Perhaps this is a person living through a debilitating disease while mentoring a number of inner-city kids and inspiring them to a better life while keeping them out of gangs and juvie-jail? To be sure, there are many who are a drain on society, but one can't simply look at the statistics and say which of them is useless. That's not to mention the fact that people can be changed.
bobsmith, I think that was kind of the ops point unless I'm wrong. Someone like you just said to me isn't useless, they are making use of themselves even if they are a "drain on society."
all the money/stuff poor people get is spent/used and benefits the economy at least as much as a rich prick buying a PS3 or a Honda.
and everyone who's younger than you, including poor kids, has more potential benefit to society than you do, so you are slipping into the useless group all the time.
Son, don't bring education into this. I have a PhD in microbiology and I'm a senior scientist at a major biotech company.
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
lol @ the people who waste all their spare time posting on internet forums who think they are more useful then the people who waste their time watching cable tv
you apparently didnt learn much. you think elimination of diversity within a species is scientifically sound ?
btw, the 2 quotes in your signature are idiotic. If you want to believe the advantage the West has is being better at applying violence, you have to examine why that's the case. And the reasons are the West's ideas, values, and beliefs. If not, then what accounts for the advantage ?
And the world isn't finite. Matter and energy are coming in and leaving all the time.
Muse
Lifer
- Jul 11, 2001
- 41,023
- 10,282
- 136
More trouble than they're worth? What exactly do you mean? You are contemplating the Naxi's approach? Evidently. Or are you being personal about this? IOW, more trouble than is worth your time? No, I don't think so. I encounter people all the time that bug me, bother me, I don't want to deal with, don't want to know them, etc. But does that mean they are more trouble than they're worth? To whom? To me it's all about whether that person finds their life worth living, and that's their own affair, essentially.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
Awww, poor JS80 is jealous of someone who accomplished something. I guess living off your parents can't give you everything.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
I put 50% My childrens generation not good Xers suck. Won't repay debt , no morals no respect . My generation should not have had children . Because we were not able to give them the love and care they required. All because of the need for 2 pay checks . Ya its the Xers who suck but it was Us that created ya . Its a sad sad thing.
1. It's not about diversity. Humans aren't even under natural selection anymore, because 90% of everyone on this board should be dead at the age of 35. What I was specifically talking about wrt the Nazis was that they did not tolerate people with disabilities, such as Downs syndrome, schizophrenia, etc etc. The amount of people we spend on those sorts of people is quite a lot, in the billions. Once again, I was making an observation not a judgment call about whether it was right or wrong.
2. Flux and finiteness are two different concepts. There is a net energy flux into the world and a net matter flux into the world, however, the amount of energy that is ultimately usable is limited, quite so at that. The matter flux is so minuscule that it can be ignored. And finally, the point that completely soared over your head, if the rate of flux is less than the rate of growth, then for the purposes of the population, it has a limited and finite amount of material to use. For example, take a bacterial culture. If I continually add in nutrients (to represent positive net energy and matter flux) at a slower rate than the bacteria can reproduce, they will starve and die. From your viewpoint, the system has "non-finite" energy and mass, but to the bacteria, they have a very limited ecosystem that can't handle their growth rate. Hence, they starve and die.
BudAshes
Lifer
- Jul 20, 2003
- 13,994
- 3,355
- 146
To say "humans aren't even under natural selection" is just completely idiotic. We can't end natural selection until we cure death or start cloning ourselves. I just can't stand people who consider themselves scientists having such an unrealistic view of the world.
Humans have proven to be quite remarkably good at something that not all other species have been as successful at. That is adaptability. We are remarkably adaptable partly due to our relatively (compared to other mammal species on Earth) highly developed brains and intellect and this helps us avoid extinction and allows us to thrive under a diverse range of conditions. So it's not "idiotic" to say that humans are not susceptible to natural selection because our natural adaptability and intelligence does in fact provide us some degree of protection from things like diseases and predators that might otherwise have wiped us out by now. I do believe though, that we are more likely to eventually be wiped out at our own hand rather than by some cosmic or natural disaster. Kind of ironic, huh? But our ability to apply our intellect to find solutions and adapt to changes in our environment has served us well throughout history.
Your equation of death to natural selection however, does seem a little bit idiotic on the other hand. Natural selection is about the dying off of a species with a common set of traits or characteristics over time because that species is unable to adapt to changes in circumstances or the environment. Death is just what happens every day to countless life forms all over the face of the planet but that does not mean that natural selection is at work.
BudAshes
Lifer
- Jul 20, 2003
- 13,994
- 3,355
- 146
So somehow being intelligent bypassed natural selection? I think not. Intellect is as much part of natural selection as anything else. Being in a human community that benefits you with things such as technology and health care does not bypass natural selection. This is part of natural selection. You are essentially saying that human death and birth are controlled entirely by luck which is completely not the case. Our genes still control much of what we do and how able we are to reproduce.
Not sure what this has to do with anything besides you rambling.
Your equation of death to natural selection however, does seem a little bit idiotic on the other hand. Natural selection is about the dying off of a species with a common set of traits or characteristics over time because that species is unable to adapt to changes in circumstances or the environment. Death is just what happens every day to countless life forms all over the face of the planet but that does not mean that natural selection is at work.[/quote]
I didn't equate natural selection with death. I implied that the only way to end natural selection is to take away the need to evolve.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter