quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
Could you go into a little more detail as to what you mean by this, and what the implications are for the implementing of euthanasia?
I'll give it a shot, though this might deserve a thread of it's own. Either way I know I'm going to piss some people off by saying what I'm about to, so let me preface this by putting on my Devils Advocate horns and tail, ok?
The way I see things, this planet is at least three times it's maximum capacity for human beings, and is suffering for it. Why 3? Let me explain. If you look at all the warm-blooded vertebrates, we've all got roughly the same life span.
But, you've got to measure that lifespan in heartbeats, not time.
Every warm-blooded vertebrate (except humans) that dies of "old age" does so right around it's billionth heartbeat (balanced). Humans hit their billionth heartbeat at around age 25 (which is what our lifepsan used to be much closer to) Now that our average lifespan is closer to 75, and has been for a while, we have critically unbalanced a natural stasis/process. If you don't beleive me, explain the massive and accelerating extinction rates.
Once we started changing our environment to suit us (fire, medicine, clothing, structure) we slowed our own physiological changes toward the environment (evolution), while increasing our lifespan, in time and heartbeats. We also began to use technology to keep individual members of the species alive, who, without technological intervention, would otherwise expire. This is true for both injuries and sicknesses as it is for congenital birth defects. A limiting factor in this is that sick organisms that get well often trasmit an immunity into their genes.
But, think of yourself as the animal you are right now, and picture yourself in the woods with your family having to provide/protect you and your own. An asthmatic, a person in a wheelchair due to an accident, and the person with ADD, without the benefit of technology, would have a much lower chance of providing for themselves/family, and stand a higher chance of early mortality (I myself was born without sight in one eye, and may well have fit in this category). Those who die young don't often get to spread their genes into the pool, so if it is in part due to a physiological problem, those genes aren't propagated throughout the species. These days, we try to save everybody.....(if they've got the cash)
What we have done in our progress is allow for a greater number and percentage of members of our species survive and propagate, feeding weakened genes into the pool, slowed down our ability to adapt/rebuild/evolve, tied ourselves into a symbiotic relationship with technology, taken for granted the symbiotic relationship we
already had with all other life on the planet, and have generally fucked ourselves.
If, (and it's a big if) we can even bring ourselves as a species to deal with this problem, there is not a good way to do it. China is already trying by limiting the number of children allowed born to each household, but that's arguable fascist. Others have suggested voluntarily not breeding, but it's not an idea that will ever catch on, people like kids too much. And I don't even want to think about what would happen if ambulances stopped showing up and doctors started refusing treatment to sick babies. But, I'm not entirely concerned. Like lemmings, we will find a way to reduce our ranks to a more managable number. That's what plague, war, atomic bombs and tectonic shifts are for.
We all speak ideally about revolution, global changes of consciousness, and uniting to achieve a more Utopic world. Guess what kids? That party ain't big enough for all of us, and that is why I support Euthanasia and it's forms. |
