matrixmann (
matrixmann) wrote2016-06-30 08:11 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
Keeping the throw-outs alive
Not all specimen extend to bloom.
In nature, there always grow more than survive in the end.
Well, if mankind achieved to keep them all alive, in conclusion... what did it actually accomplish at all with it?
In nature, there always grow more than survive in the end.
Well, if mankind achieved to keep them all alive, in conclusion... what did it actually accomplish at all with it?
no subject
I think I sort of believed what you said there.
The problem I see now though is that who makes the decision about who lives and who dies. If human life wasn't sacred then some huge hospital would decide to dump the elderly and disabled that are poor, but save the ones that came from wealthy families.
Also, cities would exterminate all their homeless. Once you got to that point, the abusers of power would throw in extra people because they are potentially getting in the way and they just aren't connected so no one will care.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Besides, humanity is doing basically nothing much important, so I don't think the more wealthy and powerful ones should decide who is worthless.
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)