Would humanity be better off if people incapable of supporting themselves were left to perish?

[Confounding]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

 

[Kat]

What are the ones that perish if they are not humanity as well? smh

 

[night_son]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Exactly the doctrine of the American radical Left^^

 

[Confounding]

What are the ones that perish if they are not humanity as well? smh

They are for whatever reason less functional people. I never said they're not part of humanity. I asked if humanity as a whole would be better off if people like that were allowed to perish.

 

[Confounding]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Exactly the doctrine of the American radical Left^^

You think survival of the fittest if the doctrine of the left? Let the weak and helpless perish? That's left wing?

 

[night_son]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Exactly the doctrine of the American radical Left^^

You think survival of the fittest if the doctrine of the left? Let the weak and helpless perish? That's left wing?

It will be our little secret.

 

[Confounding]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Exactly the doctrine of the American radical Left^^

You think survival of the fittest if the doctrine of the left? Let the weak and helpless perish? That's left wing?

It will be our little secret.

How do you figure? The left wants to tear down borders and save the poor of the world, even at the expense of our own comfort.

 

[night_son]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Exactly the doctrine of the American radical Left^^

You think survival of the fittest if the doctrine of the left? Let the weak and helpless perish? That's left wing?

It will be our little secret.

How do you figure? The left wants to tear down borders and save the poor of the world, even at the expense of our own comfort.

You've got some philosophical historical ground to make up. See transcendentalism vs. naturalism. Read Hegelian dialectics and Marx's interpretation thereof. Swing on over for a visit with positivism and antipositivism. Follow that up with Critical Theory, deconstructionism and moral relativism. Behold the justifications for Lenin, Marx, Mao, Pol Pot and many other smaller killer radical Left genocides of the last century. You'll find the radical Left in philosophy, psychology and political implementation, historically, to share the spirit of the question proffered in this thread for debate.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

I don't think we would have to go that far, just get rid of seat belt laws, helmet laws and the like, stupid people will weed themselves out of the gene pool.


We are a victim of our own success and technology..


.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Would humanity be better off if people incapable of supporting themselves were left to perish?”

Most conservatives and libertarians believe so, of course; purveyors of the myth of ‘Social Darwinism.’

And no, humanity would not be ‘better off’ if children, the elderly, and those disabled were left to die.

 

[Confounding]

And no, humanity would not be ‘better off’ if children, the elderly, and those disabled were left to die.

Don't forget the able-bodied people that aren't functional enough to support themselves without welfare. I guess you could put them in the "disabled" category. Why would it not be better to let people that can't make it on their own perish? You weren't very specific. Would we be worse off for moral reasons, or is there some other reason in your opinion?

 

[Picaro]

Don't any humans who are self-sufficient. In fact they're very much totally helpless for years and years after birth, and they end up that way, too , if they live long enough.

I wouldn't mind if the 'social Darwinists' actually practiced what they preached, though, since they're all stupid sociopaths who generally contribute nothing to society.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

it wouldn't cut down on birth defects and the idea of letting people die is just wrong.

while many people admire the Spartans, they were some deeply evil people


the people that go on welfare just for welfare and then breed should be forced to work or go hungry.

generations of coddling have led to adults acting like spoiled children

 

[abu afak]

How do you figure? The left wants to tear down borders and save the poor of the world, even at the expense of our own comfort.

You've got some philosophical historical ground to make up. See transcendentalism vs. naturalism. Read Hegelian dialectics and Marx's interpretation thereof. Swing on over for a visit with positivism and antipositivism. Follow that up with Critical Theory, deconstructionism and moral relativism. Behold the justifications for Lenin, Marx, Mao, Pol Pot and many other smaller killer radical Left genocides of the last century. You'll find the radical Left in philosophy, psychology and political implementation, historically, to share the spirit of the question proffered in this thread for debate.

IOW confounding, Night_son is CANNOT answer your simple question/proffer/the OP.

So instead he tries to Deflect/baffle you with BS.. name-drop characters from College Philosophy.. and implies YOU should go back to school, because HE can't answer.
He's a Disingenuous BSer.
`

 

[Confounding]

Don't any humans who are self-sufficient. In fact they're very much totally helpless for years and years after birth, and they end up that way, too , if they live long enough.

I wouldn't mind if the 'social Darwinists' actually practiced what they preached, though, since they're all stupid sociopaths who generally contribute nothing to society.

I wasn't really meaning children that have no issue other than the fact that they're not old enough to care for themselves. I suppose I should have been more specific. Grown people that can't survive without assistance is mainly who I meant.

For the record I want to state that I support social safety nets for Americans. I'm not a social Darwinist. I'm just interested in what people have to say about this.

 

[SweetSue92]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Well since humans are born helpless because of our brain size, in one generation there would BE no humanity.

So that's not such a great idea, is it? Turns out we are animals, but maybe supposed to be a little higher functioning that your average rodent. Go figure.

 

[Confounding]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Well since humans are born helpless because of our brain size, in one generation there would BE no humanity.

So that's not such a great idea, is it? Turns out we are animals, but maybe supposed to be a little higher functioning that your average rodent. Go figure.

It didn't cross your mind that maybe I wasn't talking about small children that can't care for themselves yet? I mean I guess I kind of thought it was obvious that most children have parents that won't discard them for lack of usefulness. I clarified in an above post. This seems like more of an attempt to not actually address the question in the OP.

 

[SweetSue92]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Well since humans are born helpless because of our brain size, in one generation there would BE no humanity.

So that's not such a great idea, is it? Turns out we are animals, but maybe supposed to be a little higher functioning that your average rodent. Go figure.

It didn't cross your mind that maybe I wasn't talking about small children that can't care for themselves yet? I mean I guess I kind of thought it was obvious that most children have parents that won't discard them for lack of usefulness. I clarified in an above post. This seems like more of an attempt to not actually address the question in the OP.

Why should it have occurred to me? You said "if we allowed less functional people to just perish", and THAT was followed by "Make it on your own or perish". Well, how many years does that take human children, do you suppose? We are not unthinking animals with rodent brains, are we? It turns out we are social animals. So your question is rather silly. It's like asking "should we expect elephants to fly or else kill them?"

Okay. But then there will be no elephants.

 

[Confounding]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Well since humans are born helpless because of our brain size, in one generation there would BE no humanity.

So that's not such a great idea, is it? Turns out we are animals, but maybe supposed to be a little higher functioning that your average rodent. Go figure.

It didn't cross your mind that maybe I wasn't talking about small children that can't care for themselves yet? I mean I guess I kind of thought it was obvious that most children have parents that won't discard them for lack of usefulness. I clarified in an above post. This seems like more of an attempt to not actually address the question in the OP.

Why should it have occurred to me? You said "if we allowed less functional people to just perish", and THAT was followed by "Make it on your own or perish". Well, how many years does that take human children, do you suppose? We are not unthinking animals with rodent brains, are we? It turns out we are social animals. So your question is rather silly. It's like asking "should we expect elephants to fly or else kill them?"

Okay. But then there will be no elephants.

Cards on the table I was hoping to get people to admit that strictly logically speaking social Darwinism could strengthen humanity, but that for moral reasons it isn't worth it.

 

[SweetSue92]

Survival of the fittest is a cold concept, right? Be strong enough to make it on your own or perish. If we completely got rid of all welfare and allowed less functional people to just perish, what would the result be? Would humanity be better for it in the end, or would we lose something valuable along the way?

Well since humans are born helpless because of our brain size, in one generation there would BE no humanity.

So that's not such a great idea, is it? Turns out we are animals, but maybe supposed to be a little higher functioning that your average rodent. Go figure.

It didn't cross your mind that maybe I wasn't talking about small children that can't care for themselves yet? I mean I guess I kind of thought it was obvious that most children have parents that won't discard them for lack of usefulness. I clarified in an above post. This seems like more of an attempt to not actually address the question in the OP.

Why should it have occurred to me? You said "if we allowed less functional people to just perish", and THAT was followed by "Make it on your own or perish". Well, how many years does that take human children, do you suppose? We are not unthinking animals with rodent brains, are we? It turns out we are social animals. So your question is rather silly. It's like asking "should we expect elephants to fly or else kill them?"

Okay. But then there will be no elephants.

Cards on the table I was hoping to get people to admit that strictly logically speaking social Darwinism could strengthen humanity, but that for moral reasons it isn't worth it.

I don't think you could make that case, actually. You might "cull" the weaker physically, but you would be left with a bunch of sociopaths raising future humans. Trauma on trauma on trauma does not make great stock for future generations.