CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Should we get rid of the "useless" ones?

Should we get rid of the "useless" ones?

Started by Melissa Rivera5 · · 👁 4 views · 117 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Melissa Rivera5Elizabeth Ruiz65stormylynx4Lisa Longmellowbison8ADana Brooks3Maria Moore4redtinker36Gerald Morgan4Jonathan Brooks8wanderingscout13Jessica Nguyen85brighttiger49driftingstag8coastalhawk63Carl Thompson4Eric Jackson43Hannah Thomas13mistyfox812silverfox6mistyscout2William Gonzalez3Chris Peterson53 …
Chris Peterson53 Chris Peterson53 Active Member
114 messages
joined Dec 2010
#81 ·
Melissa Rivera5;
I was just thinking—given how many people die from injuries now said:


Look, if you want the best results, you need organs from young, healthy people—think accident victims or people who take their own lives without using toxic substances.
But if we actually followed your logic,
I can already see the movie playing out in my head...
It would basically turn into a free-for-all hunt for "ideal" donors...
You'd have SWAT teams tearing down the interstate in high-speed chases,
intentionally causing pileups... while somewhere overhead, a medical helicopter just hovers there, waiting for the dust to settle.
Is it a bit extreme? Sure. But hey, if someone provides even a half-baked excuse for it, people will jump at the chance to pull it off.
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#82 ·
So, who's actually "useless."
Think about it—let's compare the way cells work in the human body to how societies function.
In a biological sense, which cells are considered useless?
It's the ones that just spread everywhere, sucking up all the resources and leaving nothing left for everyone else to survive.
We call that "cancer"—and our whole goal is to wipe it out.
If you apply that logic to human society—basically, looking at us as a collection of cells—the "cancer" would be those specific individuals
who basically just expand by draining everyone else dry, leaving zero room for others to live their lives.
I'll let you guys figure out who those people are in our society... you know who they are.
Melissa Rivera5 Melissa Rivera5 RegularOP
432 messages
joined Jun 2024
#83 ·
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.
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#84 ·
Melissa Rivera5 said: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.

Speaking of viruses—apparently they can actually tweak DNA structures, like, mess with genetic
blueprints... so it makes me think they might actually be what drives the evolution of different
species. They aren't necessarily the bad guys everyone thinks.
If someone asked me whether I'd rather be a virus or cancer? Man, I don't even know how
I'd answer that one.😬
Harold Anderson3 Harold Anderson3 Regular
732 messages
joined May 2023
#85 ·
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.

I honestly don't get why people with disabilities or Down syndrome bother you so much. The idea that they're draining money is really negligible when you consider how much we pour into unnecessary entertainment, theme parks, and, of course, the massive defense budget. Just one question for you: if you had all that money that these "useless" individuals supposedly spend, what specifically (and intelligently) would you use it for?🙂
urbantiger96 urbantiger96 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Mar 2007
#86 ·
WARNING!
Look, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate—this is strictly a theoretical discussion. I am not here to advocate for racism, sexism, or any of that other garbage... I just want to satisfy my own curiosity...

Let’s get down to brass tacks—no fluff, no beating around the bush... just the cold, hard facts.
I’ve been sitting here thinking—and maybe this is going to get me canceled, but I don't care—perhaps Hitler wasn't actually entirely wrong about certain things... I mean, look at the reality of our society today. We have massive amounts of people living with Down syndrome, severe disabilities, and those suffering from terminal illnesses who, quite frankly, contribute absolutely nothing of value to the community. It's a drain. They aren't building anything, they aren't driving progress—they are simply consuming resources and tax dollars that can never, ever be recouped by the economy...Don't you think that in cases like this, forced euthanasia would actually be the better move for everyone involved? Let’s look at this problem from two distinct angles—the individual versus the collective—and let's try to approach it strictly through the lens of logic, rather than letting our emotions cloud the issue... For the group as a whole, it would undeniably be more beneficial to have as few "defective" members as possible—simply due to the reality of flawed DNA—but when you look at it from the perspective of the individual, it becomes... well, perhaps a crime?
__________________

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?

I’ve already gone into much greater detail regarding your opening post—the one posted further up the thread...
You might not fully grasp the sheer weight of the words you're throwing around—that underlined section of yours really hits a nerve—because it’s crystal clear that Hitler was systematically murdering anyone he deemed a "burden" to the state, all while forcing his scientists to perform those horrific, depraved experiments on human beings...
So, I’m back at it again—asking you plainly, once more—whether they are draining your bank account dry... because let's be honest, that spoiled little crowd is just sucking up resources left and right. So? What’s the verdict?
As for what you were thinking back then—or even what's crossing your mind right now—I honestly have no way of knowing... I can't possibly guess that.
Just so I’m clear here—I need to ask you this—would you actually be willing to donate your own organs if you were to pass away? And even more gut-wrenching... would you consider donating the organs of your own child in the event of a fatal accident? It’s a heavy question, I know, but I really want to hear where you stand on this...
I’m just genuinely curious about this...
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#87 ·
The reality is, there’s no such thing as "useless"...
Not even anything that could be considered useless, or lacking a purpose.
Elizabeth Ruiz65 Elizabeth Ruiz65 Active Member
66 messages
joined Jan 2008
#88 ·
People essentially invented the concept of "useless others" just so they could
label themselves as the useful elite.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#89 ·

On our "Philosophy" forum, we could have approached the core question this way:
WHY is utility considered a good thing (something worth pursuing)?

Isn't one person's gain usually just another person's loss?



If we view society through the lens of an organism, then the following argument holds up:

Keith Lee2 said:So, who's actually "useless."
Think about it—let's compare the way cells work in the human body to how societies function.
In a biological sense, which cells are considered useless?
It's the ones that just spread everywhere, sucking up all the resources and leaving nothing left for everyone else to survive.
We call that "cancer"—and our whole goal is to wipe it out.
If you apply that logic to human society—basically, looking at us as a collection of cells—the "cancer" would be those specific individuals
who basically just expand by draining everyone else dry, leaving zero room for others to live their lives.
I'll let you guys figure out who those people are in our society... you know who they are.


My takeaway is this: It is always in the interest of the rulers (the owners, the powerful) to eliminate non-functional individuals
(there's an old American saying about how cattle produce tallow while people produce profit),
but it's in the interest of the majority to eliminate the rulers themselves (the wealthy, the media moguls, the "cancer").
Melissa Rivera5 Melissa Rivera5 RegularOP
432 messages
joined Jun 2024
#90 ·
@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.
brightgardener40 brightgardener40 Member
39 messages
joined Feb 2007
#91 ·
To be honest, this whole topic scares me. Not long ago, an idea just like this became a reality and killed millions, including people with disabilities. What's even more unsettling is how limp the moderators' response to this thread has been.
What if a national referendum passed calling for the execution of all atheists?
Aaron Parker2 Aaron Parker2 Newcomer
1 message
joined Mar 2007
#92 ·
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.

No one has the right to take someone else's life. This kind of line of thinking is incredibly dangerous and destructive, because once you start down this path, you could just as easily invent new ways to discriminate against anyone deemed "unfit." Eventually, we'd end up "euthanizing" retirees (which is just a polite way of saying killing them), or perhaps even children, since they don't contribute anything to society yet, aside from being a financial drain on their parents and taxpayers. Why stop at people with special needs? 😕

Furthermore, those children, those retirees, and those individuals with special needs provide value to their families simply by existing; they are loved, and they love others.
Viewing humanity through a purely materialistic lens is repulsive and completely incomprehensible to me. Does this mean anyone who doesn't contribute from a manufactured, consumerist, and capitalist standpoint should be backed into a corner?
James Doyle24 James Doyle24 Member
12 messages
joined Oct 2008
#93 ·
Melissa Rivera5 said: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...

Thanks for the link.
Donating blood doesn't affect me. Does this one feel different?
It says you need to take it easy, but I'm training.

Eugenics became unpopular mostly due to "racism" and the Nazi mockery of individuals and nations deemed inferior.

Eugenics (in terms of advancing a group or species) can be done through partner selection or genetic manipulation. The first is slow; the second is currently impossible.
Science is far from being able to control human traits in any reliable or certain way.
Melissa Rivera5 Melissa Rivera5 RegularOP
432 messages
joined Jun 2024
#94 ·
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
brightgardener40 brightgardener40 Member
39 messages
joined Feb 2007
#95 ·
When I say "useless," I'm not talking about seniors or kids. I mean people who, for medical reasons, can never be, will never be, and under no circumstances could ever contribute to society. Kids and retirees don't fit that description. Neither do people missing a limb or those who are blind or deaf. Technology handles them, and soon enough, genetic research will too.

Picture this: a man is paralyzed from the neck down, but his mind is sharper than anyone you've ever met. To me, he is useless. In fact, he's a drain on resources because he requires a full-time caregiver. Would you actually have the guts to look him in the eye and end his life against his will?
Nancy Thompson3 Nancy Thompson3 Active Member
86 messages
joined Apr 2007
#96 ·
brightgardener40 said:
When I say "useless," I'm not talking about seniors or kids. I mean people who, for medical reasons, can never be, will never be, and under no circumstances could ever contribute to society. Kids and retirees don't fit that description. Neither do people missing a limb or those who are blind or deaf. Technology handles them, and soon enough, genetic research will too.

Picture this: a man is paralyzed from the neck down, but his mind is sharper than anyone you've ever met. To me, he is useless. In fact, he's a drain on resources because he requires a full-time caregiver. Would you actually have the guts to look him in the eye and end his life against his will?

Nobody on this forum could pull that off. Not even the ones acting all tough and claiming they could.
Melissa Rivera5 Melissa Rivera5 RegularOP
432 messages
joined Jun 2024
#97 ·
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.
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#98 ·
silverfox6 said:Actually, you aren't a society—you're just an individual.

🙄
I think you know perfectly well I wasn't suggesting that I personally constitute a society—rather, my point was that society is the entity capable of deciding (and indeed, deciding) on a vast array of things. By that logic, society would also be the one making calls about who is considered harmful and who is seen as beneficial.

In any case, society is what dictates which side of the road you drive on, sets your speed limits, tells you that stealing is wrong, and even decides where you can or cannot relieve yourself. It determines whether someone is deemed sane or not, can strip away a person's liberty, or even commit them to a mental institution...
Essentially, society dictates a staggering amount of our lives.
Or, perhaps more accurately, society defines a huge portion of who we are.
So, why wouldn't it also decide which individuals to eliminate simply because they are deemed detrimental to the collective?
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#99 ·
mistyfox812 said:And what if people used a referendum to vote that all atheists should just be kicked to the curb?

Well, in that scenario, I suppose I’d just declare myself a theist.

In other words—this is such a difficult category to truly verify, isn't it?
If someone were to point a gun at my head and demand to know what I believe, I guess I’d tell them whatever they wanted to hear just to survive.

I mean, even Galileo ended up recanting his most vital, fundamental truths about which rock orbits which planet when faced with the threat of death.
And that—well, that is a much more significant matter than whether or not I personally identify as an atheist.

So, why shouldn't I just renounce my atheism under those same circumstances?
I have this impression—maybe I'm wrong—but I suspect many atheists would claim to be theists if they were forced into such a blunt, simple choice.
Thomas Hughes40 Thomas Hughes40 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Mar 2007
#100 ·
And who exactly gets to decide if someone is "useful" or just dead weight? You? Me? Some big-shot politician in D.C.? Truth is, we’re all kind of useless in the grand scheme of things. Seriously. Tell me why some street musician playing for change in downtown Chicago should be considered less valuable than a Congressman pulling in $20,000 a month? If we're judging by productivity or cost, that representative is way more useless since he's draining so much more from the system.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads