to be or not to be

The solution to all the worlds problems..

BAN MEDICARE AND BAN ALL WARNING SIGNS !!

As soon as all medical care and everything involved with it are banned, natural selection will take over..
People would die younger (no needless, unproductive old farts)..
Stupid people would just die out..
No more financial problems etc..

< for those that didn't notice, this is me being sarcastic >

And for catholics.... Somewhere in the bible it says not to worship anyone but god..
What about all those saints and mother mary and stuff ??
Is that OK ??

Quote:

And for catholics.... Somewhere in the bible it says not to worship anyone but god..
What about all those saints and mother mary and stuff ??
Is that OK ??

Actually by the catholic faith it is as you do not worship saints. You pray to them as agents of the lord not for themselves.

Tedob - I'm glad you enjoyed the reply.... ok I'm game...

Something similar to the situation you describe was depicted in a film called Logans Run - don't know if you ever saw it - but I loved it.

Anyway I disagree that you're 'following the logic' - I mean I can see where you're coming from but I don't think it's necessarily following logic. It partly depends upon what you mean by being 'non productive' - someone of age 90 could still be a productive member of society in terms of what they give back to that society and given time I could probably find examples for you. Being productive is not the same as being able to reproduce.

For example both me and the g/f can at the moment still reproduce but neither of us want or feel the urge to have kids. So yes we take steps to reduce the risk of my g/f getting pregnant. Now if she did get pregnant and we let the child live - being as neither of us actually want the kid we're not going to really nuture it, we're not going to give it the opportunities it deseves. In fact we're going to be really selfish bastards and let it do whatever it wants. Given no direction or goals to aim for (because we as parents are selfish bastards who don't give a fu*k) that kids just gonna drift and probably will grow up to be a waste of space and resources. If you ask me thats wrong - it doesn't help further the species, its a drain on society and environmental resources and its a real bitch on the individual who lives their entire life in misery knowing that they aren't wanted and that they haven't really got anything to offer. Given that situation I think me and my g/f should be shot for bringing the kid into the world and not looking after it and the kid should be given the opportunity to shape up or go the same way as the parents.

Now supposing me and the g/f don't have kids - and both of us live our lives helping to keep the economy alive (or whatever) and generally being productive to society - yay gold stars all round because we haven't got an individual whos a waste of space and we've contributed a bit to keeping the society alive and maybe even put some resources back into the world. So yeah in some respects I'm all for removing those who are non productive or who intentionally put an unnecessary drain on society and the resources of the world. CLEARLY you do need people to reproduce though and if you ask me this honour should only go to those who actually want to nuture a child.
If you take away the opportunity for someone to have an abortion for a child they don't want then you aren't doing anyone any favours.

Your second point is interesting.. specifically

Quote:

i tend to think it would be healthier for the human gene pool, for the survival of our species, to have a greater input from a successful people. (with roots in poland i'll get out of the pool now)

you know as the population of the earth has expanded the health of the gene pool (at least in western countries) has decreased over the last couple of hundred years? You know why? Because technology is making children live who should otherwise be dead and allowing them to breed and thus pass on their defective genes for more generations. A friend of mine has a younger brother who was born with a heart defect - through modern science he survived where 200 years ago he would have died. Thats a wonderful thing - or is it? This younger brother now has a kid - with a similar heart defect as his own. The kids life has been saved through science again - just so it can perpetuate this defective gene. You talk about the law of nature - sometimes it is part of nature to die. There are somethings that do not need to be passed on into the gene pool

You bring up some other good points which I'd like to expand on later (if I remember to) - cos this doesn't say half the things I'd like to say. Unfortunately lunch break is up and I gotta go back to work now :(

Tedob

Quote:

while the poorer and therefore less educated and more backward peoples are reproducing in far greater numbers. with globalism staring us in the face is that something we really want? i tend to think it would be healthier for the human gene pool, for the survival of our species, to have a greater input from a successful people (with roots in poland i'll get out of the pool now)

How do you define backward or successful peoples?
A lot of the nations that might fall into one or the other of your groups today would not have a couple of hundred years ago. The relative levels of civilisation between different parts of the world are not fixed they change over time. An area that is civilised and successful today may be backward tomorrow.