Clear the useless humans from the genepool?

Sounds pretty barbaric to me.

Stupid, sick and just the thought of it is offensive.

What gives anyone the right to say they are better than another?

Everyone deserves to live despite their genetic makeup.

:::edited by self:::::

wrong

How do you determine who is useless? What if you’re the one they decide needs to be snuffed out?

What it the world?! That’s so….Barbaric, stupid, sick, and just the thought of it is offensive.
@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities and @Dog took the words right out of my mouth.

We’re like at this level of FAIL.

Gret Idea! Now… who decides who all these “useless humans” are?

those who do not contribute anything to society, economically.

those with disabilities merely put a drain on our economy, using food, money, electricity where it could be used elsewhere.

there are people around the world with great potential, but are dying due to lack of food and water, but yet we keep people alive who do nothing.

just a suggestion.

Fascistic, for real tho…

Who will choose? Who has the right to choose?

my above post clarifies “useless humans”

i’m sorry for the muddy term

@warribbons

Um…. that would be me. I’m just an old, retired, 100% disabled veteran whose time to contribute is long past.

@CaptainHarley yup =D

Can we just get rid of this question? It’s fucking disgusting.

In Warribbon’s world, would there be Soylent Green too?

We are not in the world of Gattaca, we therefore have no right.

Pat Robertson, is that you?

Who are you, @warribbons, Adolph Hitler, Jr.???

@Austinlad no, im just suggesting a discussion.

im just suggesting we discuss the possibility of not looking in the present, but looking into the future.

Now if you had framed the question as:
What is your view on the suggestion of removing all the humans who ask questions like this… well, I might be able to come up with an answer!

@warribbons What source are you getting this from or is it just an idea you came up with?

define useless.

@shorelinetrance

Um… CaptainHarley <——useless

Lets say @warribbons is chosen as the “executioner”. And let’s say that after about 5 years of executions @warribbons is diagnosed with some type of cancer that is deadly, but treatable for a while. But the treatment is very pricey. So at this point, @warribbons is now useless in the genepool and should be put to death?

And here I thought this question was going to be about the Darwin Awards…

No. Very bad idea on your part.

@CaptainHarley served our country and contributed greatly. He sacrificed his health to the benefit of others. Would you say that now because he is disabled he has no right to live? If you are suggesting that your thinking is really fucked..

I think that this person is trolling.

Must be

@chyna yes. i will gladly give my life for the betterment of the human race.

the food i consume will be better spent

@warribbons You may be willing to die early, but others are not.

@chyna their opinion doesnt matter in this hypothetical suggestion

Why limit it to those? The Haitians are pretty screwed. They aren’t gonna be productive. We could finish the job.
And the elderly…the ones with Alzheimers…they can’t help society. They had their day. Time to move on.
Death Panels might be the way to go. Save our precious resources. All we will lose is our humanity, and probably our souls.

The question isn’t abhorent, but actually considering it might be.

I agree @Austinlad I think Hitler has been reincarnated, and is trying to pass himself off as a cute little bear! I’m not falling for it!

Take the child molesters, violent rapists and torturers instead- they prey on the innocent as well as take up resources.

@hungryhungryhortence yes. they would count too

This “question” hits me hard, very hard. I have an autistic member in my family, a brother to be precise. It was hard on my family to raise him, but thanks to that experience, I have learned many valuable lessons: such as perseverance, diligence and much more. And also, my brother has forced me to leave me comfort zone many times, he has also helped my character to grow in ways I never imagined. Handicapped or diseased people are not useless: they help one in ways not easily seen to the eye.

Now that I’ve been civil long enough…WHAT A BARBARIC, DISGUSTING, DERANGED, INHUMAN, FILTHY, HORRID, BEASTLY AND OUTRAGEOUS QUESTION!!

Sorry for the yelling. This is a very emotional topic for me. To be honest, I want to yell more right now, and punch the faces of people who support this, but luckily for you, my brother also taught me decent self-control.

It’s been tried before. It’s called The Holocaust.

Is the economical standpoint the only way we will judge who is useless? Perhaps some of these “useless” people are actually of great utility for other reasons. Perhaps they give someone else a reason to live, or perhaps teach a valuable lesson.

Also, it’s unclear that a person in a coma would need to be “cleaned” from the gene pool if they’re not going to be having babies any time soon. To clear an old Alzheimer’s patient from the gene pool, you would need to hunt down their kids and grandkids. Where do you draw the line?

Are we counting economic use to others, even if they’re not productive in and of themselves? I’m thinking of all the people who work in nursing homes or in elder care or in medical research, looking for drugs and therapies to treat these people. They depend on the “useless” folks for their living.

It’s a big can of worms you’re opening. Even if you rule out the fact that they’re people, you still have to do some more thinking on it.

@warribbons It is pure evil and if you agree that it should take place then you are pure evil.

@laureth we could judge them from a social and political perspective also. one could say that instead of the time and discussion spent on supporting such people would better be spent on real matters.

paid the troll toll, now jumping off this train

@everyone We shouldn’t even pay attention to this troll anymore we are just going to satisfy him/her.

Not following any longer as it is making me angry.

i like all the ad hominem against moi! <3 and this is so hypothetical!

and as for the arguement that the disabled teaches us life lessons, if there were no disabled then we wouldn’t need those life lessons.

the disabled arent the only ones who can teach perseverance, diligence, etc… there are many that have those qualities who have no close relationship to the disabled

If this is trolling, you are an Ogre.

This way of thinking, Eugenics, had it’s realization in the Third Reich.

Caring and helping each other is one of the qualities that makes us human. It’s a vital part of building the social networks that make the foundations of our civilization.

@oratio definitely trolling. e.e

No human has the right to decide the fate of another’s life. This includes, genocide, capital punishment, eugenics, and murder. The very suggestion of it shows a very skewed moral compass, which in itself is dangerous to society.

One of the nicest men I know has severe trisomy 21. He one of my clients at work in a high care disability home. Once you work with the disabled, you can never call them useless.

This question makes me sick. Its just like racism all over again. We no longer think other nationalities are inferior, so why do people think disabled people are inferior?

We’re not Sparta here.

Or Nazis.

@dog

Thank you. : )

Ya know, the song “Disturbia” is playing in my head right now…

No human is worthless.

@FireMadeFlesh i dont see the connection between nationalities and disabled people. there are disabled people of all nationalities.

plus disabled people would be inferior in this case because they wouldn’t be contributing anything

and also, many people also have the belief that certain nationalities are superior over others

Nobody should decide who lives and who doesn’t.

<shakes head and walks away>

“Many people also have the belief that certain nationalities are superior over others.”

There is your problem. No person is inherently superior to another. People are not entitled to their beliefs if those beliefs are wrong, and it is the moral obligation to point out such fallacies.
My connection between race and disability is that both were at one stage thought to be inferior. Africans were once slaves, and disabled people were once slaughtered on the quiet so as to not embarrass powerful families. Whatever group you decide to single out, you have no right to assume that you are better. What right does anyone have to decide that economics should prevail over ethics? Even if we were to propose such a eugenics program, where would we draw the line? Would you have everyone with an IQ below 80 judged ‘useless’, or maybe 100? A contribution to society is not how you judge a person’s worth.
You see you think the progression of humanity is our greatest goal, but you have defined that in a purely economic sense. Who really cares if you can add an extra ten inches on the size of your plasma, if it is the murder of less fortunate humans that has bought the lower taxes to afford the plasma? The collective moral sense of humanity is a far better indicator of our advancement than our collective wealth.

Sieg Heil there, Adolph.

You DO know that people with mental and physical handicaps were the first to be killed in the Holocaust do you not?

So, who is on your itinerary for the Final Solution? Are you going to go with the old standard of Gypsies and Jews or are you going to strive for some originality even though you started out just like Hitler did?

Well, ok, it is all hypothetical whereas Hitler did it for real but I mean, why not go for the gold in your hypothetical situation?

@FireMadeFlesh GA, but i’m going to have to combat that.

you’re stating your opinion that no person is inherently superior, and through your logic, i’m going to point out that that belief is wrong.

for example, a person with trisomy 21 would have a lesser mental capability, and thus most likely less finesse with the body, in comparison to a normal human. Thus, making the disabled mentally and physically inferior.

Eugenics can be ethnically supported though. Would you let a child with cystic fibrosis suffer his life, just because we want him to live? It’s a harsh life.

i would like for you to elaborate upon your opinion that economy is inferior to morals. i do believe that our economy keeps you alive, not your petty morals.

@belakyre yes, i am aware of that, but this has been done many times before, not just during the holocaust

Quite frankly, a person’s utility isn’t anybody’s call outside of specific, narrowly-defined contexts, e.g. a deaf-mute in a call center.
@FireMadeFlesh
Ah, but who gets to decide what’s right and wrong?

Errr as far as physically handicapped, have you heard of this guy ?

Assuming that you have no morals, is that guy “life unworthy of life” (reference)? Now there I go with the Holocaust references again. Dagnabit.I tried to avoid it but it cannot be done.

My link to “this guy” did not work. It was to Professor Steven Hawking

@warribbons You still don’t get it, do you? Of course they are physically and mentally inferior, but that does not make them worthy of death, or unworthy of treatment as a human. It also does not give anyone the right to decide whether they live or die.

Ethics is superior to economics, and in fact it serves a greater contribution to keeping me alive. If we remove economics, I lose my material possessions, but I run off into the wild and compete for food like other animals. If we remove ethics, I would have to kill, cheat, extort, and dodge every other human trying to do the same just to survive. Africa is politically weak not because of its economy, but because of the corruption at every level of authority. If they could just galvanise into a functional unit, the economic power would follow.

There is also a big difference between eugenics and euthanasia. I support euthanasia, and believe everyone has a right to die, but no one has a right to kill.

@Nullo Ethics is a very complex subject, and I don’t have the time or space to go into it properly here. What is right and wrong is not determined by any person/persons, but is a fundamental effect of evolution. Our sense of morality is evolutionary. Killing the ‘useless’ is considered by some to be a method for advancement of the human race, but when it is extrapolated to further effects it is severely detrimental.

I have to go out, but hopefully I’ll have a chance to post a more comprehensive theory of ethics later tonight.

@Arisztid Stephen Hawking would be an exception

@FireMadeFlesh
Oh, I’m well aware of the complexities of ethics :D
What if somebody like me doesn’t buy evolutionary morality?

@Nullo Then you must come up with a viable alternative. As with all academic pursuits, we go with the best available alternative at any given time.

@warribbons Now now now… that is not the way to go if you are going to hold to your manifesto. After all, keeping him alive takes a LOT of resources.

If you are going to be true to your Cause™ you need to stay to it unilaterally and not make exception.

What about @CaptainHarley… he has lots of experience and wisdom to pass down but he is a disabled military veteran. If you are going to give Steven Hawking a slide, he should get one as well.

You see, giving one person a pass opens a slippery slope from your absolute decree. If you veer from your decree, where does it end?

Oh, and what about ethnicities and other peoples who you deem lesser than? I am sure there are some. Hitler laid the Final Solution on the Gypsies and Jews. I am certain there is some group you see as non productive. Right now, what about the Haitians?

If you are going to go for absolute financial contributions and drains, do not do it halfway.

Lets hear it…

Technically it would be for the benefit of the human race but you have to think about ethics and what someone would feel like to see their friends or family killed because they are considered useless.

@Arisztid k, hawkings is gone.

@warribbons Ok, now what about the Haitians? What about the unemployed in America who have been looking for a job with no success? They are dependent on assistance. What about ill people with no insurance (that would include me with my heart condition… I am going to get worse). Often the public has to eat the cost of emergency treatment of those of us with no insurance… what treatment we get.

If you are going strictly by financial viability, those groups have to go too.

@Arisztid we should just let natural selection take over

Ah no no no that will not work because these people use up resources before they die… more resources than someone without problems.

If you are going to go by your manifesto, you had better fire up those ovens right now. That would cost less than letting the people you decide to kill eat resources before they go.

If you are going to be Hitler, do it right. Sieg Heil Adolph.

@warribbons Lets say we go with the natural selection thing you mentioned. So what happens to the Jock who has an I Q of 90 and then a person who has an IQ of 160 but isn’t healthy. So by your selection both would be gone. I mean do we really need foot ball players? (No offense to football players. I’m just giving warribbons something to think about)
If we go with natural selection there will still be sickly people and inherited diseases. Before medications and surgerys existed people still managed to pass down defects. I think we already live in a world of natural selection. Our species has advanced to the point where we have become intellegent enough to medically overide a lot of illnesses and defects.Many animals evolve to endure a changing world and so have we. It is already a part of the evolution of man.

ahem. i take back my comment on stephen hawking. he would survive.

why? because he has contributed an enormous amount to human knowledge.

@Pandora it would depend on illness the IQ of 160 is suffering from and the jock would serve as a servant pretty well

i feel like no one is going to be on my side on this.

ITS ME AGAINST FLUTHER WOOOO

and im losing

If your letting someone slide as a servant than your mucking up your gene pool. The same would go on what illness you let slide. My point is there is no perfect human, so what would be the point of your question?

@Pandora to kill all degenerates

and no, we do not really need football players. why? cause i dont like it! LOL ;p

@Pandora that’s an interesting take you have on our perversion in accordance to Natural Selection btw

So long as people continue to be born than degenerates will always exist. So unless you are suggesting genicide of the human race. That will never be possible.
Not perverse. If you ever look at gorillas in different groups you will see that some develop new skills of survival without ever being taught the new skill. I take our learning of herbs and chemicals to prolong our lives the same way,

@Pandora im suggesting you kill any degenerates that exist and will exist. if they will keep comin, then we will keep killin’

Ah, my friend, then I may have to start with you. :P
I think if fluther took a vote you may be the first to go.
So sorry, Your bear was cute. “At last,I knew warribbons not well.” :(

@Pandora why? i’m a perfectly healthy human, maybe not in the mind, but in the body, yes.

no more ad hominem, plz

Ah, but when the mind goes (by your rules not mine) then natural selection suggest you be put down. Or at least released to the hounds. Or again according to you be made a servant. Nope, doesn’t sound right. You’ll just be a drain on society. You have to go. Sorry!
(Well either way, I got to go. My bed is beconning me,)

@Pandora i’d be able to handle a few hounds. i am no way close to the lower end of the IQ pool!!!!!!!!!!

and also good night. me too. goodnight you flutherites.

Rude. My brother had a birth injury and had cerebral palsy. He enriched our lives- loving is not useless. And I am now disabled. I don’t think the people who love me want me dead.

I appreciate your shot at bringing a controversial question, even if it was in poor taste, here to Fluther. I personaly like questions that create honest emotion. Really though, clearing the “worthless” out? Some would argue to start with people like you. Others will only protest the thought and many will only think about doing such a protest. If you’re going to fashion your question as forward thinking like you stated 79 replies up then you should try to think more like a mechanical engineer and less like a member of the Bush family.

I hate this question.

i guess we can say good bye to you now then.

Eugenics doesn’t work, anyway. We now know enough about the human genome, and about evolution to realize that even an ideally applied program of eugenics, with the decider being perfectly saintlike (He could even be Jesus) wouldn’t change things much. Sorry.

Have any of you seen the movie “Gattaca?” The moral of the story was that the human will is stonger than any percieved disability. I agree. : )

This might sound harsh, but does your definition of the word “useless” include people who can’t distinguish between genocide and eugenics when asked to submit appropriate keywords in the Fluther Topics list?

@warribbons BTW, I was still addressing the question. If one is to promote genicide on any scale than you would have to be above reproach or at least willing to be considered either useful or useless. Point will always come down to who gets to decide they are so above it all that they can make that desicion. Fear and hatred and bias will control such actions. Now if you are really trying to bring in the point of euthanasia, people are already allowed to decide through a DNR. I know it is not quite the same but euthanasia is a slippery slope.

It is a known fact that a great many of the people are either mentally handicapped or mentally ill maybe a family member .the mods are slipping.

@mattbrowne I bow before thy brilliance!

German, why and how are the mods slipping? Should the mods, moderate a question just because people don’t like it?

@judochop No, I don’t think the mods should moderate a question just because people don’t like it. The rules/guidelines are clearly outlined. If the question fits inside the guidelines, it’s fine. This question provokes a thoughtful discussion, because people have to give their reasoning.

@judochop Well, I agree with him on this one. The question is pretty close to “Kill all jews and black people?”. A question like “Does Eugenic thinking have any viability at all?” should better adhere to fluther standards. This one should have gone to editing.

thank you and the mentally handicapped thank you also.

What scares me is, what kind of a person could even think up a question like this, yet alone post it here? Seriously?!!

[mod says:] Above quip removed at user request.

[mod says] We had a pretty lively debate amongst ourselves over whether or not to pull this question. Distasteful as it is, it does fit the guidelines, so it stayed.

Literally defined, a “useless” human would actually be pretty rare. As pointed out above, the disabled don’t count as such because they – like everybody – can have a positive effect on society, if nothing else. As though they need society’s approval to go on living.
I’d say that the closest thing that we have to truly useless people are life-without-parole prisoners, and even they have potential to contribute.

It is worth noting that even the lowest, most ‘useless’ of scum could have perfectly normal kids, making elimination from the gene pool pointless.

please don’t pee in the gene pool.

@Dr_Dredd

“And here I thought this question was going to be about the Darwin Awards…”

I think those award winners are very useful for entertainment. ;-)

I love the Darwin awards! Always good for a laugh… :-)

Eugenics is morally unacceptable because in application it is abhorrent and logically flawed.

There are so many “normal” people who are selfish, vicious, abusive or ignorant by choice.
So many “normal” people could be deemed “a waste of skin” for some valid reason.

As others have pointed out, there are congenitally imperfect people who have and are and will continue to make valuable contributions to society.

There is no way to known in advance who will accomplish something that will make the life of someone better.

We get to judge people (in our courts) on the basis of their behaviour.

We get to evaluate a person’s contributions after the fact and then we can predict their future potential ex post facto.

No person can evaluate the potential quality of an other person’s life to them. It is an internal, uniquely personal assessment.

Economic value versus cost to society is not a criteria we apply or are willing to apply.
If we were willing to do so, convicts sentenced to terms that would exceed their life expectancy would be routinely executed to save money, without regard to their crime or any other attribute.

By our inaction, we allows untold numbers of people to die of preventable diseases, hunger and thirst. We treat many pets better than we treat most people at risk.

We already practice Eugenics by choosing not to assist people whose countries have no economic or strategic importance to countries rich enough to save their lives, while the same countries spend uncountable trillions of borrowed dollars to wage war and develop more powerful awful weapons of human annihilation.

We have access to inexpensive drugs that would cure or prevent diseases. The drug companies don’t make them because there is not profit in it because copyrights have expired. We don’t demand and send out these supplies because powerful countries see not benefit to them. The sick and at risk have “undesirable racial characteristics” and do not possess or produce commodities we want, therefore these people have no value!

We can’t stomach active Eugenics but we practice passive, inactive eugenics every day!

I wonder if you would ask that in a week from now if you got smoked by a car and became paraplegic. No wait, you couldn’t.

Man humour never ends does it.

So, Stephen Hawking is disabled technically right? And yet he is one of the greatest minds to ever grace his planet. Would you kill him since he is disabled and you defined being disabled as automatically not contributing?