The problem is we keep too many people survived

For example ,those newborns who must use medical devices whole life to keep them survive,should let them go to heaven.
The nature would eliminate deleterious genes,for let this kind of people die .If people don't let this kind of people die ,let them have chance to reproduction,it's a pollution for human gene pool.Lead to population problem also.
Abuse of antibiotics is a new problem.If we don't use such a lot of antibiotics ,it must lead to a part of unhealthy people die ,if we keeping to use antibiotics like nowadays ,the mother nature must have a way to "solve"antibiotics.
I like hygiene hypothesis and old friend hypothesis ,if hygiene hypothesis is right,we should let children touch more dirt and bacteria ,but it must lead to a part of unhealthy children go die...if we don't do that,the result of allergies.............



Wrote down a thought appeared when I removing my deformity flower seedlings.

Sure, sounds good.

My thoughts exactly, but it's not politically correct so every one will disagree on the outside but know it's right on the inside.

a reply to: candlestick


I agree...mankind has totally removed himself from the evolutionary process.

Those of lesser IQ's are reproducing at high rates, while those with high IQ's are holding at 1 or 2 children.

All manner of negative genetic traits are being passed along to the next generation including health problems.

Makes one wonder what mankind will be like in 100 generations or so.

I've often wondered about this; could it be possible to "cleanse" the genetic pool of undesirable traits and/or diseases?

The trouble is, how do you do it humanely? Morally? Without murder or forced sterilization? Is it possible? Is it right?

I don't know. I'm caught on the fence, I don't believe it's good, moral, or right to force people who want to have children to not have children, or force people who don't want to die to pass away; but it could have great benefits to the future of the entire human race.

Where would we start? Education? Teach people that they possess undesirable traits and shouldn't reproduce? That will never work. Never. And if it does, it reeks of the worst possible implementation of UN Agenda 21 imaginable.

a reply to: bbracken677

If you think a lot about the trouble of take care kids ,you would not like to have kids.
So it's normal.

Those people who don't think a lot often neglect and abuse(use the wrong parenting way) to their kids.

Species extinction is quite normal in nature.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

The US healthcare system often killing unhealthy poor people already.

I agree don't cure newborns who must use medical devices whole life to keep them survive.

Is your account just one big troll theme?

Candlestick, furballs, and death to the perceived inferior?

I pretty much agree, but ... wow, it's quite bizarre to be seeing come from such a fluffy looking account.

"...But maybe if touching a peanut kills you, you're supposed to die." After having experienced life through all my faculties and abilities, I would never want to persist as a "vegetable." I will never take pharmaceuticals to prolong my life if it would otherwise expire. When I die, the particles comprising my body and spirit will be dispersed and become parts of other things. I know this moment could come at any time, and am fully at peace with that eventuality. I will be good to those around me until then.

a reply to: candlestick
The problem is we need a central database of all genetics. Potential mates check to see if there would be any genetic problems if they were to have a kid.

Now days you see these "special" kids and every one around the kid says what a miracle they are etc.

I don't know the answer.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I don't like people who like judge a book by its cover.

a reply to: candlestick

Well I didn't judge. I noted the vast discrepancy from the theme of your account, and your words. Combine this with your -gaga-like persona, and I think it's pretty well obvious that you are one big furry troll of an account.

Thanks for the verification.

I'll be never responding to your threads, or posts again.

Troll, or somebody with an idea they can't fully articulate because of a lack of fluency in English language, or some other impediment? Just a thought, but there is a bit of logic underneath.

Did the Nazi's not have a similar line of thought?

So you are basically saying that one group should have the power to judge and decide whether or not another group could live and reproduce? based on their differences? i don't know my friend, but some would call you a Nazi...

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
and I think it's pretty well obvious that you are one big furry troll of an account.

That's how I think about you ~
Bye~Bye~Don't want to see you again~

a reply to: centhwevir1979

Really?Which part you don't understand ah?

a reply to: candlestick

I will admit when I was younger I harbored thoughts like these on occasion. But there are logical inconsistencies in this darwinist approach.

Antibiotic overuse is not a symptom of an over zealous medical system, it is due to an inadequate medical system. When doctors have 10 minutes per patient, sure, give them some antibiotics and see if it sticks. A friend of mine who worked in the Philippines told me they pop antibiotics like candy but they have virtually no access to health care.

Who decides who's smart enough to live? The guy who writes the test? What type of intelligence we talking about here? What about savants who can't tie shoes? The mechanic who can't balance his checkbook? The chef who can't spell?

Would Stephen Hawkings be on the kill list? He is far too feeble to deserve to live. What about my mother/sister/daughter/son/wife who is in an accident and requires lifelong outpatient care?

And weeding out? Science seems to work in the most mysterious ways. Most discoveries; philosophical, scientific, religious, et. al. come from hardship. The scientist working on cancer might discover eternal youth.

And finally, WHY? What the heck does it matter to you if there are 10 children in the local community living in bubbles due to inadequate immune systems. Why do I care if people are on respirators for 10 years in the hopes they come back. I would bet it's economic (hahahah, see that pun) and you don't want to pay. I got news for ya, you're not! The economics are an extension of the political system that values stuff over people. There are plenty of resources out there, enough dirt in my yard to mix a lot of cement, garden a lot of vegetables, put up a lot of bouncies for local children. Scarcity is a symptom of an inefficient economic system and a tool of the owners to keep the non-owners begging. There are plenty of raw materials, plenty of people unemployed or underemployed to care for the sick and make lots of pills and oxygen machines and build care wards and phones and xboxes.

But it would be far easier to let people die or actually kill them than to fight for reasonable and compassionate answers to what should really not be a issue at all.

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
Did the Nazi's not have a similar line of thought?

No i think they borrowed it from America

a reply to: candlestick

Oh don't worry, death panels are here, even saw an ATSer post about how the government is letting his wife die slowly because "she's not worth enough". You'll get your wish but you better hope to whatever god you have that you're as useful as you think---I doubt any of us would pass the litmus test of societal importance you suggest.