Posts by Melissa Rivera5

But honestly, it’s true. I’ve donated blood a few times now, so I know how it goes.

The government. They’re doing it every single day, whether you're okay with it or not. I mean, at the end of the day, someone's gotta do it, I guess.

Society doesn't really get to call the shots on who you are; it's more about being the person you decide to be, regardless of what everyone else thinks.

Shakti, there’s also Hawking. He’s in an even tougher spot. People who have been stripped of everything from head to toe aren't just born that way. Would I euthanize him? Nah. If he’s still got something useful to offer mentally, then he's useful. Period.

Does anyone actually have the right to take a life? I mean, look at what doctors are doing during an abortion. They’re basically just doing two things: 1. Taking a life. 2. Taking away a potential life. So, if you think it's fine to end a life (1) before birth, then I guess you'd have to say it's okay after birth under that same logic. And for (2), it's pretty much the same analogy. Just to be clear, when I use useless, I'm not talking about people like seniors or kids. I'm talking about people who, for medical reasons, will never be, and can never be, useful to society under any circumstances. Kids and retirees don't really fit into that category, I guess. Neither do people missing an arm or a leg, or those who are blind or deaf. Technology—and maybe even genetic research—can pretty much handle all of that.

Like, donating blood doesn't hurt, but if you follow certain rules, well... if you happen to stop squeezing your fist, or if you're just exhausted, starving, or feeling crappy, then you're out of luck. It's like that. Same thing goes for how if you're a gay man you can't donate blood, but if you're a lesbian you can. Hmm, sounds like discrimination, right? haha

@urbantiger96
I mean, yeah, I’d totally donate my body to science. Honestly, I’ve even thought about putting it in my will. If there was some better way to go about it, I’d probably do that too. Like, what's the point of my whole body just sitting there once I'm gone? If worms are gonna eat me anyway, I might as well try to save someone's life, I guess.

But like swiftcobra15 said, maybe we should actually define what counts as "useful" versus "useless" before we really get into this discussion.

I mean, those are just your typical capitalists (not like I'm some hardcore Bolshevik or anything). But honestly? I feel like we’re more like a virus than a cancer.

looks like pediculis is having some boundary issues lately. You're being pretty vague about where you stand.
I was just thinking, given how things are going when people pass away... why wouldn't they just take their organs? I mean, if I'm dead, what am I even gonna do with them?

I mean, society can only really change things through a referendum. But what if a referendum actually passed to fire everyone with an IQ under 100?

I guess I’m officially becoming a misanthrope now because I feel like quoting this one movie line: the only thing that sets us apart from animals is that we actually give a damn about percentages.
If I were actually in charge of deciding who gets to stick around and who doesn't, my criteria would look something like this:
Anyone dealing with an incurable, genetic condition where they can't even perform basic physical or mental tasks during their illness—and there's less than a 5% chance they'll make it more than a few years—should probably be eligible for euthanasia. Their organs could then be used for transplants. In that way, they could actually save a ton of people.
Basically, someone in that position could still do some good for the community... maybe not while they're living, but definitely after they pass. Honestly, if I were President, the one thing I'd absolutely push for is mandatory organ donation for everyone once they die, if there's a need.

I mean, that’s just what happens under capitalism. Utopian anarchy or communism would be the dream fix, I guess, but we aren't even anywhere near the level where those kinds of systems could actually work. And honestly, "usefulness" is pretty subjective. When I say someone isn't useful, I’m talking about people who, no matter what, just can't contribute. Like, someone in a wheelchair is still useful through mental work or things they can do with their hands. But a person with an IQ of 20 and severe impairments? They aren't useful, and they never will be. Should those people be eliminated? Maybe not. Someone with a 70 IQ can be trained for certain jobs. Even maybe someone with a 50. But anything below that? I mean, sure, those individuals might give emotional fulfillment to their parents, but what happens to them when the parents pass away? Who’s going to care about them then? If they aren't doing anything except draining resources, then nobody. They become a burden on society. It’s kind of like students—like me—who fail classes but society keeps footing the bill. That’s exactly why there’s zero accountability. If it doesn't cost me anything, well, who cares, right? That’s basically the mindset. People go to the clinic and complain about every little thing. If a doctor's visit cost you 50-$33 out of pocket, regardless of how often you went, maybe people would actually think twice. And don't even get me started on medication costs. Honestly, the bosses at state-run agencies are a whole other mess. Even life prisoners—the justified ones, like serial killers or torturers—would make decent experimental subjects for new drugs. Wouldn't every parent be happier if their child were healthy? Wouldn't eugenics be treated a bit differently then? Like, if we used genetic engineering today to "fix" the sperm or eggs of anyone with severe hereditary diseases to remove those genes before birth, it would definitely be better for society than what we have now. Isn't it interesting how there used to be so many geniuses whose names we actually know and who did important things, unlike today? Where are the Einsteins of our era? Don't you think Hawking would have been even more successful if he had been healthy? Like, if genetic engineering had wiped out his disability before he was even born?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer/faq/2004837 regarding cells

Alright, so for now, eugenics is pretty high up on the list of immoral things (not really sure why, though). Like, in what kind of scenario would you guys actually think it'd be okay to lean into eugenics? I mean, selective breeding, genetic engineering, whatever...

Well, I guess I try to give back to the community whenever I can. I usually donate blood every few months if I’m feeling healthy enough, and actually, I’m heading over to the Red Cross in about an hour to get typed for peripheral stem cell and bone marrow donation. It’s not like I’m changing the world or anything, but it feels like something. I’ve also been involved in quite a few volunteer projects, even an international one—just in case anyone thinks I’m some kind of heartless jerk. What about you guys? What do you do?

That’s actually a pretty interesting theory, and honestly? I think you might be 100% right. I haven't really looked at it from that angle before, I guess. It definitely seems to answer my question, though.
@Hannah Thomas13
You're a bigger misanthrope than I am.

What’s even the point of this society we're all living in? I think turtle made a pretty interesting pivot. Look, I don't really celebrate holidays or anything since I'm non-political and an atheist, but let me lay out this new idea (well, turtle's idea, really): if we just keep moving forward with how things are going right now, there’s eventually gonna be a point where absolutely everyone has genetic defects. Like, everyone will be born with issues. At that stage, we'll just HAVE to find a fix. What would the compromise look like, say if 90% of kids were being born with congenital problems like blindness or deafness or whatever? If only maybe 10% of kids are, I don't know, "normal," how do you even keep society running? Where do you even draw the line? Since everyone keeps arguing that we shouldn't mess with anything, what do you guys think about the possibility of someone developing tech one day that can genetically rewrite DNA to wipe out all diseases? Would you actually put yourself or your unborn kids through a procedure like that?

@Klukas
Pretty impressive, honestly

@ Modesto (Blaise?)
God doesn't exist, so I guess there's nothing for Him to give me.

Look, hate is just part of being human. I’m not out here suggesting we wipe out everyone who has undesirable traits—because, honestly, let's be real, nobody is perfect. I'm just wondering... what if we euthanized, or just didn't allow the birth of, people who will never have even a theoretical chance at contributing anything to society? If you actually care about the community, then every single member matters. But if someone is just draining resources without giving anything back, they're basically hurting the group. So, I guess their existence only makes sense from an individual standpoint, but it comes at the expense of everyone else.

It’s what they call DNA testing. If we set aside people with borderline IQs—you know, those who can actually function in society—we’re left with people who are, honestly, just total waste. Yeah, you heard me right. Absolute waste. I mean, someone with an IQ under 50 definitely isn't capable of looking after themselves or doing anything useful in any capacity. Personally, I wouldn't let that happen to me, and if there was ever even a tiny chance, I'd choose to euthanize a child like that.
I've seen plenty of situations where kids like that end up causing way more psychological issues than they're worth; maybe some people here could deal with it, but I don't think I could ever accept a child like that.
I just wanted to point out that this kind of artificial selection could easily be justified by natural selection. Honestly, the only reason so many of these people are still around today is because of modern technology. Just imagine how things were back in the day? People used to be much stronger and more resilient simply because the weak members didn't make it. I guess I'm basically suggesting a sort of mild eugenics, which I know is still a pretty controversial topic.

So, regarding this whole cancer thing... I guess I'll just tell you what my uncle said when he first got his diagnosis: if I'm only got six months left, then honestly, don't even bother treating me! If I'm going down, I'm going down. Cancer isn't necessarily a death sentence anymore. I'm talking about those cases where people are just stuck, barely hanging on, almost like plants that just drain everyone's bank accounts and put their families through absolute hell. And yeah, I know, my parents would probably kill me and sue me if they heard me saying that.

Everything’s gonna fall apart even faster without oil. I mean, the dollar relies on oil, and the whole global economy relies on the dollar... so, I guess that means if the dollar goes down, the entire economy just follows it right down the drain.

I mean, saying Hitler was right about absolutely anything feels like a bit of a stretch. If you look at the direct fallout from WWII, you get this massive wave of tech and medical breakthroughs. So, I guess, strictly looking at the results, there were some positive developments (though we definitely aren't talking about his methods here). It’s kind of like what Lisa Long was getting at regarding modern capitalism.
Regarding Stephen Hawking, he wasn't stuck in a wheelchair from day one; it was a progressive thing. Honestly, the only reason he’s still with us is because of the insane level of resources available to him—most people dealing with that kind of illness pass away way, way sooner. If he had started out in that condition, he probably wouldn't have ever had the chance to achieve half of what he did.
As for me, I’d define community usage as actively contributing specific types of resources. Like, using taxpayer money from social programs would be a really bad move. And yeah, I totally agree that dumping cash into the military is pretty stupid, but I suppose it's necessary until we actually manage to solve certain problems to a degree.