Posts by electricscout15

Melissa Rivera5 said: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?

Who knows? Maybe one of those individuals might actually end up inspiring some scientist to discover the elixir of life or something like that. 😁
So, let's look at it this way: suppose this kind of thing was implemented tomorrow, and you (😬) were the one stuck in charge of designing the criteria for how it would be carried out. Would you really eliminate them based solely on their IQ? I guess just try outlining some specific criteria for me—I'm genuinely curious. 😍

silverfox6 said:Who actually gets to decide who’s considered useful and who isn't? It's a question that really makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

I mean, look at someone like Hitler; he was a complete and utter maniac, honestly quite unwell. He dealt with a whole laundry list of physical and mental health issues, though he was incredibly skilled at masking them from the public eye. And it wasn't just him, either—even his inner circle, those key lieutenants who were always right by his side, weren't exactly free from their own various disorders and disabilities. Just take Goebbels, for instance. Talk about a cruel twist of fate.

Honestly, that’s the least of our worries. I mean, who really has the authority to decide who spends life behind bars? Or who gets priority care in an ER? At the end of the day, just like the Executioner mentioned, who is truly entitled to make decisions that impact a large group of people, even for something seemingly minor?
By default, I guess nobody has that right—and maybe nobody ever should—but in a society like ours, someone HAS to step up and take on that responsibility. So, if we ever actually faced the scenario being discussed, I'm fairly certain someone would eventually step forward to handle it.