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]

That's true. It is really different, but I was starting from the viewpoint that not including yourself in the whole statement is what is missing from it. It is too easy to say "everyone sucks and should die" without including yourself in the assessment. Also, someone, you or I or anyone, might be better than average now, but you could lose a limb, or have something happen, and all of a sudden you are the homeless, seemingly less than average one.

[matrixmann]

This is also why I don't want to make that judgment final. It's too easy to get into the position of the one who's going to be eaten yourself. And you know yourself how you'd think of that - you wouldn't regard it as a joy.
An another note - as human society can and needs to work differently from nature, it is the way in human society that even someone who is not perfectly healthy can also contribute his part to the whole system.
It becomes difficult if the handicaps become more than what is healthy on you - but a single one, be it physically or psychically, in human society it doesn't need to mean the end of your existence. With human society, you can go on living even if you wouldn't if you were in free nature.
It's only... well, you need to be aware of the fact that it's a dependence. Without it, without civilization, you could cut the possiblity.