Should we get rid of the "useless" ones?

Melissa Rivera5 said: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?

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.

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?

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.

brightgardener40 said:And who are we to decide who's useful and who isn't? Honestly, I've got kids and parents to worry about, so you're already stressing me out.👎

Taylor Campbell4 said:Quincy:

Someone with an IQ of 20 and severe disabilities isn't useful—and they never will be. Should we just eliminate people like that?

It’s not that—you simply aren't looking closely enough to see their value.

"Useless" is a concept that doesn't actually exist.

William Gonzalez3 said:We are a community.

Melissa Rivera5 said: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?

Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

mistyfox812 said:And what if people used a referendum to vote that all atheists should just be kicked to the curb?

Melissa Rivera5 said: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?