Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd

alan1

Gold Member
Dec 13, 2008
18,868
4,358
245
Shoveling the ashes
Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.
 
I think some of the ailments you identified are more easily identified via advances in medicine, but I also do believe we over diagnose.

As for the rest, well, I am not into eugenics so it is what it is.

The advances in technology make the pack weaker physically and imho intellectually as well, on that agree, which is the price of 'advance'.

We may not need to be as 'tough' as we were physically 1000 years ago, ( remembering that collectively we may have appeared 'tougher' but the 'weaker' generally didn't survive) but we certainly need to stay sharp intellectually, buts thats a loser to scientific evolution as well until eventually it will eat itself, like a snake eating its tail and we will stagnate intellectually too.
 
The ailments were just examples.

I suppose that survival of the fittest could be called eugenics, but in nature, that happens.
 
With humans, the dumbest do the most reproducing even though intelligence is the most important survival trait in our tech age. By natural right, Afros should have gone extinct by now, along with other ape-men.
 
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation.
One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.
Many of the ailments you mentioned were rare until the advent of GMO and Big Agra Business. The epidemic of Obesity started around the time High Fructose Corn Syrup and Aspartame were approved by the FDA. E-Coli outbreaks have originated from large feed lots.

Vaccines are also the cause of a myriad of illnesses we see in our young people.
 
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Hitler would have agreed with you 100%, right up until he lost the war and shot himself.
 
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Hitler would have agreed with you 100%, right up until he lost the war and shot himself.

Vilification number one. Hitler comparison.
Last sentence of the OP is the only thing quoted.
 
With humans, the dumbest do the most reproducing even though intelligence is the most important survival trait in our tech age. By natural right, Afros should have gone extinct by now, along with other ape-men.

I've seen my share of intelligent stupid people, common sense is what a lot of people lack, and you can't teach that, it has to be in your DNA.
 
Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Is this merely a rhetorical lamentation on your part or do you have a specific proposal, the social, political, and legal mechanics needed to determine who will be allowed to live and reproduce and who will not.
 
Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Is this merely a rhetorical lamentation on your part or do you have a specific proposal, the social, political, and legal mechanics needed to determine who will be allowed to live and reproduce and who will not.

No proposal, merely an observation of what is.
 
Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Tell me exactly how you would put down each inferior human being personally, please?
 
No worries. In a few more years we will be able to polish DNA in the womb and clean out all those dirty little defects.

Then we'll be raising perfect little Aryans in your choice of colors!


.
 
No worries. In a few more years we will be able to polish DNA in the womb and clean out all those dirty little defects.

Then we'll be raising perfect little Aryans in your choice of colors!


.

That would be better than the wholesale murder of the unborn that's so adored and revered by you leftists.
 
No worries. In a few more years we will be able to polish DNA in the womb and clean out all those dirty little defects.

Then we'll be raising perfect little Aryans in your choice of colors!


.

That would be better than the wholesale murder of the unborn that's so adored and revered by you leftists.

What a dumbshit. I'm one of the most vocal pro-lifers on this board.

And I am a paleo-Conservative.


If you see me deconstructing a lie or falsehood told or parroted by a rightwinger, that does not make me a leftist, fool. I'm just taking out the trash.





.
 
Last edited:
Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Tell me exactly how you would put down each inferior human being personally, please?

That is a strange question you ask, because I never proposed putting them down.
 
The ailments were just examples.

I suppose that survival of the fittest could be called eugenics, but in nature, that happens.

Survival of the fittest does not govern nature. Charles Darwin did not ever state that it did. That phrase was coined by a plutocrat who hated people who were not rich & elite like him.

Plants Share Water With Their Neighbors - Sharing has been found to be a preferred alternative for some plants. They do not simply take in water through their roots and evaporate it via their leaves. In fact, ecologists have found that some plants draw deep groundwater up through their long roots during the day, and at night annually lose large amounts of the water through their shallow roots to surrounding soil, rather than saving the water to pass through their leaves the next day. This phenomenon is termed hydraulic lift.

Todd E. Dawson, formerly an associate professor at Cornell, discovered not only that hydraulic lift occurs in sugar maples (Acer saccharum) but that neighboring plants take advantage of the "free" water supply during drought periods. These plants are actually healthier than their counterparts found growing further away from the sugar maple trees. According to Dr. Dawson, "This discovery may toss the theory of competition on its ear, because we have always thought that growing next to something that uses the same resources was bad. Instead, we've found that herbaceous plants growing near a tree really benefit."

Plants not only just share water but also share work, energy, sugar & many other nutrients. The same goes for animals & humans. John Forbes Nash was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his discovery of this mutual benefit governing life. Cooperation between the un-fittest will overcome even the fittest among them.
 
Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​


I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

No villification coming from my corner of the world.:)

My favorite example of what many people like to use as an example of lesser creatures living an idyllic cooperative existence, is the honeybee colony. What most people don't realize, is that the colony rejects and/or kills any individual bee which does not contribute to the good of the hive. They do not tolerate what is not good for the survival of their species.
 
Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.






Protecting the infirm and the weak is what makes us human. Tesla was a weakiling that if he were an ape would have died very young. However, he wasn't so was allowed to grow into adulthood and create our modern system of power....with his mind only.
 

Forum List

Back
Top