Keeping the throw-outs alive

[matrixmann]

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?

Comments

[mandarinsun.livejournal.com]

I agree that it is absurd how people act so shocked when there is a death like it is unexpected.

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.

[matrixmann]

I know this and that's why I didn't put it as a general termination. It's more like a general questioning.
You see, by close look, in nature there would be a clear rule to this. If you wanted to orientate by it would be an ethic question. Human society can't solely work by the rules of nature, otherwise you'd have that kind of shit like the Holocaust again. Humans aren't that objectively and randomly like nature that you can say "those which have a handicap are significantly disadvantaged compared to those which don't have one and that difference makes out that bit that determines between survival or death".
In human society it's already enough owning enough money and wealth and you can get by because you can afford yourself medicine and aid for the things you cannot do. This already distorts the rule that nature has.

[mandarinsun.livejournal.com]

I can see why someone would write what you wrote. It is just more complicated than that. I'd say the best thing about the United States and all the lawsuits and gridlock in government here is that it does protect the individual and powerful people are frightened into respecting the rights of minorities including homeless and people undervalued.

What if someone like quirkytizzy or myself, people that sort of dotter and limp along on the margins of society, suddenly wrote some novel or book that tens of thousands of people took comfort in. Also, I've substituted a class with a teenager that looked homeless and when I tried to get him to do something he told me about hearing voices in his head. I might have convinced him to go get medicated concerning that. So, who knows who I've helped and who I haven't helped.

It's too easy to write a paragraph or two about how everything is worthless. Words don't really correspond that well to reality. People have more faith in them than they should.

[matrixmann]

Say, I could have a purely social Darwinistic opinion about this, but I don't want to. I see this is more complicated than just making a judgment and then it's done with it. This has severe consequences, if done short-sightedly.
Also, this is another thing if it affects yourself and if the things goes as not you ask someone to kill you, but someone else decides to kill you.