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

[matrixmann]

I hope this sort of doesn't sound like I'd welcome eugenics - it was also a thought I had in mind with this observation, but only a thought: If in nature there are more born or more blossoms form than survive in the end of a species, wasn't it originally the destination of those with a flaw to actually die - and mankind removed that?
You know, I'm none of these unconditional pro-lifers (I see this term the dictionary translates with the meaning of "being against abortion"; I rather use that term in its literal meaning - being pro life), none of these people which say "every life is worth keeping it", no matter how crippled it is.
I think if you're 15 and if you realize you cannot walk, you're that mentally damaged that you can never reach up to them, you're as intelligent to notice it. And, as 15-years-olds are, you can be frustrated about it if you can't be like everybody else in your age.
People always want to tell you differently because it's the age of artificial positive thinking, positive thinking by command, and because all fear a dawn of the age of eugenics again if they admit a handicapped person can be desperate about its existence.

I didn't put it that directly because - you see why, don't you?
Especially as a German, I think, I need to take care of this.
And also, I don't wanna arrogate it to me to be the judge over such issues. I think I'm not the one to decide that.
I only name it how it's treated in nature to give a little thinking, give a little reminder - but, as said above, human society can't exactly function by the laws of nature.