mirgro said:
It stopped around a century or so ago. What we now have is stupid people reproducing faster and at a greater rate than the ones that are smarter. Under a survival of the fittest such would not be the case. I am not losing anything, you gave examples of short or fat people, none of which have anything to do with the defining human feature. If a midget is smart he would live if he was a human being as long as he was smart under natural law. I don't think you understand that by removing survival of the fittest we are hurting the human race as a whole worse than anything else we can do short of destroying ourselves. |
Wait, it stopped a century ago? Survival of the fittest stopped at about the time of World War I? How does that make any sense? You're just spouting bullshit. And stupid people produce stupid children through a bad, "stupid" culture, not through stupid genetics. The capability of greater intelligence varies little between people, but physical capabilities too. You could have a perfectly fit man and a disabled man, and even if the disabled man is more intelligent, the fit man is far more likely to survive. This is, of course, all based on some kind of primitive world where survival of the fittest still applies.
I get your points perfectly well, but I still can't fully wrap my head around them, since they're so immoral and stupid. Oh, and by the way. Do you think we should kill all of the retarded people in the world? Do tell.
