Should we get rid of the "useless" ones?

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.

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.

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

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.

mistyfox812 said:At its core, society only works if we actually trust one another. If that foundation of trust between people crumbles, the whole thing just falls apart. Society basically relies on the assumption that the person standing next to you is a decent human being.

Super basic example: the other day, I accidentally scraped someone else's car. Instead of running away, I just walked up, gave him my full name and cell number, and promised to cover the repair costs. He took me at my word—purely based on trust. He ended up calling me later to say the body shop just buffed out the scratch for free and everything was cool. We had every opportunity to be sketchy or screw each other over, but we didn't. If we’d been paranoid, we would've called the cops, blocked up traffic waiting for them to show up, dragged insurance companies into it, maybe even lawyers... just endless headaches and delays. But because we trusted each other, it was handled instantly with zero drama.

Real trust means believing someone will treat you right even when there’s absolutely nothing in it for them.

And for us to trust society as a whole, we have to believe it’ll look out for us even when we have nothing left to offer.

Look, anyone can become vulnerable or disabled overnight. Having that gut feeling that people will still treat us with dignity in those moments makes living with that terrifying possibility a lot easier. (It's pretty well known how much having reliable medical aid on hand boosts soldier morale during wartime.)
So, yeah, any society that ignores its most vulnerable members is just a society built on fear and suspicion—and honestly, that kind of society is totally broken and inefficient.

mistyfox812 said:At its core, society only works if we actually trust one another. If that foundation of trust between people crumbles, the whole thing just falls apart. Society basically relies on the assumption that the person standing next to you is a decent human being.

Super basic example: the other day, I accidentally scraped someone else's car. Instead of running away, I just walked up, gave him my full name and cell number, and promised to cover the repair costs. He took me at my word—purely based on trust. He ended up calling me later to say the body shop just buffed out the scratch for free and everything was cool. We had every opportunity to be sketchy or screw each other over, but we didn't. If we’d been paranoid, we would've called the cops, blocked up traffic waiting for them to show up, dragged insurance companies into it, maybe even lawyers... just endless headaches and delays. But because we trusted each other, it was handled instantly with zero drama.

Real trust means believing someone will treat you right even when there’s absolutely nothing in it for them.

And for us to trust society as a whole, we have to believe it’ll look out for us even when we have nothing left to offer.

Look, anyone can become vulnerable or disabled overnight. Having that gut feeling that people will still treat us with dignity in those moments makes living with that terrifying possibility a lot easier. (It's pretty well known how much having reliable medical aid on hand boosts soldier morale during wartime.)
So, yeah, any society that ignores its most vulnerable members is just a society built on fear and suspicion—and honestly, that kind of society is totally broken and inefficient.

mistyscout2 said:There’s just no such thing as exterminating anyone. Period. Full stop.
I don't think this is even something up for debate, honestly.
Sure, we can speculate or dive into history books all we want, but the idea of actually considering such a thing shouldn't be on the table—not even as a serious thought. It reminds me a bit of how certain controversial topics are handled in the US today; the context might be slightly different and the specifics aren't an exact match, but the vibe is similar. And even then, discussing those kinds of things was pretty much unheard of even fifteen years ago...

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.

mistyscout2;7614180 said:As you can see, I didn't lock this thread. It's precisely because I believe there are people who actually want to discuss this—and I think that's perfectly fine. My take above is just my own opinion, which I find valid and justified; it isn't some categorical decree or command.

Besides, you can turn any topic into something worth reading if you try hard enough...

What I’m saying is that debating this at a political level is absurd. Even today in the USA, they debate whether it's acceptable to mistreat political prisoners and how to go about it—among other things. Not long ago, that was considered unthinkable. Or rather, it was always happening, but only certain individuals were out there barking about it on every street corner.QUOTE

Exactly—people weren't shouting it from the rooftops back then, and this current noise will eventually fade into obscurity too!
It happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again... and it won't just be a few isolated cases...
Instead of having a handful of people obsessed with talking about it, we should all be discussing this and taking massive, collective action to ensure such things can never happen. It is precisely because the masses turn a blind eye to these facts that a small group of like-minded radicals is allowed to develop and implement their agendas.
And it isn't "absurd" to discuss this at a political level—what's truly absurd is *how* and for what purposes it's being discussed.

We need to look the truth in the face: what do you call the fact that expensive treatments, organ transplants, and essential medicines are simply unavailable to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly?
That is already a quiet, covert form of elimination.
Even though I was initially horrified by the subject matter of this thread—and honestly, I felt like tearing everyone apart for even bringing it up—now I find myself asking:
What are we doing to prevent this from happening?
What am I doing, as an individual?
What have we done as a nation, besides offering nothing more than verbal reactions to specific cases splashed across the news? What kind of pressure have we actually applied to our politicians—the very people making these decisions—since we are the ones who elected them? Have we ever actually replaced them?
Haven't the examples of our own politicians—who swoop in to save their own kin and family members using expensive, highly effective medical treatments both abroad and here at home—given us a clear look at what is really going on behind the scenes?
Power and money decide who lives and who dies.
They also decide who is considered "useful" to 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.