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.
Only after they/we have been conditioned to default subconsciously to compassion by the laws, consequences and varying senses of morality some of us have chosen to impose upon ourselves (myself included). Otherwise, we're greedy, selfish animals.
Take pagan Europe, for instance. Unless you were of noble blood, physical and/or mental impairment would render you undesired or unable to fulfil your role within the tribe, and you'd be cast out, just like a lame wolf cub.
And look at great swathes of rural Africa and Asia. Even with available medicine, the lame are often casually cast aside and left to die (often without mercy) by family and state. There's very little room for 'compassion' when mortal preservation enters into the equation, especially if you've no vested interest in the doomed.
Last edited: