Is humanity getting weaker by getting stronger?

[Vallium]

Let me explain the title...I wasn't sure how to title the discussion.

 

But I've been thinking, and fair warning ahead of time this is going to be cold cut and dry and I kind of feel bad for saying this, but society today makes an effort to keep anyone and everyone healthy and alive.

That's certainly not a bad thing, and with improvement could be better for us, especially if we had a controllable population size.

What Im talking about is the usual targets considered 'weak' in the world. The elderly, the disabled, handicapped, mentally unstable...

In the long past, its not like there were enough medical advances to help these people? You know what happened? They died. They died because survival dictates they need be fully functioning. That..or they became the village idiot, out on the street, sent to an asylum. Something like that. I guess that still happens today to an extent...but few people are taken by the process of natural selection since there used to be very little preventative measures to do so

...and concepts like gender and sexuality? They may have existed back then but due to necessitated societal norms and need for survival were likely ignored or pushed away altogether. Seems like a first world,21st century luxury of a self-actualizing person to me.

I'm probably super wrong in a lot of this as its all based on assumption, but I'm still trying to think about commonly seen concepts today and how they existed in the past.

Edited December 20, 2015 by WolfNightV4X1

[Half-Note]

I'll weigh in on this.

Feminism is actually a big conspiracy by the Jews to halt the birth of more people in the Western world.

As men are emasculated more and more, women become less and less submissive (as is their natural place in the animal kingdom). With men losing their dominance, women become less interested in them (as though humans are civilized, our instinct makes females seek out strong and dominant males to mate with, which is reflected in our standards as depicted by the evil, corporate media), which means less births. Granted, humanity still stands a chance since huge demographics in the world, like the sand people and vodka-drinkers are NOPE-ing the feminist bullshit, but it won't be long before a new standard of "beauty" which is beyond what can best be described as hideous to the extreme is forced upon our once progressive society.

So before long, we will be forced to keep all these less-than-humans around, no matter how gay, crippled or black they are. They're honestly just holding us back. I mean, what is the best option? Spending years trying to keep someone alive in a miserable existence, or just shoot them in the head as soon as it is found out that they're handicapped? I wouldn't want to endure a horrible life strapped to a hospital bed while moaning uncontrollably if I had the choice. It's just awful.

Society dictates that we keep incompetent people around.

End society.
Allow natural selection!
DARWINISM FOREVER!

[Dr. Doggo]

didn't read anything but the title but look into "the age of decadence"

empires and other strong societies last an average of 250 years

typically before their collapse there are internal factors that are very similar to others that fell, even though the external factors are different

[Half-Note]

9 minutes ago, Sir Gibby said:

didn't read anything but the title but look into "the age of decadence"

empires and other strong societies last an average of 250 years

typically before their collapse there are internal factors that are very similar to others that fell, even though the external factors are different

Are you saying America will fail soon

[Dr. Doggo]

6 minutes ago, Half-Note said:

Are you saying America will fail soon

yes and the EU

there isn't going to be an apocalyptic continent-wide event or anything, just expect a slow burning

i expect severe economic problems for the former and a fracturing of the latter

Edited December 20, 2015 by Sir Gibby

[Half-Note]

5 minutes ago, Sir Gibby said:

yes and the EU

there isn't going to be an apocalyptic continent-wide event or anything, just expect a slow burning

Then why would Alex Jones say otherwise.

I mean I already ordered all his medicine to preserve my masculinity.

[Vallium]

I do expect an eventual apocalypse but am sincerely hoping to not be there for such a thing

[Vallium]

17 minutes ago, Half-Note said:

[snip]

Wow, rude Thats a bit more cold and blunt than what I put.

Are you saying people cannot be happy in wheelchairs at all? Because I wasn't...I was just saying a lot of the common ailments wouldn't exist years ago, and that if we must progress we should do so in a way that's not enabling some and crippling others, and to do a better job at what we're intending to help

[Half-Note]

11 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

Wow, rude Thats a bit more cold and blunt than what I put.

Are you saying people cannot be happy in wheelchairs at all? Because I wasn't...I was just saying a lot of the common ailments wouldn't exist years ago, and that if we must progress we should do so in a way that's not enabling some and crippling others, and to do a better job at what we're intending to help

The more you know[tm]

It's all a false-flag operation to ruin mankind so that the Zionist machine can take over. Before you know it, there will be Jewish concentration camps where all non-Jews will be sent if they cannot document that they have Jewish blood running through their veins and agree to study economy and agree to have their foreskin cut off. WELL FUCK THAT!

Infowars.com
911truth.org
Beforeitsnews,com
Stormfront.org

[Vallium]

Just now, Half-Note said:

[more snip]

Aha I have no idea why that was said so Im just going to laugh because it has a very sarcasmic vibe to it.

Also you do realize in your last post that incompetant people are like 90% of people on this forum?

[Half-Note]

And of course the wheelchair-people can be happy. Look at Stephen Hawking (actually had to Google "wheelchair genius" since I had forgotten his name for a second)! He's all happy and smiling through his paralysis.  

5 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

Aha I have no idea why that was said so Im just going to laugh because it has a very sarcasmic vibe to it.

Also you do realize in your last post that incompetant people are like 90% of people on this forum?

It makes me cry to think that I'll be sent to the salt caves with you people.

[Vallium]

Just now, Half-Note said:

And of course the wheelchair-people can be happy. Look at Stephen Hawking (actually had to Google "wheelchair genius" since I had forgotten his name for a second)! He's all happy and smiling through his paralysis.  

lmao funny story I actually googled "wheelchair robot guy" because I forgot his name once, too.

I'm such a jerk '^_^

[Half-Note]

5 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

lmao funny story I actually googled "wheelchair robot guy" because I forgot his name once, too.

I'm such a jerk '^_^

Nonono, you're a competent human being. C: You understand that trying to make such lower forms of human beings seem equal to others is like thinking that women can have jobs or decide who they want to marry.

[Vallium]

16 minutes ago, Half-Note said:

Nonono, you're a competent human being. C: You understand that trying to make such lower forms of human beings seem equal to others is like thinking that women can have jobs or decide who they want to marry.

Seems tote legit I do agree with that sentimentality totally 100% without a doubt. We cool.

[MalletFace]

Humans can in no way inhibit natural selection from taking place in humans. Natural selection occurs when a trait is favored in differential reproduction and passed on to offspring.

We can and do, however, interact with fitness. Fitness, if you do not know what that means, is basically the success a genotype (not a phenotype) has at passing on its information to a new generation relative to all of the other genotypes.

Improving or inhibiting fitness is not a good or bad thing; it just is... unless you are a social animal like a human. Altruism in social animals is not totally understood, but it appears that certain types of non-kin altruism are good for the individual and the species.

[Bloodshot_Eyes]

Just now, MalletFace said:

Improving or inhibiting fitness is not a good or bad thing; it just is... unless you are a social animal like a human. Altruism in social animals is not totally understood, but it appears that certain types of non-kin altruism are good for the individual and the species.

 I'm not directly speaking of altruism, but kinda going off on a tangent that this post reminded me of.

 We had this bitchy ass cat; like she would scratch, bite, hiss, and generally not like things. Who could blame her, she has kitty leukemia. Any who, whenever she "acted up" people would treat her like you think they would. Not particularly nicely. "She's just a bitch, and nothing can be done."

This is where I called bullshit and decided I was going to respond to this cat with love. I'd talk to her, try to make it known I was at least trying to understand her feelings, and if she got mean I wouldn't hold it against her, I'd simply wash out my scratches and chill with her when she was feeling up to it. I started petting her without the fear and expectations of being mauled horribly. And eventually she took.

The rest of my family is shocked that this cat is acting so nice (comparatively, she still won't take any bullshit). You can pet her, she'll climb up in your lap and she's even hating the other cats less. Pretty much along the time frame that I started treating her like a person. 

So I'd even go as far to say love has benefits cross-species as well. This is a cat though, it's not trying to block you out using logic or ego, it's just slowly entraining to the more dominant emotional vibration it's sensing from whatever moment it's experiencing, and then reflecting how it feels. 

I wasn't expecting much, I just thought it sucked how much they shit talked her for being mean. 

[Half-Note]

1 hour ago, MalletFace said:

ans can in no way inhibit natural selection from taking place in humans. Natural selection occurs when a trait is favored in differential reproduction and passed on to offspring.

We can and do, however, interact with fitness. Fitness, if you do not know what that means, is basically the success a genotype (not a phenotype) has at passing on its information to a new generation relative to all of the other genotypes.

Improving or inhi

WRONG PERSON QUOTED

Edited December 20, 2015 by Half-Note

[Vallium]

Just now, Half-Note said:

No offense but you come off as [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391223/Janet-Veal-56-gnawed-eaten-CATS-kitchen-floor-died.html]the kind of cat lady that gets a heart attack and is found weeks later eaten by her companions.

I am actively encouraging all cat owners to do as they do in the humane and animal rights-respecting land of China, which would be skinning their cats, frying their meat with some BBQ-sauce and eating it served warm with a cold beer in the sunset.

If you humanize cats you only entertain their plans for the New World Order and enslavement of human-kind by the felines. And we can't have any of that now, can we? No. Just no.

lmao, quoted the wrong person, nub

[Half-Note]

DAMMIT >.<

28 minutes ago, Bloodshot_Eyes said:

 I'm not directly speaking of altruism, but kinda going off on a tangent that this post reminded me of.

 We had this bitchy ass cat; like she would scratch, bite, hiss, and generally not like things. Who could blame her, she has kitty leukemia. Any who, whenever she "acted up" people would treat her like you think they would. Not particularly nicely. "She's just a bitch, and nothing can be done."

This is where I called bullshit and decided I was going to respond to this cat with love. I'd talk to her, try to make it known I was at least trying to understand her feelings, and if she got mean I wouldn't hold it against her, I'd simply wash out my scratches and chill with her when she was feeling up to it. I started petting her without the fear and expectations of being mauled horribly. And eventually she took.

The rest of my family is shocked that this cat is acting so nice (comparatively, she still won't take any bullshit). You can pet her, she'll climb up in your lap and she's even hating the other cats less. Pretty much along the time frame that I started treating her like a person. 

So I'd even go as far to say love has benefits cross-species as well. This is a cat though, it's not trying to block you out using logic or ego, it's just slowly entraining to the more dominant emotional vibration it's sensing from whatever moment it's experiencing, and then reflecting how it feels. 

I wasn't expecting much, I just thought it sucked how much they shit talked her for being mean. 

No offense but you come off as the kind of cat lady that gets a heart attack and is found weeks later eaten by her companions.

I am actively encouraging all cat owners to do as they do in the humane and animal rights-respecting land of China, which would be skinning their cats, frying their meat with some BBQ-sauce and eating it served warm with a cold beer in the sunset.

If you humanize cats you only entertain their plans for the New World Order and enslavement of human-kind by the felines. And we can't have any of that now, can we? No. Just no.

[Half-Note]

12 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

lmao, quoted the wrong person, nub

We all make mistakes. :l

[Rassah]

5 hours ago, Sir Gibby said:

didn't read anything but the title but look into "the age of decadence"

empires and other strong societies last an average of 250 years

typically before their collapse there are internal factors that are very similar to others that fell, even though the external factors are different

Usually they don't collapse because they start to value freedom and diversity more. The usual culprits are government corruption and destroying their own economy and currency, through things like inflation and not being able to honor debt obligations.

 

Regarding the OP, while we are keeping more of these people around instead of just getting rid of them like we used to, we are also creating financial incentives to get them fixed. They, or someone else, gives up money to try to help them, instead of just tossing them aside. And the issues they have that need fixing often benefit the rest of our population. Who wouldn't want a repaired, rejuvenated brain, or a replacement organ or limb for those that got worn out, old, or simply failed? In the long run, our species will probably actually get stronger, as we areuch better and faster at fixing issues than natural selection alone.

[Spot]

Society fails when it falls under the superiority of it's own weight. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone needs to be kept in check, especially the idiots running everything.

[Derin Darkpaw]

8 hours ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

What Im talking about is the usual targets considered 'weak' in the world. The elderly, the disabled, handicapped, mentally unstable...

Many of these people you mention here are still perfectly capable of contributing to society in a myriad of ways however.  Just because some one is old it doesn't make them worthless and just because some one is bound to a wheelchair that doesn't mean they can't contribute in fields that don't require them to be fully mobile.  By treating these conditions these people are allowed to contribute and society becomes stronger for that.  Eliminating these people simply because they are deemed as "weak" only causes society to lose.

[Butters]

8 hours ago, Half-Note said:

I'll weigh in on this.

Feminism is actually a big conspiracy by the Jews to halt the birth of more people in the Western world.

As men are emasculated more and more, women become less and less submissive (as is their natural place in the animal kingdom). With men losing their dominance, women become less interested in them (as though humans are civilized, our instinct makes females seek out strong and dominant males to mate with, which is reflected in our standards as depicted by the evil, corporate media), which means less births. Granted, humanity still stands a chance since huge demographics in the world, like the sand people and vodka-drinkers are NOPE-ing the feminist bullshit, but it won't be long before a new standard of "beauty" which is beyond what can best be described as hideous to the extreme is forced upon our once progressive society.

So before long, we will be forced to keep all these less-than-humans around, no matter how gay, crippled or black they are. They're honestly just holding us back. I mean, what is the best option? Spending years trying to keep someone alive in a miserable existence, or just shoot them in the head as soon as it is found out that they're handicapped? I wouldn't want to endure a horrible life strapped to a hospital bed while moaning uncontrollably if I had the choice. It's just awful.

Society dictates that we keep incompetent people around.

End society.
Allow natural selection!
DARWINISM FOREVER!

Orcas. 

(Hi ppl. Early merry Xmas) 

[Vallium]

1 hour ago, Butters said:

Orcas. 

(Hi ppl. Early merry Xmas) 

Hi butters!

[DrGravitas]

Societies may rise and fall, but humanity just keeps growing and spreading. If we ever do fail to make technological improvements to keep our food sources from expanding, we'll simply level off. We won't completely collapse without an incredible catastrophe. Even then, it would take special circumstances to keep us down forever.

Life is more robust and forgiving that we give it credit for. Hell, sloths continue to be a viable population. Our survival may not be as pleasant, should these failures occur, but we are by no means making ourselves weaker by expanding what someone can survive as.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

On 12/20/2015 at 0:12 PM, Rassah said:

Usually they don't collapse because they start to value freedom and diversity more. The usual culprits are government corruption and destroying their own economy and currency.

I think it's a combination of both. 

The casual observer will note that the human species is an exceedingly tribalistic species with a genetic predisposition towards favoring in-group members and excluding out-group elements. This may come as a shock to you, but the lion's share of the modern world isn't particularly privy to upholding liberal democracy. India, the Middle East, Latin America, and much of Africa are stellar examples of where liberal democracy simply doesn't function all that well. 

There's a reason for this, but then we'll have to open up a discussion on how NW Europeans are a bunch of out-bred spastics who accidentally broke the sacred rules regarding kin altruism and how the rest of the human species is comprised of a bunch of horrendously in-bred hicks. 

Edited December 24, 2015 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

On 12/20/2015 at 6:36 AM, Half-Note said:

Are you saying America will fail soon

It's inevitable.  

There hasn't been a single empire in recorded human chronology that has lasted for an indefinite amount of time. They all die sooner or later. 

 

[Harbinger]

Probably weaker by ratio alone seeing as how the "sanctity of life" wants to keep even the frailest and sickest alive, whether they could naturally survive or not, or even want to...