What percent of society is "useless"?

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Infohawk
It seems like society spends a lot of resources on certain people that will never be able to pay society back. Do you think there are people like this? If so, what percentage of the population is it?

And I'm not just attacking the lower class per se. A janitor could be very useful for society if they don't drain the public coffers by having more children than they can afford, giving themselves diabetes, committing crimes, etc. The same goes for a CEO.

Who is to judge who is useless you or anyone else? I find a poll like this highly offensive.

You sound like the Nazi SS stormtroopers herding Jews to go to the gas chamber. People with a 1 got worked to death and the women,children,elderly, and the sick got a 2 which meant they were immediately put to death.

However, if the Nazis did win, they would have one of the most successful societies in the history of the world. The amount of labor and money saved by not propping up the poor and infirm is vast. One of the biggest flaws in our societies (eg the entire world, not just the US) is that we do prop up the poor, the infirm, the retarded and such. People who do not and cannot contribute in any meaningful way. Not saying that it's wrong or right, but it is a problem no matter how you look at it.

Yeah well I am pretty sure you don't make as much as I do and don't have the education background nor the life experience I have. So I guess it's a problem for me that you are alive and dragging down my standard of living.

Son, don't bring education into this. I have a PhD in microbiology and I'm a senior scientist at a major biotech company.

you apparently didnt learn much. you think elimination of diversity within a species is scientifically sound ?

And the world isn't finite. Matter and energy are coming in and leaving all the time.

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.

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.

You don't understand what natural selection is. The main tenets of natural selection are the following: limited resources that are in competition by too many individuals that leads to differential survival and hence, differential reproduction. For all intents and purposes, at least 2 of those 3 tenets are either missing or attenuated to a very low level. Human beings are under artificial selection, not natural selection.

I'd say about 95-99% of all people born today, in 1st world countries, can actually survive to reproductive age (at which point, natural selection does not care about what happens afterwards, which is why so many insects can live for 24 hours and still survive as a species). Culture and socioeconomic class plays a much bigger role than biology does in determining your success in life. Before, if you led a hunting party, got tired and gave up, you starved. Today, people have the luxury of not being tied to the production of food. It also divorces them from the realities of biology. Look at another example, high cholesterol. Say, for whatever reason, you had high cholesterol as a hunter/gatherer. You died at age 40 of a heart attack. Nowadays, not only do you survive that heart attack thanks to modern medicine, you can have healthy a cholesterol level thanks to drugs. Again, this divorces you from reality.

I think your conception of natural selection is flawed. It's not about avoiding death but in propagating your genes to the next generations.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: IGBT
vast majority of public employees including all of the EPA. excludes EM/police/fire.

Ever drink water from the tap?

You know what...never mind. You can lead a neocon troll to water, but you can't make them admit that without SOME government, all that they would be drinking would be toxic waste.

Originally posted by: Medellon
Find the percentage of liberal posters in this forum and you shall have your answer.

True, (1-X) is an answer.

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
You don't understand what natural selection is. The main tenets of natural selection are the following: limited resources that are in competition by too many individuals that leads to differential survival and hence, differential reproduction. For all intents and purposes, at least 2 of those 3 tenets are either missing or attenuated to a very low level. Human beings are under artificial selection, not natural selection.

"Artificial selection" is a very artificial term which doesn't hold up to proper scrutiny.
True, people living in a modern society have to specialize in different directions to pass on their genes, but if that improves the fitness of the overall population, these genes will still be selected for. Just because the direction of selection has changed doesn't mean that some mythical "Mother Nature" figure will no longer give her stamp of natural approval and evolution stops happening. The niches are different now...by lowering the rate of reproduction and focusing on post-birth training and education, more and more individuals are finding a way to command more resources-per-person and thus improve the survival and niche-adaptability of their genes. You really don't think that smart people going to college and marrying other smart people isn't going to create a population that is more likely to be well-educated and compete effectively for resources from other populations?

 

[Steeplerot]

None are useless, the problem is capitalism must have a unemployed underclass.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
None are useless, the problem is capitalism must have a unemployed underclass.

Too bad it cant be like the Chinese, NK, and Cuban utopias

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
None are useless, the problem is capitalism must have a unemployed underclass.

Too bad it cant be like the Chinese, NK, and Cuban utopias

Once again you miss the point with the drama queen omgcommuism!!!11!!.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
None are useless, the problem is capitalism must have a unemployed underclass.

Too bad it cant be like the Chinese, NK, and Cuban utopias

Once again you miss the point with the drama queen omgcommuism!!!11!!.

Your statement made it seems as if there is some system that doesnt have people with less than others.

Looking at your handle, and remembering some of your old posts, I assumed you meant the Reds.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
None are useless, the problem is capitalism must have a unemployed underclass.

Too bad it cant be like the Chinese, NK, and Cuban utopias

Once again you miss the point with the drama queen omgcommuism!!!11!!.

Your statement made it seems as if there is some system that doesnt have people with less than others.

Looking at your handle, and remembering some of your old posts, I assumed you meant the Reds.

Criticism of capitalism does not make you a maoist/state capitalist. It means you are using your brain. But then the words communism/socialism are scaaaary to righties stuck in their idealism. So as you were.