Should we kill these folks as evolution says we should?

Question

Elderly (with no relatives) suffering from severe Alzheimer's disease, orphan babies with AIDS,orphan babies with Down's Syndrome

Preserving the lives of these individuals causes a drain on the resources of society and in no way enhances the survivability of the human race. Would you like to have them killed? If a little voice inside you is saying, “These people need love and compassion," that voice does not have biological evolution as its origin. Mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection cannot justify giving “kindness” priority over personal well being.

Answer 1

Great point! I would take it a little further and say it's not merely evolution that would seem to support this idea of getting rid of people that are only a burden to society. I would say anyone who denies there being any sort of God (or gods) if they rationally and logically thought about it would have every reason to support it. If the government would okay it then there's no higher authority saying that it's wrong, therefore why not? No one can deny that at the least, financially it would benefit society as a whole as well any other benefits that may came from it. But because we all have a deep embedded sense of right and wrong within us, we say that this notion would be "wrong" or unjust. Who decides that? Who here claims the authority to say what is just and what isn't? I say God does, that's the only reason we have these moral codes we aim to follow. Morality has intentionally been placed in all of us by the one who created all of us.

Answer 2

Evolution does not state that.

Evolution is a theory created by people.

Considering the human race is considered as the most intelligent of all the species on the planet, then why is the human race the most destructive ? Surely we, as humans are the only ones that are restricting the survivability of the species.

Natural selection.......... if that is evolution then why is science messing with evolution with genetic engineering ?

Its all too easy to suggest eliminating the weak, the poor and the unable from society, but when you are ill, you seek medical attention to prolong your life. If you believe what you have asked, then you would not seek medical help. You would let evolution take it course.

These people are not a drain on society. The resources are there, except the taxes you pay are spent on military hardware, wages for the bureaucrats, etc etc....... and not enough into the welfare of the people.

Answer 3

Concisely and succinctly stated. And wrong.

First - evolution says no such thing. It makes no commandments or suggestion for action. It simply OBSERVES that the weak, sick and old tend to die, leaving the strong and well-adapted.

Second - that little voice of which you burble is PRECISELY a product of natural selection. It's an INSTINCT that causes us to treat other members of our society well.

This instinct is present in all social animals, because it benefits the members of that society, and the society itself. Without such an instinct no animal society could operate. Only loner animals can institute an 'every man for himself' policy. If a chimp, meerkat or human did this, they would be noted and either expelled from the group, killed or imprisoned.

Among humans, we call such people psychopaths and sociopaths. They're dangerous and we stick them behind bars.

As thinking has clearly not been much help to you in your search for the truth, why not try reading instead. You'd be amazed at all the things you don't know.

CD

Answer 4

Evolution exists because of natural selection pressures. Evolution says that the fittest survive because they are unable to provide for themselves or their children effeciently.

However, this is different from cultural evolution. In social animals it is often beneficial to care for each other because in the long run this is best for the group. For example, Wild African Hunting dogs will share a kill with the whole pack, including ones which were off the hunt due to sickness or injury. The pack survives because when this disabled dog regains fitness, it will be able to rejoin the hunt and provide for a different dog that may not be able to hunt that day. This is the beginnings of empathy.

Empathy is something that has become highly evolved in humans, to the extent that it can be seen to hold our species back. But evolution is not perfect, there have been many dead ends due to specialisation. Humans are perhaps just another dead end. This empathy and love that is useful to an extent for social animals now leads us to care for those which will never be able to return the favour. Evolutionary it doesn't make sense, but you are extremely foolish if you think evolution says we should be killing these people.

For the record, I happen to think that euthanasia can be a good thing. I for one, would rather go out on a high than in a hospice, drenched in morphine, barely aware of my surroundings, dying slowly of cancer.

Answer 5

The natural process of evolution may have killed off our vulnerable but we as a society have evolved beyond that. And some societies which have evolved the most (Western Europe) the memories of 'purification' are still within living memory. They have evolved such caring that the rest of the world should be proude.

There is an interesting point here - the very countries which are the most compassionate are those with very open religious tolerence and great respect for science.

Answer 6

Evolution does not say they should be killed.

Evolution says natural selection is how new life forms have come about. It's an explanation. It's not a moral philosophy. We can have compassion any time we want. And compassion is itself an advantage that makes humans survive, so it's actually an advantage in evolution - didja think of that?

Answer 7

Since when does any scientific theory condone murder? What you're suggesting is worse than Molokai. Just because people are sick(and that's all these things are) doesn't mean they're not human. The drain on society that these people produce is so minute as to be almost negligible. Compare the amount of money spent on them to the money spent on movies, cosmetics, electronics, junk food, or any other selfish thing people spend on, and maybe you will get over that resentment and pay your extra tax dollar.

Answer 8

i'm surprised to be responding to this question. i'm getting elderly, and though no Alzheimer's my health is not the best. i live alone and at great distance from any family, and at some point i will mostly likely wish for the opportunity to say bye. i think the elderly should by age and wisdom merit the respect to decide. as for those elderly as you describe i would still respect their life force and wouldn't sever their connection to this realm. i will not have that on my karma. i couldn't condone the neglect of an infant under almost any circumstance. i only say almost above, because i have known of infants born that could not survive, but were held and comforted until they died.

Answer 9

Actually that little voice never tells me anything.
My heart tells me never to take what that life means to others even for that brief moment in their lives.
Even with the hurts and pain of the disease... though thinking of death to end the suffering... We just don't have that right to take these lives.
Imagine what we could learn from these lives, how they could help us in the future. That is, only if, we just give them some little understanding and comfort til the end of their time.
For added information: though babies with Down syndrome may have a short lifespan, they are very loving in particular.

Answer 10

I believe in Creation, and as such, all lives are sacred. We don't have the right to kill people just because society is loathe to accept them.

Besides, if you're an evolutionist, than you're own argument is moot, because the mere fact that these people you seem to hate, have survived, means they have passed the "natural selection" test.

You need to search your soul to see why you hold so much hatred in your heart for people who you probably no nothing about personally.