite a big force equalizer and I don't think all those living on welfare would just quietly lie down and die if it was cut off.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by username
What is likely to happen to a species that nurtures it's weak (define it however you like) rather than allowing their weakness to be their undoing?

I think you're going to have to define weak here for the argument to mean anything. Weak in the purely evolutionary sense of 'will not produce young' is not anything we are able to switch off, by definition. The 'weak' in our current culture are the risk-takers (they die in car accidents, or whatever), and the people in high-paying jobs (less willing to have children).

If you mean things like the general population's eyesight is getting worse because there is no longer an evolutionary disadvantage to it, well, yes. But why do we care? There is no evolutionary disadvantage to it.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by username
What is likely to happen to a species that nurtures it's weak (define it however you like) rather than allowing their weakness to be their undoing?
When said species is capable of genetic engineering, the answer is Whatever it wants.
If we continue to nurtue those who are incapable (or just unwilling) to survive independently of support systems for the weakest (ie handouts), what will this lead to 10,000 years from now when we face a monumental challenge to our survival?
Like... What? A sudden antelope shortage?
It isn't as if being human makes us unique in this regard, some cultures prior to the industrial revolution were migratory and those unable to make the trip were left behind.
Yeah, well, we've evolved cars since then.
I am not arguing we should do that today, I am just wondering what the effect on our species will be as a result of the fact that the genes of the fittest, most adaptable are not the only ones in the gene pool.
What will happen is what we decide to make happen.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by username
Social issues likely play a huge role, but not all children born to 'welfare queens' live in poverty their whole life. Many do, but not all.



I wish you would simply stop trying to read between the lines. There is nothing there. I am not defining what "weak" means nor am I giving any examples of said weakness. It isn't relevant from my perspective. I want this to be a topic people actually think about, not a topic that just gets typical knee jerk reactions from people who read sinister motives into situations.



2 of my sisters in law would be examples. One is simply a drugged out loser with a few kids, each from a different father. One she never married, the other she did, but he is in prison. She lives on a combination of welfare, family support (grandparents bought her a house) and she runs an in home day care that is illegal due to her dozen or so cats and dogs that crap all over the house. The other sister in law has a seemingly irresistable attraction to men who are losers. The first guy killed himself in a car crash while drugged up, the other cheated on her, but not before he rapred her and impregnated her with her 2nd child. She didn't want another child, but she doesn't want to abort it either. She hasn't held a job in a decade and she refuses all jobs offering more than x dollars per hour because she would loose 'government' benefits.

There are 4 sisters in total, 2 are complete losers and 2 are not. Genetic, social, who cares, the point is that the children of the 2 losers are headed nowhere. It is already obvious in observing them.



I am not talking about specific skills. The skills most needed in any age will vary. What I am refering to are those who demonstrate no real skill because they don't seek to support themselves. They seem to expect that others will take care of them and get angry when someone says no. They seem to have offspring who have the same values (or lack thereof). Society helps these people with handouts. There is no gratitude for these handouts, no sense of responisibility to use the handouts wisely, just a feeling of entitlement.




My point is that there are people alive who are breeding. some of these people don't seem capable of rising to any challenge. Either someone supports them or they would simply die off.

I am not talking about the person who is afflicted with bad luck and needs a hand to get back up again. I am talking about people who are dependant upon lifelong helping hands to even survive. Not mentally retarded folks as they don't normally reproduce, I am talking about those who do breed, consider it their right to do so, but accept no responsibility for thier lot in life and always look for the handout and complain if it isn't at the ready.

US (and other) culture seems to value providing for such people rather than allowing them to die off.

The fact is that such people are outbreeding those who are more responsible (and fit) to survive in our present age.

They can vote too.

Left unchecked, what will this lead to for humanity?

political rant... wrong forum...

What will it mean to society? To humanity?

That there will always be lazy drug addicts in our midst and people who prey on them.

You think your sisters are someone to emulate? Like everyone is saying, 'Ooooo..... I really really really want to be like her." :rolleyes:

Oh no... the poor people are voting! RUNAWAY RUNAWAY...

GMAFB!

Long and short answer to the "real question you are asking"

No, it won't be an issue in the long term. Eventually each of these "lines of regression" will hit a dead end where all the children end up dead or in jail before they can reproduce or produce nothing but men who impregnate women who raise the children better and things start to improve. Like it or not, the description of the lifestyles you've given for you sister is reason enough to not live that way. Most animals will seek to better their chance of survival. In human terms that means becoming smarter, richer, more desireable to people of the opposite sex so you can reproduce and pass along your genetic material.

It's a completely moot point, IMO and one that isn't a evolutionary discussion but a political one, IMO.

[username]

It doesn't seem this is a good place to discuss this topic, so I am withdrawing from it.

I mean no offense to anyone, but it seems like instead of discussing things, the tone here is more accusatory.

I was looking for a chat. Sorry.

[Mason]

It doesn't seem this is a good place to discuss this topic, so I am withdrawing from it.

I mean no offense to anyone, but it seems like instead of discussing things, the tone here is more accusatory.

I was looking for a chat. Sorry.

It's not a bad topic, or bad place to discuss it. I think the main problem you're running into is the lack of definition for "weak".

For purposes of (what seems to be) this discussion, I would consider "weak" to be a person who is incapable of surviving in his environment (long enough to reproduce) without the aid of others, and given the chance to reproduce would provide a line of decendants who would, cumulatively, produce a negative contribution to society.

For example, the lady who would have died without social aid, then produces children who can not survive without social aid, such that 10,000 years from now that family tree has given (overall) a negative value to society.

Or the mentally incompetent, who would have died in youth, but instead ends up in a home for the incompetent, where he interacts with and ultimately impregnates another incompetent, thereby passing his flawed genes on to yet another generation of incompetents such that 10,000 years from now the social drain for dealing with incompetents still exists, where it could have been eliminated simply by not going to such an effort to ensure that it survives.

Is this basically what you're aiming for?

[username]

Originally posted by Mason
It's not a bad topic, or bad place to discuss it. I think the main problem you're running into is the lack of definition for "weak".

...

Is this basically what you're aiming for?

Yes, basically, but I left 'weak' undefined in an attempt to avoid anyone infering racism, classism or any other ism into the discussion. Didn't work.

Any person, who for any reason, wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce if they were not receiving assistance would qualify.

I am not seeking to pass any moral judgements at all.

I also recognize that it can be difficult to distinguish between problems that are genetic, social or a combination. I don't know that for a casual discussion as I intended this one to be we need to focus on it.

I am looking to speculate intelligently on what the outcome of this (assisting the weak to survive long enought to breed) might be over time.

One possible example of a future problem is the fact that bithrates internationally as well as domestically (in the US) seem to be higher the lower one goes in the income classifications. There are all sorts of reasons why any specific person might be in a low income category. Nevertheless this trend appears that it could present problems the longer it continues. The assumption is that those who are among the lowest income categories are the ones who require the most assistance from others (for whatever reason) to survive.

In the animal kingdom (yes, I know humans are animals) we don't see the nurturing of the weak (again, define it however you wish, the end result is simply that the creature doesn't survive to breed).

When humans intentionally breed animals we perform genetic testing on the parents as well as offspring to ensure that they are not carrying negative genetic traits. If they are they are not bred.

There seems to be a realization among all animals including humans that survival of the species depends upon breeding out problems rather than breeding them in or multiplying existing problems.

The exception seems to be human society where the weak (again, define it however you wish, but the end result is a person who wouldn't survive to breed without assistance) are assisted and it would appear they breed at a higher than average rate.

[JJM 777]

... takes those incapable of surviving on their own and providing them with what they need. These persons are also allowed to breed.

Protest:

1) I don't think that people with the most serious hereditary diseases are legally allowed to breed. I am not an expert on legal issues, though, so let me just say that in any case the law should deny the right to produce biological descendant from persons who have the Down syndrome, or you know what I'm talking about.

2) Every human being and nearly all animals are "incapable of surviving on their own" for a long time after birth. This casts a shadow of vanity to this whole discussion: not a single human being has ever been born who would have been "capable of surviving on his own". Newborn babies are not very good at hunting food. Not even at eating.

And besides, I am not at all so sure how capable I myself would be to survive, if the SuperMarket didn't exist where I buy my daily food. So I am not "surviving on my own", I am surviving with food cooked by others.

[username]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Protest:


Respectfully, there is nothing to protest.

I am not judging anyone.

I am not suggesting that anyone do anything about anything.

This OP isn't about identifying problems and ways to correct those problems.

The OP is about looking at how humans in modern societies nurture offspring that if treated the way, say, a mamma bird treats her baby birds, wouldn't survive to reproduce.

I am not arguing that the way modern humans nurture young is wrong. I am not arguing it should change.

I am asking for intelligent speculation as to what the long term impact on human societies might be as a result of how we do things.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by username
*snip*

In the animal kingdom (yes, I know humans are animals) we don't see the nurturing of the weak (again, define it however you wish, the end result is simply that the creature doesn't survive to breed).
I alluded to this question above. I'll state it outright here: what level of nurturing is acceptable before something is "weak"? Avoid defining weak all you want. Everything is nurtured to some degree. If you can't define your own terms, this entire discussion is useless.

When humans intentionally breed animals we perform genetic testing on the parents as well as offspring to ensure that they are not carrying negative genetic traits. If they are they are not bred.

There seems to be a realization among all animals including humans that survival of the species depends upon breeding out problems rather than breeding them in or multiplying existing problems.
No other animal I've heard of is concerned at all for such lofty goals as 'survival of the species.' Animals dig on their own survival and, in many cases, survival of mates, offspring, and other kin, real or fictive.

The exception seems to be human society where the weak (again, define it however you wish, but the end result is a person who wouldn't survive to breed without assistance) are assisted and it would appear they breed at a higher than average rate.
Everyone is assisted. How much is too much? Until you answer, this can go nowhere.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by username
The OP is about looking at how humans in modern societies nurture offspring that if treated the way, say, a mamma bird treats her baby birds, wouldn't survive to reproduce.

I am not arguing that the way modern humans nurture young is wrong. I am not arguing it should change.

I am asking for intelligent speculation as to what the long term impact on human societies might be as a result of how we do things.

Protest: ;)

"...should we be helping those who would die off if left to themselves?"
"If we wish to see a better age where people are smarter and wiser should we be helping those who cannot make it in this life without assistance?"

These are moral, not factual inquiries into the state of mankind in 10,000 years. They "might" in fact be the cause of all this bickering over social darwinism.
To the original question my answer would be: YES, because let me ask you this. If you were weak, by your own vague definition, would you want to be helped?

In answer to your revised question:
I think that most selective pressure is gone, this means that mankind doesn't change very much physically, and also 10,000 years is nothing at all on evolutionary scale.
However cultural things like technology still evolve at a phenomenal rate and there's no telling where it will end. Once direct genetic engineering on humans becomes practice there is especially no way of telling what mankind will be like in the year 12,000.

[username]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
[B]I alluded to this question above. I'll state it outright here: what level of nurturing is acceptable before something is "weak"? Avoid defining weak all you want. Everything is nurtured to some degree. If you can't define your own terms, this entire discussion is useless.



I have reread my OP and was shocked at how ill defined and even misdirecting it is. I wish this forum allowed those who create a topic to close it as I would like to close this one and perhaps start over in a few days. All I do in this thread is attempt to explain and define my OP.

Anyway, it isn't really important to precisely define 'how much nururing'. It isn't the point.

The point is that among modern humans there is no allowing natural forces to cull those who are too weak to survive.

If you need a better definition then just define it as a person who, as an adult, isn't capable of managing their own affairs well enough to avoid ending up on the street.
This really isn't a definition I like, but if you really need a definition then you can use that one.

The question (revised) is what might be the long term impacts to current societies as a result of providing for these persons and their reproducing?

Example: Possibly today's modern societies will fail due to economic stresses they can't support. Future societies will 'evolve' to recognize they cannot nuture those members who are that dependant upon others.

Example: Possibly a modern society will fall by the wayside when it comes to filling industry needs. There won't be enough people capable of mastering the technologies modern societies depend on so other nations will take the place of those which curently do it.

Example: Possibly the population of those requiring assistance will rise to the point where crime and taxes grow so high to deal with their needs that a society will implement radical polices to curb the population of such people. Possibly this will lead to a popular revolt.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by username
The point is that among modern humans there is no allowing natural forces to cull those who are too weak to survive.
The problem, of course, is that the actions of modern humans are natural forces. The behaviour of local organisms is part of the environment in which any other lifeform survives and reproduces.

The question (revised) is what might be the long term impacts to current societies as a result of providing for these persons and their reproducing?
Well, let's say we stop helping them. Let them die. Who cares? The simple fact is, as long as there is competition (read: as long as there is life), there will be losers. If we breed out our current losers, are we just striving to build a better class of losers?

Also, how do we control for the future? Perhaps these weak people have some genetic trait which will allow their descendants to excel in some unforeseen future environment. Maybe the world will change in such ways over the next few thousand years that my descendants will be dependent upon the descendants of my weaker peers. How do we know?

That's the problem with prognostication. The farther into the future you look, the worse your predictions get. There are simply too many variables. What might the long term impacts be? Damned near anything.

[username]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
The problem, of course, is that the actions of modern humans are natural forces. The behaviour of local organisms is part of the environment in which any other lifeform survives and reproduces.

Correct, but this assistance is a force that will likely have an effect on the evolution of the human population. This assistance is something we can do, not do, do more of, do less or or do differently. It is different than say, our ability as a species to adapt to climate change, which we may or may not be able to affect. How we respond to the weaker members of our societies is something we can have an affect on.

I think that as individuals as well as societies/governments we usually make our decisions based upon the short term and are motivated by emotional or political concerns. In this thread I would like to put those influences aside and examine these decisions from the perspective of their potential impact upon the evolution of the human population.

Well, let's say we stop helping them. Let them die. Who cares? The simple fact is, as long as there is competition (read: as long as there is life), there will be losers. If we breed out our current losers, are we just striving to build a better class of losers?

Quite possibly. Looking in the long term is this a bad thing? A good thing? Neither? Not looking for absolute proof, just reasoned speculation. On the one hand a 'better class of loser' might be a good thing if it means the average level of intelligence, ambition, health etc increases. There might be negatives as well. Feel free to speculat on what you think those negatives might be if you (or anyone else) thinks there might be a downside to 'building a better class of losers'.

Also, how do we control for the future? Perhaps these weak people have some genetic trait which will allow their descendants to excel in some unforeseen future environment. Maybe the world will change in such ways over the next few thousand years that my descendants will be dependent upon the descendants of my weaker peers. How do we know?

We don't know, but assisting the weak is something we can't not control (notice the double negative). We have to *choose* either to assist or not to assist. If we choose to assist we have to *choose* how much and in what ways and for how long we assist. It could be that the decision to assist or not assist in any given way/degree will ultimately lead to positive or negative issues for the population as a whole. That is what this thread is about, intelligent speculation as to what the long term impact to the human population might be if we do/do not assist/intervene in various ways.

That's the problem with prognostication. The farther into the future you look, the worse your predictions get. There are simply too many variables. What might the long term impacts be? Damned near anything.

Correct. However, 'damned near anything' could happen due to providing assistance/intervention as well as due to not assisting/intervening.

We can't know the future, but we can engage in reasoned speculation. Just for fun.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by username
*snip*I think that as individuals as well as societies/governments we usually make our decisions based upon the short term and are motivated by emotional or political concerns.
*snip*
I agree. Keep this in mind. It will come in handy in a minute.

Quite possibly. Looking in the long term is this a bad thing? A good thing? Neither? Not looking for absolute proof, just reasoned speculation. On the one hand a 'better class of loser' might be a good thing if it means the average level of intelligence, ambition, health etc increases. There might be negatives as well. Feel free to speculat on what you think those negatives might be if you (or anyone else) thinks there might be a downside to 'building a better class of losers'.
I think it'd mostly be neutral. I see no reason to change the status quo for a net neutral effect. Average levels of anything don't matter because absolute levels of anything don't matter. Relative levels matter. People can be quite content in squalor if they don't have to see their neighbours in affluence.

If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor. That's from a song. Name and artist escape me. If anyone knows, feel free to chime in.

We don't know, but assisting the weak is something we can't not control (notice the double negative). We have to *choose* either to assist or not to assist. If we choose to assist we have to *choose* how much and in what ways and for how long we assist. It could be that the decision to assist or not assist in any given way/degree will ultimately lead to positive or negative issues for the population as a whole. That is what this thread is about, intelligent speculation as to what the long term impact to the human population might be if we do/do not assist/intervene in various ways.
I don't feel this kind of speculation is very intelligent, however, since it's so likely to be absolutely fruitless. It seems to me the same as speculating on how whether I eat a ham or turkey sandwich today will affect how long I live.

Correct. However, 'damned near anything' could happen due to providing assistance/intervention as well as due to not assisting/intervening.

Again, I agree, but now for that bit up top I asked you to keep in mind. It seems that our short-term interests include a certain amount of helping the less fortunate. Some people, and most societies, seem to think that we should help the "weak." This is how we are.

Now, if we are to change how we are, we need a reason to do it. We don't need a reason to just keep being us. Since the long-term effects are an unknown, and quite likely unknowable, quantity, I don't think they merit any serious consideration in deciding what we do with our "weak."

[JJM 777]

among modern humans there is no allowing natural forces to cull those who are too weak to survive.

This is an incedible statement.

1) If those people actually do survive (by any means), then they are evidently not "too weak to survive".

2) If left without any help by other people (such as the supermarket selling me food cooked by others), I guess I would starve to death quite quickly.

One single human being -- or one single individual of any species -- is not a population capable of survival. The wiser folks here might know the actual minimum number of individuals that according to theories are needed to make a population that is capable of surviving in the long run.

Individuals of any species do not survive: when left alone, they die to extinction. Only populations of individuals helping each other can survive.

So helping the needy is a part of the survival mechanism.

The question was: should we have this survival mechanism or not? If not, then we would not survive.

[username]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
[

I don't feel this kind of speculation is very intelligent, however, since it's so likely to be absolutely fruitless.


Then let me say in the nicest possible way that you should refrain from participating.

I made an unfortunate OP that wasn't at all clear in what I meant to say.

I spent a couple days trying to get things on track from there with little success.

I gave up trying, but then was told by one person the topic was worth continuing, just with better definition.

I did that.

If, at this point, you aren't interested in speculating along the lines I am trying to provoke discussion in, you do not have to.

I hope you understand I am not trying to be rude and you are certainly welcome to participate if you would like to, but from my perspective I have already spent too much time trying to get the discussion going/clarifying what I meant and not enough actually being able to enjoy the discussion.

[Marquis de Carabas]

No offense is taken. I was planning on bowing out, now that it is clear to me what you are after and that I would not enjoy same. I hope you find someone who'll while away the hours with you on this.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by billydkid
Who is we? What do you mean by "should".


"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: 'No.' Altruism says: 'Yes'." -- Ayn Rand

[username]

Originally posted by Beerina
Ayn Rand

Oh boy, the Ayn Rand bomb has just been dropped. This thread is now well beyond being salvagable :eek:

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Beerina
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: 'No.' Altruism says: 'Yes'." -- Ayn Rand I once had a really fun philosophy professor who said "Ayn is short for anus". This quote is a good example why. Giving to others is not 'buying your life' unless there is some outside force compelling you under threat.

[voodoochile]

Putting aside my personal feelings about this topic, I think the problem is that most of what you are dealing with is societal in nature.

For example: People who only make minimum wage are living at or below the poverty line. Yet society will always need low paid menial laborers.

But, most people who only make minimum wage cannot afford to live without some form of assisstance (roommates, parently support, low income housing, etc.)

You cannot (IMO) improve the genetic line of humans by culling these people. You cannot improve species survival by culling these people.

Most bad lines will eventually play themselves out. You cannot say, "This individual is not viable" and then turn around and predict a massive catastrophe for the human species based on that unviable organism breeding so well and so effectively that it ends up damaging the species chance of survival. No amount of governement assisstance can do that. We aren't talking about buying people mansions and letting them go hog wild in Vegas for months out of every year. The costs pale in comparison to things like worldwide military preparation (something that still has a greater chance of adversely affecting species survival over the next few millennia because of the amount of destruction potential).

There is also the flip side of the coin...

Do we damage the species ethical development by NOT helping the less fortunate along? If we get to the point where we can casually allow people to die because they "just don't measure up", then how big of a step it is to what Hitler or Stalin did (for example). Most of our species development is going to come in terms of intellectual and ethical development from here on out. If we start cutting corners and thinning the herd, we stand a chance to lose something as important as anything else, IMO.