Should we get rid of the "useless" ones?

stormylynx4 said:It’s not an exaggeration at all. In fact, I’d argue it should be illegal in most of Europe to claim he contributed anything good to the world.

As for those economic arguments... I'd love to hear your take if you were fighting cancer. Would you just say, "Thanks, but let's skip the treatment since there's no guarantee," just for the sake of the greater good? And regarding Down syndrome—you brought up parents and children in the title, so why don't you go ask actual parents of kids with Down syndrome instead of lecturing us?
How does anyone even come up with these topics?

Donatello is absolutely right. Even the title itself is offensive because it hits parents of children with Down syndrome right where it hurts. It’s obvious the author doesn't know much about this (and I'm just focusing on Down syndrome specifically here), so honestly, it would be much better for someone who isn't informed to take the time to learn about what they're pointing at instead of attacking people. But as for that headline—linking euthanasia with Down syndrome? That connection is incredibly hurtful to everyone directly affected by it.

Dana Brooks3 said:I’ve been thinking lately... there are so many people walking around today who seem perfectly fine on the surface, physically healthy, yet they contribute absolutely nothing positive to society. Honestly, they just take up space and consume resources. They lie, steal, manipulate, hurt others... the list goes on. Don't you think forced euthanasia would be better for everyone in those cases? Let's look at this from both an individual and a collective standpoint—strictly through logic, not emotion. For the group, it would objectively be better to have fewer bad actors, whether it's due to flawed DNA or just unfortunate circumstances like how they were raised. But from the individual's perspective, is that perhaps... a crime?

In that case, I'd wipe them all out.
The damn problem is that these defects aren't easy to spot. That's why I'm proposing a psychological police force. It would consist of highly trained, highly moral individuals who monitor behavior and, based on reports, investigate specific cases to make a final decision on eliminating the blight and freeing us from the nuisance.

🙄

[deleted by moderator] ...then someone else might decide you're just like them and try to get rid of you too. Don't you think?
After all, what are skinheads if not violent thugs, much like the mafia? Or the racists and nationalists who harbor hatred for Indian Americans or Jewish Americans...

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.

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.

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

Here is a little poem for you:
come closer and take a good look
where these footprints lead
toward those lights up in the night
and those lights are our cities

every light is a single home
in the home there is a bed, a table, and chairs
blue light over blue faces
and a blue light behind a blue box

ooo, ooo, people from the cities
ooo, ooo, people from the cities

can you recognize the speech
speech of people from the cities
can you recognize the faces
faces of people from the cities

we are strong, we are tough
people from the cities
we are strong, we are tough
people from the cities

ooo, ooo, people from the cities
ooo, ooo, people from the cities

on the first day we sat
and the first day passed us by
on the second day we sat and waited
and the second day passed us by
on the third day we reached out our hands
and the third day passed us by
on the fifth day we sat and waited
and we cried and sat and waited and cried

ooo, ooo, people from the cities
ooo, ooo, people from the cities

P.S. What if I decided to implement IQ-based eugenics and exclude you?

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

I guess you've lost sight of what utility really means. We don't live to serve the community. The community exists to serve US.

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

You’d probably kill off Forrest Gump too. Shame on you.

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

That isn't quite right.
A community is made of individuals.
Some are capable, and some aren't.
Those categories are hard to define... things aren't always clear-cut.
But being "capable" doesn't always mean physical ability, and contribution isn't just about material output.
You have to realize these are people, and a human being is much more than just money, hands, and feet (it hurts to even type this).
Go look at the R&D forums regarding children with Down syndrome, and you'll see how much those kids fulfill their parents' lives and make you a better person... which ultimately makes you a more productive individual and community member, doesn't it?
Shouldn't people work on developing qualities and skills that go far beyond mere physical productivity?
Society is built by individuals. And those individuals aren't robots.
If everything worked the way you're describing, we wouldn't be talking about a society at all.
It would just be a pile of robots... or something like that.

I'm tired, heading to bed.

That's all for now...

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

Are you saying a life is only worth living if it serves a purpose for others?
Is the whole point of existing just to be "useful" to society?
Since when did social utility become the metric for human value? What does "utility" even mean when it comes to a human life?

Besides, parents aren't owners of their children, nor do they own their lives.

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

Red, even in this thread, people are trying to be polite while explaining how wrong you are. Honestly, your take just sounds like someone young and inexperienced, and let me tell you, listening to an adolescent clinging to their little echo chamber gets old fast.
Here’s a reality check: being smart isn't some golden ticket to a successful life. There are plenty of folks out there with high IQs who don't contribute a dime to society, and unfortunately, some won't find any success at all, regardless of their genetic makeup.
Ever heard of Ted Bundy? He was highly intelligent and charming; his only flaw was that he spent his time murdering women.

Interesting topic.

But check this out. If I remember correctly from my high school physics classes back in the day, Newton was actually a pretty sickly kid growing up. And look at him now—turned out to be a total genius. There are tons of other scientists, artists, and just generally influential people who shaped the world we live in today, even though they weren't exactly "normal" (whether you're talking about physical health or mental struggles). What would the world even look like if all those people had been wiped out at birth?

Maria Moore4 said:Interesting topic.

But check this out. If I remember correctly from my high school physics classes back in the day, Newton was actually a pretty sickly kid growing up. And look at him now—turned out to be a total genius. There are tons of other scientists, artists, and just generally influential people who shaped the world we live in today, even though they weren't exactly "normal" (whether you're talking about physical health or mental struggles). What would the world even look like if all those people had been wiped out at birth?

Then, among the normal ones, we'd probably start seeing finer distinctions. Basically, we’d just keep stripping away the Gaussian curve until we were left with nothing but a Dirac delta.

.. I honestly think that line of thinking is pretty unnecessary..

.. In this day and age.. one could argue that humanity is essentially just livestock.. scattered in different herds across various pastures..
.. The cowboys tasked with watching over them.. they know the drill.. how to brand, how to use the lasso, and exactly when it's time for the slaughter..
.. Letting the cattle decide.. democratically.. whether or not to slaughter themselves.. doesn't strike me as particularly logical..
.. Though, if we're talking about cinema.. say.. I could definitely see a movie like that.. maybe even seeing an American director pick up an Oscar for a lifetime achievement award based on it..

.. Community is.. a good thing..
.. Unfortunately.. bringing it up feels like showing weakness..

.. Regarding Hitler.. it almost seems as though God favored him..
.. It’s incredible the kind of force he built within Germany under his rule.. the work ethic.. the efficiency.. the unity.. the spirit.. frankly, the US isn't even operating at that level of productivity today..
.. He was given territory stretching all the way to Africa and Stalingrad.. and then later, we Communists were given the task of taking it all back..
.. In the end, he was left with that.. what was it.. some kind of poison.. people used to say they saw someone near the bunker with a small vial.. a total spit in the face of providence..

.. One German official supposedly remarked.. that it was impossible for mere livestock to be the goal of a nation..
.. No matter how you look at it.. those Germans seem quite brilliant to me..

redtinker36 said:.. I honestly think that line of thinking is pretty unnecessary..

.. In this day and age.. one could argue that humanity is essentially just livestock.. scattered in different herds across various pastures..
.. The cowboys tasked with watching over them.. they know the drill.. how to brand, how to use the lasso, and exactly when it's time for the slaughter..
.. Letting the cattle decide.. democratically.. whether or not to slaughter themselves.. doesn't strike me as particularly logical..
.. Though, if we're talking about cinema.. say.. I could definitely see a movie like that.. maybe even seeing an American director pick up an Oscar for a lifetime achievement award based on it..

.. Community is.. a good thing..
.. Unfortunately.. bringing it up feels like showing weakness..

.. Regarding Hitler.. it almost seems as though God favored him..
.. It’s incredible the kind of force he built within Germany under his rule.. the work ethic.. the efficiency.. the unity.. the spirit.. frankly, the US isn't even operating at that level of productivity today..
.. He was given territory stretching all the way to Africa and Stalingrad.. and then later, we Communists were given the task of taking it all back..
.. In the end, he was left with that.. what was it.. some kind of poison.. people used to say they saw someone near the bunker with a small vial.. a total spit in the face of providence..

.. One German official supposedly remarked.. that it was impossible for mere livestock to be the goal of a nation..
.. No matter how you look at it.. those Germans seem quite brilliant to me..

This makes me sick. God gave him Africa?! God gave him Stalingrad??! Like, WTF? Man, pick up a history book instead of babbling nonsense here. I’d ask you what would have happened if they didn't have brilliant commanders, like Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, who—despite a chronic lack of military resources and equipment—managed to rack up numerous victories with his Afrika Korps and inflict massive losses on the Allies, leading one of the most disciplined armies ever? It was Prussian school: discipline above all else, not to mention their technical achievements.

I think it's completely pointless to talk about Stalingrad because Stalingrad NEVER fell.. though that's not the point.. it's that "His Excellency," Mr. Führer himself, didn't personally march into Stalingrad wearing a belt engraved with "Gott mit uns," because after all, the Germans were the *herrenvolk*. What could one Russian, a communist, an *untermensch* against such a force hungry for *lebensraum*, actually do 🙄🙄 .. besides what didn't stop them from wiping everyone out and contributing to a "Thousand-Year Reich"? 🙄 .. What kind of dark God would it be if, despite the countless sacrifices, the lack of food, clothing, and medical supplies, the Wehrmacht's morale hadn't held? If it hadn't, Hic could have kissed God's ass... and the entire 6th Army under the command of Friedrich Paulus, which numbered 250,000 soldiers (!), was surrounded.. massive losses.. nothing but Führer's cannon fodder.. but still, the Führer knows best, just like those clowns Göring and Goebbels 🙄 .. *ein volk, ein reich, ein führer*, yeah, sure.. a bunch of idiots.. and that "God" of yours didn't give him poison; he just blew his brains out with a 7.65 mm Walther after taking a cyanide capsule on the side .. *bis zum letzten mann*. He wasn't exactly a tough guy waiting for the Russians in his bunker. It's a shame he didn't do it sooner, because there were more casualties in the final year of the war than in all the previous years combined.. too bad Claus von Stauffenberg didn't succeed, like so many before him.. this "spirit" you're talking about is pure brainwashing, meticulously overseen by Goebbels's propaganda machine ..

I'm writing all this because I'm disgusted by how people love to trivialize things, like, "oh, it just happened." Give me a break. The same goes for that scumbag Stalin. The fact is, any soldier with half a brain saw immediately where all this was heading. But whatever.. economic crises forced many to be recruited.. and you get a bullet anyway. As for the Germans, I have immense respect for that nation. Just look at the end of WWI. Germany was in total chaos, inflation was insane, the Ruhr was occupied by the French, unemployment was rampant... and they managed to reach superpower status again within about 20 years, enjoying the same status they had before, even being able to initiate another WORLD WAR (unfortunately)... it's just a shame the painter took over the state by exploiting the favorable conditions of that era. They were exceptional workers, a very valuable nation, and that deserves respect.

I don't want to derail this thread by going off-topic, but I have to address Red Shrike's logic. If you look at this whole mess through a strictly utilitarian lens, maybe you could justify it. But let me paraphrase John from *Good Will Hunting* for a second: the best results happen when every single person in a group does what’s right for themselves and the collective simultaneously 😉. You can't just make a clean "cut" and declare there are no compromises
.

One really ought to scrutinize—and I mean truly weigh the actual utility of it all—

Jonathan Brooks8 said:One really ought to scrutinize—and I mean truly weigh the actual utility of it all—

In what sense? Give me some actual substance here.😁

Melissa Rivera5 said:DISCLAIMER
This is strictly a theoretical discussion. I’m not trying to promote racism, sexism, or any of that other stuff. I'm just curious...

POINT IS
So, I was thinking, maybe Hitler wasn't totally off base. Like, looking at people living with Down syndrome today, or those with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses... they aren't really contributing anything positive to society. Honestly, they just end up draining resources that we never see a return on. Don't you think forced euthanasia might actually be better for everyone in those cases? Let's try to look at this from both an individual and a group perspective—and let's try to stay STRICTLY logical here, instead of getting all emotional. From a group standpoint, it would probably be better to have fewer "weak links" due to bad DNA, but from an individual's view, I guess it's a ? maybe significant? crime.

Well, if we’re following that logic, let’s take it even further:
- Retirees: they are absolutely a drain on the community. Just imagine how much higher wages could climb if we stopped setting aside funds for senior citizens!

Are you honestly suggesting we should eliminate all retirees? Seriously, how many years do you have left before you undergo a RADICAL CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE?
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

Gerald Morgan4 said:In what sense? Give me some actual substance here.😁

If you’re actually interested, you might want to dig up the "bee colony" thread over on this subforum—it covers how bees essentially built their entire social structure around the principle of utility, and draws some rather fascinating parallels regarding its applicability to human society...

Melissa Rivera5 said:DISCLAIMER
This is strictly a theoretical discussion. I’m not trying to promote racism, sexism, or any of that other stuff. I'm just curious...

POINT IS
So, I was thinking, maybe Hitler wasn't totally off base. Like, looking at people living with Down syndrome today, or those with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses... they aren't really contributing anything positive to society. Honestly, they just end up draining resources that we never see a return on. Don't you think forced euthanasia might actually be better for everyone in those cases? Let's try to look at this from both an individual and a group perspective—and let's try to stay STRICTLY logical here, instead of getting all emotional. From a group standpoint, it would probably be better to have fewer "weak links" due to bad DNA, but from an individual's view, I guess it's a ? maybe significant? crime.

You aren't the first person to wander down this particular rabbit hole. The problem—and honestly, the solution to these kinds of ideas—is that every time someone tries to bypass general humanism to draw a line in the sand saying, "these people are useful, these people are useless," they very quickly (sometimes quite rapidly) find themselves on the wrong side of that line. The thing is, a true humanist would actually see people with these views as being "useless." The small silver lining—maybe because they are... erm... human—is that the worst thing that happens to people like that is isolation. Or prison. Or a mental institution.

Melissa Rivera5 said:DISCLAIMER
This is strictly a theoretical discussion. I’m not trying to promote racism, sexism, or any of that other stuff. I'm just curious...

POINT IS
So, I was thinking, maybe Hitler wasn't totally off base. Like, looking at people living with Down syndrome today, or those with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses... they aren't really contributing anything positive to society. Honestly, they just end up draining resources that we never see a return on. Don't you think forced euthanasia might actually be better for everyone in those cases? Let's try to look at this from both an individual and a group perspective—and let's try to stay STRICTLY logical here, instead of getting all emotional. From a group standpoint, it would probably be better to have fewer "weak links" due to bad DNA, but from an individual's view, I guess it's a ? maybe significant? crime.

WARNING
this is purely theoretical, just satisfying curiosity!

And who are you? A humanist or a Bolshevik? Whose payroll are you on? You celebrate May Day too—just tell us which version, the one from 1776 or the modern one?😕