You responded so quickly! I'm kind of out of it right now, so I might have misunderstood some of your points. Though #3 is a little debatable (since the minority of people living in developed countries consume the vast majority of food, water, and resources), I do agree with the following However, most people find it objectionable to leave the weak to die, though I'm not certain why this moral sentiment exists. Why do humans care for the sick and elderly? It is certainly not because of their contributions to society. Poor people in third world countries are dying as we speak, and the number of deaths will increase if the amount of aid is reduced. Surely you cannot just callously disregard their deaths. If you really prefer to weed out the weak, why not simply call for the cessation of modern medicine? After all, it's prolonging the life of various diseased individuals whose conditions may very well be genetic and allowing these individuals to pass down those genes. Regarding you comment that modern technology is dumbing down people, I believe there is no evidence for this. What exactly is "dumbing down"? Does it mean that people were smarter in the past? If so, that is certainly not the case, as IQ and college degree attainment rates have been rising. Then, you say Of course those who are very much above average in terms of motivation and intelligence might survive. Unfortunately, not everyone is extremely above average. Some people are just average or moderately above average. It seems odd that the average or moderately above average should be allowed to die from environmental factors they can't overcome. Oddly, it is perfectly fine for such people to survive if they were born into a more privileged environment. And environmental factors affect the survival of individuals all the time. Perhaps not in developed countries, but in the rest of the world, children constantly die of preventable diseases and malnutrition, all because they were born into an unfavorable environment. But wait, I guess they died because these they didn't try hard enough.
honestly i think that it is a terrible idea. the government or any regular person/company should not create these. God put these foods on this earth and the insects too. Leave it be
Well, as much as i want to agree with you, sadly it's never ever going to happen. Well, for starters, Animals like Chicken/Pig/Cows are fed food with some modified hormones so that they will grow faster and fatter, chickens can lay more eggs. Even vegetables/fruits are modified to get better harvest results, and this was all learn last year in gr.9 science in Canada. So, should they be modified? No, but are they? Yes, and we can't really do much about it.
Just got the seasonal layoff XD I get to see my family again! Looking back at my first post, you can see that my statements were fact-based and didn't say anything about my feelings one way or the other regarding aiding the needy. I do have feelings about the subject, but if we're going to talk about that I'd rather do so in a separate thread so as to not further derail the train of thought here. It's simply an ugly truth that by providing care the world over for those unable or unwilling to provide for themselves, mankind creates problems of a different sort for itself. I like that you brought up disease - it was an unexpected and unexplored turn. Made me have to fire up some extra neurons. I would not regard someone suffering from MS or cancer as weak any more than I would say someone was weak for bleeding after getting hit by a car. Not that diseases, and especially the more serious ones, don't test a person's resolve, but either a car or a serious disease can cut down anyone even in their prime at any time. So, depending on the severity of the disease, in some cases this goes beyond "weeding" and right to simply eliminating, and in other cases of diseases that can be successfully fought for extended periods of time and allow the patient a relatively normal lifestyle, it's still tangent to whether or not they have the drive and talent necessary to be able to provide for themselves and their families. By "dumbing down", I mean this: people will not fix a problem if they don't even realize the problem exists. So since advanced technology makes people feel smarter and more competent than they really are, they end up dumber for it in the end because they don't feel the need to learn as much. My evidence here is my life and experience. What I've seen and heard and gathered from that is what I've based this observation on and I don't need 50 year statistics and studies as backup to feel confident in saying it. When someone drives to a place six times using a GPS system and on his seventh planned trip there finds himself without the GPS to help him, does he a) remember how to get there or b) curse at TomTom and call up his friend with a Garmin to help? <---- real situation Factors that cannot be overcome do not really figure into the discussion of survival of the fittest, as they would surely kill the fittest as well. Disease was addressed already. Malnutrition... not a subject I'm familiar with, unfortunately. Meh, like I said, I guess that there are plenty of people who make it in the world today simply because they're never challenged or faced with true difficulties or hardships. I don't guess that there's anything wrong with that; I'd have been thrilled to have been one of those people. And it sucks for those who aren't as lucky, but that's life. Some kids are born to wealthy, educated professionals in Princeton and others are born to scumbags in a dirty little town like Browns Mills. The first kid has it easy his whole life, the second one will have to fight for his life. The thing is, if the kid from Browns Mills makes it, he really wanted to live. The ones we're talking about in this discussion - those at home and abroad who would perish if they weren't given food, money, shelter, et cetera - why do Sally Struthers or President Obama care more if [random needy guy] lives or dies than random needy guy himself does?
Sorry for not responding for so long. I was cramming for exams until today... I hope you've enjoyed your time with your family. Anyway, onto the discussion. After reading your latest post, I'm not sure if I understand what you believe. Do you believe the following: Those who can survive without "help" are the fittest while those who cannot are "unfit." Therefore, survival of the fittest can operate in this manner on human populations (if sources of "help" are removed) by eliminating the presumably "unfit" individuals who cannot survive without aid. My reading comprehension isn't the greatest and I just want to make sure 'm not misunderstanding your view. Also, do you mind explaining your definition of "weeding"? Does it just mean the elimination of "unfit" individuals? I brought up morality because it seems to be so intertwined in people's efforts to help the poor. Again, I'm not sure why people feel this way, so perhaps you or I can start a new thread to discuss it. Regarding the dumbing down situation, I agree that people are becoming increasingly more dependent on technology. However, what do you mean by "[people] don't feel the need to learn as much"? For this statement to be true, we must prove that people were more eager to "learn" in the past. How can eagerness to learn be measured? It is rather difficult to measure, so the best we can do is to use factors such as college degree attainment rates. Thus, the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence (i.e. evidence from life experience) is that individuals tend to remember the outliers (for example, the GPS-dependent individual) most vividly. The truth can be surprisingly different from what we expect based on our experiences. I'm not sure why you think the unlucky ones who died didn't have a strong will to live. Does it mean that children who die of preventable causes on a daily basis didn't try hard enough to live? This claim doesn't seem to be very plausible. Also, what the the kid from Browns Mills (or those in even more wretched conditions abroad) doesn't make it? Should we simply accept it because "that's life"? Again, because humans have an unexplained moral sympathy for the poor, most people cannot accept this. I guess we just have different opinions on fairness. You believe that nothing should be done to interfere with "nature" (even though complex human society is no longer "natural"). I believe that if an disadvantaged group is faced with insurmountable obstacles that more privileged people do not have to face, some help should be given to the disadvantaged group. However, this is again a difference in moral viewpoints, so technically one view is not better than the other. Anyway, I didn't want to say too much (though I guess I've already said too much) in case I misunderstood your view. I eagerly await your response!
I dont think genetically altered food isnt necessary...theres nothing wrong eith normal food so do people feel the need to alter shit???
As long as there are no harmful presevatives.. why not? genetically modified foods could provide more nutrition
I for one am split upon this. Am I correct when I say that there really hasnt been that much evidence in terms of the negatives of these foods? I
Well, the normal seeds have been modified in some way -> and some crops have to have special chemical treatments