View Full Version : why not let nature take course?
06-12-2003, 12:51 AM
well i believe in survival of the fittest. you gotta help yourself.(of course children are excluded from this). i mean this worked for millions of years with humans and other animals. yet now we are seeing people become more obese and less active/fit. computers, i love em, but they are killing people literally. fast food, cars, people. then we got people going out making sure these stupid, weak people live. i don't think we ourselves should kill them but what's wrong with nature? you should let nature take it's course. if you can't care for yourself you shouldn't slow others down just for you. when i become an old man i don't want people to worry over me. i want them to just let me die taking care of myself, i want to die with my dignity. i don't want to slow down humanity the way so many have.
i don't want to make anyone mad. i myself am somewhat chunky im not obese but im not rippling either. please don't attack me personally.
06-12-2003, 12:57 AM
Well, it was our own fault I think. Our vast intelluct and creativity caused us to advance technology and society to a degree where we are utterly dependant and even addicted to it. :(
Im not saying this change is 100% negative, we have gained some positive things from it, but we have had to make some sacrifices.
06-12-2003, 05:20 PM
I agree somewhat with IS...........it's kind of iffy, I mean, I think that we do baby people too much, but I think we should make use of the technology and medical abilities we have to extend peoples lives if we can.............I dunno.
06-14-2003, 06:04 AM
Computer problem is one thing. We can teach our kids how to behave. But what you prepose as I understand is somehow regressive. Humanity did such an enormous job and to stop would be it's death. Nothing in nature ever stops.
When we took our first conscious (intellectual, emotional) step we failed to fit the natural selection (as commonly understood). Let's just say there is no nature course for us now (again commonly for animals).
Natural selection for example is no longer an adaptive limitation to us and not the evolution developer. An invalid one eyed person can survive and further more gain success in our society.
For example imagine a genius like Hawking who could not possibly survive if lived in with cave people, or Albert Einstein who'd also probably have died there. But it is thanks to them we are now at this point of such scientific advancement.
What I mean is that we're knowledge-bearing organism and not just our gene bear knowledge (it's a property of any life) but also our advanced conscious mind (like no other creature on earth possesses).That's why we differ from animals. And I don't want to be compared to them like I assume you prepose.
Technology is artificial, but it is due to complex structure of our nature that we possess knowledge of technology and bear it to our future genetrations so that they don't have to start all over
I would like to call our way now another part of evolution but i can't , I'm no scientist. But I would like to think of our present situation as a common nature course,and there's nothing to be afraid of.
06-14-2003, 07:59 AM
InsaneSith, I don't really understand what you are saying.
How does obesity make a person weak or not worth their life?
There was obesity before computers. However, the reason why people were skinnier way back then probably would be because most were poorer and couldn't really afford to buy luxury items like chocolate. Take-away would be something you would only have on your birthday.
The Stephen Hawking point is very good. This would relate well with people with Autism and things like that as well. They are the same inside, but just look/are seen differently on the outside.
I don't really think anyone has the right to say this person is not worth keeping alive but this other person is. Its sought of becoming an argument about Eugenics
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.