We started taking care of our sick and injured when we became civilized.
"Survival of the fittest" as a social policy IS immoral. Hitler claimed that Ayrans WERE the fittest and was purging the "inferior" races.
Quote:
|
As a species do we want a population full of sick and damaged people, or would a population of healthy and attractive be more beneficial to the species. And I'm not just talking about humans, but all species.
|
Tell me that we were better off without than with these disabled, sick individuals: Stephen Hawking, Beethoven, Franklin D Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein, etc.
All had physical disablities, illnesses, or learning disablities that would mark them for termination under your "Survival of the Fittest".
Quote:
|
For example, my friend brought up my grandmother. She is diabetic, and she would probably die if she didn't take insulin injections. Under the Darwinism theory she would die due to her condition. But death is a part of everything. People just choose to act like it didn't exist and try to ignore and escape death. I think its when people actually start dying is when people have a problem with Darwinism. Instead people ought to confront death and stop trying to be "politically correct" all the time.
|
Let's hope darwninism starts with you then.
As an unfit individual(intelligence), you wouldn't.