Ok I started rambling a bit on a comment on chris' blog which went a little too far on a tangent and decided it deserved to be a post of it's own.
Some portion of humanity have no possible opportunity to better the human race. They are nothing more than any other animal except they are genetically the same as those people who are able to contribute. I propose there should be some method of evaluating people and deciding if they should be allowed to contribute to the gene pool. I do quite like the idea of putting the druggy lowlife freaks and just general scum of society on an island somewhere with no technology and let them live like any other animals on the land.
Ok so this may seem slightly crazy but it would certainly make the world a nicer place for the rest of us.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Welcome to the saving grace
Posted by Steve at 4:54 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Chinese style, where you need a license to have a child.
i think if the scum of the earth didn't procreate then the world would be a very boring place and "scum" decided to make their own race lol, it would be genocide hahahaha.
it makes me think of hypotheticals. what if, say, stephen hawking's parents were consired low life non-contributing scum?? hmmmmm
I don't think Stephen Hawking's parents would have been low life scum though. Otherwise he wouldn't be so smart.
I don't think two retarted scumbags are likely to have a non-scumbag child. If they did, I reckon the child could be normal and allowed to live, but wouldn't affect the world on a global scale.
didnt the british adopt the same stratergy 200 years ago and now here we are
how very colonial british in your line of thought.
lol
what defines scum? cause those yuppie fuckers who cut me off on the roads in the morning sure as shit qualify in my books.
You know what kinda scum I'm talking about. The ones who cost more to keep alive than they could ever contribute to society.
You're talking about a (negative) eugenics program, and you might be interested in a quick read of this recent Damn Interesting article.
Even though it's become a bit of a dirty word due to the nazi's, US, and similar programs, eugenics programs definitely have a certain appeal to them and have something to offer, although I think the idea of attempting to encourage positive pairing (as in the example in the article) is probably somewhat more feasible, along with proper education and advice on bad pairing. Any legislated neutering programs would have to be restricted to only the most potentially damaging conditions.
The problem with trying to decide on the basis of people being "lowlife scum" is that they aren't neccesarily so due to genetic factors.
How the frak did that apostrophe get in there...
Its like people in jail, all those people with life sentences, they cost more to keep alive than theyll ever contribute. Go the death penalty i say.
Arent you scum steve since you write off tax loop holes to get your money?
We all know what kind of people youre talking about, people like bronwyn haines and westy. Or that dude that used to live with me (not ben).
Technically youll always have scumbags in a sense, cause there will always be upper and lower class. the upper class will always look down on the lower class.
You saying that hawkings parents prolly werent scum is just a bad assumption. Dead shit parents can have smart kids, its all about which sperm makes it thru. No doubt your upbringing has alot to do with it, but upper class parents DO have shit bag kids. ITs like saying meg beilkens parents are better than all the other parents at the school, just cause she was the dux (altho one could dispute the decisions made by the school.)
Better genes and better upbringing only gives you an advantage over the rest, it doesnt hand the smarts to you on a silver platter.
But, no matter how much we argue, the idea of ridding the scumbags from the world is still a good one, but how does one decide?
Lets start with britney spears...
Actually, under the current system in place in the United States (and therefore under any theoretical system they might put in place in Australia) it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life - a result of the lengthy appeals process involved.
Personally I think the best choice of people for such a neutering program if it were feasible to actually implement one would be those with an actual detectable defect of some description rather than those who are simply of lower physical or mental fitness; we could have a large number of genetically carried defects removed (or at least near-completely marginalised) within a few generations if not for reintroduction from international populations.
Gattaca.
Those movies like aeon flux and the one with the dude that could calculate whre people would be to shoot them, we watched it at the boys instead of rambo 4.
They arent that bad an idea, if you could have an idealogical world.
You could rid famine, poverty, war, hate, all the stuff thats destroying the human race.
Maybe the scum are the coming of the strong. Maybe the scum will one day rule, who knows.
All i know, is that id rather have bought a child into the world during WW1 than now. The idea of bringing someone into this fucked up world to continue the downward spiral scares me.
BTW.
Stephen William Hawking was born on January 8, 1942 to Frank Hawking, a research biologist, and Isobel Hawking. He had two younger sisters, Philippa and Mary, and an adopted brother, Edward.[4] Though Hawking’s parents had their home in North London, they moved to Oxford while Isobel was pregnant with Stephen, desiring a safer location for the birth of their first child (London was under attack at the time by the Luftwaffe).[5] After Hawking was born, the family moved back to London, where his father headed the division of parasitology at the National Institute for Medical Research.[4]
His father was not scum, his mum on the other hand... no mention.
The whole genetic thing is difficult. Stephen Hawking IS a good example; despite whatever may be the actual truth his condition could easily be genetic and grounds for his parents to have not been allowed to reproduce. Admittedly he lives a pretty fucked up life as a result, but the world is certainly better off because of his contributions.
I guess it depends on how much you value the contribution of the few flukes against the weight of the millions of deadbeats.
I remember discussing this with fudgeman at some stage, we were saying that the human race is diverging. Super-athlete/nobel prize winners are not so likely to reproduce with scum, so generally the scum get scummier and the rest, well who knows. Maybe some parts of society are still evolving.
yeah, i just thought stephen hawking was a good example to question how you decide who reproduces and who doesn't. ideally i would like an example with 2 scummy people had a great child but it's hard to think on the spot.
gattaca as a theory probably works better than minority report. although both systems had many flaws and were probably made by bible bashers lol, to show what happens when you take over god's work
MMM well for my two cents ill give a economical/business view...many many many businesses aim for this 'scum' market, eg. home brand sliced pinaple. And especially governments, even with the dole program. Plus i think humans need to seperate their race, i think the thought of 'good and evil' inspires us, and gives us something to psyically see and be above of, with nothing to benchmark ourselves too we have nothing to look down to. Or maybe ive spent way too much time in Mornington.
"[We] do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. […] Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. […] Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."
-Charles Darwin
The last sentence is particularly thought provoking I think.
Charles Darwin was a wise man, I've always liked his work.
I found someone semi-scummy, Isaac Newton. He had a weird upbringing coz his father died just after he was born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
I agree with Scott, you can't not have scummy people, they make the world go round, even if they're a pain in the arse. If they go, then we'll be the new scum coz we're all next in line on the povo scale. I don't want to be scummy lol
If we did away with scum then yes many of us would be the lower class. But it would still be better.
I just want rid of the people who just cost money. With paying for their dole, paying for the medical expenses because they make themself sick with drugs and shit. Paying the fucking baby bonus. Wasting valuable land on housing them instead of putting the land to good use. (yes if there were less animals living in houses we would have cheaper land). The road toll caused by drugged and drunk drivers and the damage to property/emergency service costs ensuing.
I'm not saying cull the sick, maimed feeble or drawfs. I'm saying cull the scum that don't deserve to be called human. Such as the people who hang around frankston station, many of the people living in flats on beach street (not everyone but many).
Stephen Hawking certainly wouldn't have fallen into that catagory and while I can't say for certain, based on the wiki page neither would Newton.
I also noticed this on Newton's wiki page.
"In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge. According to John Stillwell, he entered Trinity as a sizar[10]."
The John Stillwell that is referenced here is about 5 doors down the hall from me at Monash. :P
Small world.
"Stephen Hawking certainly wouldn't have fallen into that catagory and while I can't say for certain, based on the wiki page neither would Newton."
now you've changed your definition. if you placed someone with that childhood in this present time, he would be classified as scum. going to cambridge proves that even the unfortunate have a chance.
i think if you want to get rid of people who are costing you money, get rid of people who smoke. do you know how much they cost the public sector? shit loads. every second bed is taken up by someone with a smoking related disease. and drunk drivers can be anyone, you should know that.
also, up until recently, everyone got the baby bonus. it's a stupid idea, everyone survived without it before. stupid second baby boom, that was a dumb idea.
i'd like the people mooching off my taxes to be slain as well. i include smokers in that too, i'm not afraid to discriminate lol. they mooch off my taxes when they have their strokes, heart attacks, various cancers and COAD, just to name a few.
it would be an awesome idea to go down to franga station every day with a 12 guage and let loose
I know everyone can be drunk drivers, but it's the ones driving home from work every day pissed that cause the big problems. As for smoking I fully agree. Though perhaps a better alternative would be to make it illeagal? Or just smash the taxes up even more. You could do something else extreme and perhaps for people who are likely to be ill by their own doing such as smoking or alcohol abuse we should have a seperate pool of money which their medical expenses must be drawn from so that if they are willing to risk their life and well-being to smoke/drink then they don't spend the money allocated to the health of the general public.
Yes I am aware that is is quite possible I'd fall into the alcohol abuse catagory. But I still think it is the right thing to do.
It also begs the question; do the massive taxes on smokes cover the indirect cost associated with them?
Anyway the cost factor is only a side issue. The thing that really gets to me the most is simply to be considered the same species as certain scum. Yes a shotgun powered culling would be very satisfying.
This Comment place is too big now.
Steve, if you look at the drunk driver smashes/killings, most of them arent by people driving home from work drunk. Theyre from people like you and i, drink driving and acting like morons. (7-11 pie night)
The easy solution to everything these days is to bump the price up.
People speed, increase the fine.
People spend, Increase interest rates.
People drink, increase the alcohol price.
People Drive, introduce road tax.
Why not do the same with smoking. It kills more people than speeding, it kills more people than drinking. It shits me up the wall and it affects EVERYONE.
Bump up smoke tax, fuck them, if everyone else has to lay out more cash, smokers should too.
As for killing scum off, you can, altho id be more inclined to go the automatic/machine gun, its got more spread and youd make less mess.
the tax on cigarettes always goes up, don't be bias towards your precious alcohol. BOTH cause lots of damage to your body, whether you're an alcoholic or not.
making smoking illegal isn't going to work for lots of reasons. it would cause an uproar from the public, the government would lose lots of money from not having the tax anymore, and the cigarette companies would never allow it.
So more money is made from cigarette taxes than the medical expenses associated?
I know what your saying sean about the increasing the price of everything. But if the price of everything goes up then we're just gonna make everybody poor except the government. Need to be tactful about it.
In all seriousness; cigarettes as well as alcohol should be made illeagal and we should have much harsher drug laws like some of the asian countries. I'm not condoning the death penalty but I beleive that a blind eye is turned on drugs far too often.
As for banning alcohol, I'd be the first person to freak out in a fit of rage. However if we were never introduced to alcohol we wouldn't crave it, just like smokes. The next generations would look back at us like we looked at hippies when everyone is illeagally obtaining booze. In future generations people who illeagally got hold of booze would be considered the 'scum'.
Ok so this has gone far from the start of this topic but it's all related. The world's governments needs to take a step back and really think about where the future is heading.
Now you hit on the key issue. Our government structure is such that they have little inclination towards to future, they have such a short time between elections that they have to spend half their time worrying about that. Additionally, to win elections they need to make the scum vote for them so they can't go doing things like make alcohol illegal, even though it would be for the betterment of society.
Really we need a different system of government before a lot of things can be fixed.
Or the worlds population needs to get smarter so that government policies can be centered on more long term issues without backlash. I doubt that will happen though. It's all about reacting to crisis after crisis, there is no long term planning.
the government has to focus on the main concern... and that is, it doesn't matter what their policies are, people only care about the hip pocket. that's why governments are always giving tax cuts, to get the votes. we don't need tax cuts, their actually doing harm by increasing spending and therefore fuelling inflation. we need taxes going towards important things. it's such a vicious cycle of idiots voting for idiots
So, what we really need is for me to be emperor and crush the people who's retarded opinions wreck the world, thereby leading humanity into a golden age? (Though not for everybody :p). Ahh, dictatorships.
thats it connex woudnt dare fuck us around if hitler was in charge.
what about all the good things hitler did?
but as far as dictators go i have far more qualities suitable for the job as high councillor ben is to stable and most definetly does not suffer from a case of malignant narcissism.
Post a Comment