I disagree. For humans, intelligence is one of our primary evolutionary advantages and by maintaining that pool of intelligence we help to maintain that evolutionary advantage. Would evolution in humans really be helped by letting Steven Hawking die?
We need them too. Without them ATOT would be a wasteland.
Your post is completely fucking idiotic, moronic, and any other adjective I can think of that ends in -ic. In fact, it shows such a total lack of thought that it makes me wonder how you could even be a functioning adult in society.
First of all, your main assumption is that natural selection has as its main goal the improvement of the species (i.e. we evolve to become smarter, stronger, etc.) It's a piss poor assumption. Natural selection results in species that evolves to fit its environment; as humans change the environment (for example, better health care leads to being able to survive and reproduce under conditions that previously made survival more difficult), people who otherwise wouldn't have reproduced now can, and do.
Secondly, the theory of Evolution is not something you believe in, like some fucking nonsensical religion, but rather it's a scientific model on which useful predictions can be made. (see sig)
So please stop posting utter shit.
True, but why keep evolutionary disadvantageous people around right?
Why keep Parkinsons carriers? Huntington carriers? Diabetics? Congenital heart disorders?
They only serve to be medically costly and heart breaking.
Which doesn't, in any way, invalidate/stop evolution or the belief of it.
Welcome to 2010, where things are finally starting to get awesome (scientifically).
One of our great strengths is that we are social creatures who work together and protect each other. If each individual were "on their own" to sink or swim as well as their own individual traits allowed them to, then very few humans would survive. Protecting members of lesser physical ability so that they may contribute in whatever way they are able is a good evolved trait considering that not one of us is really that impressive physically to start with.
Oh and true retards rarely reproduce. They are selected against by virtue of women not wanting to fuck them.
Unless you're OK with letting the strong live, the crippled and defective die, and are against medical treatment to maintain life in any manner.
:hmm:
Are you talking about group selection as it applies to evolutionary biology or do you mean something else?That sounds suspiciously like a group selection argument. Eww...
Our social and medical advantages over the decades have informed us of the presence of value amongst even the most enfeebled individuals.
Usually, people with debilitating illness display their worth in other ways--becoming artists, musicians, highly intelligent bench scientists, theorists, etc.
Also, having congenital disorders often means a hightened rate of miscarriages, something of an internal selection to reduce those "bad genes" from passing on at at an equal rate as those more physically healthy. ...so, eugenics really isn't a valid argument, and hasn't been since the 30s. Not simply b/c of Nazi atrocities, but because advancing developments in Genetics have shown it to be inaccurate.
Aaaah, I figured it out. Someone left an open bag of troll food on the floor!
Hmm very good points.
How about reproduce-able defects that affect quality of life after reproduction, say genetic disorders?
This entire thread is actually about the definition of "believe in". Evolution is just to troll you in.
So would you say you disagree with Natural Selection taking precedence over Extraordinary measures to save a life of someone with debilitating illness, despite the fact that this person is also relatively non-significant contributor to society?
Basically,
Person A) Joe Schmoe has 100 IQ, does nothing special in life, but has a genetic disorder that at the age of 40, requires $2 Million dollar procedure to prevent loss of life.
This entire thread is actually about the definition of "believe in". Evolution is just to troll you in.
I'm talking about Believing IN something. Not believing something exists.
Natural selection at work in this thread right here huh?
No one but Joe Schmoe and his family have the right to make such choices. Any further discussion of this particular issue is just naive.
Actually, I don't think that's true.
Because once Joe Schmoe lands in the hospital, I'm pretty sure the Hospital can not refuse to give him the necessary expensive treatment to survive, unless he for some reason refuses.
Believing something is happening doesn't necessarily mean you think it's the best way.
I don't believe IN evolution at all. I think it's a slow, wasteful, messy, and haphazard way to go about sustaining life. Evolution doesn't have a plan, so in that sense it's worked fine for it's own nonexistent purposes. We ARE capable of having a plan. Being completely non-sentient, evolution won't mind if we impose our will on it.
The implication of your post is that nature's way is the best way, despite our desire to thwart it; that we have to trade our genetic and evolutionary progress for the privilege of keeping cripples around. I say it's this very same protective urge that will drive us to eventually eliminate the diseases that would otherwise cripple people. The urge has to be there FIRST to provide the motivation to do so.
...uh, right. So he's the ONLY ONE THAT HAS A CHOICE.
The hospital does not have a choice in this matter.
And neither should anyone else.
again, discussing this further is naive.
The hospital does not have a choice because Society has chosen to save his life, unless he rejects it.