Date: 10 Feb 1999 07:02:00 +0200
From: I-AFD_2-AT-anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA)
Subject: Re: baby food


Hi Chris,


> > You wrote: "socially adaptable" -- What does this mean?
> >
> >  Unfortunately mean other persons inside this west society that
> >  handicapped persons are not "socially adaptable". Who decides, who is
> >  socially adaptable? --
> >
> >  Nico
>
> That's a touchy subject....The point I was trying to make is that our
> current society keeps natural selection from working. Too many people with
> weak (both physical and mental. hell, social too) traits are alive. Nothing
> against these people personally, but they are taking up some of the
> livelihood of others.

You know, that this statement was with nearly the same words the start of  
a comment in a film of the Nazi's against the mental handicapped ("Lebens-  
unwertes Leben") and for their Eugenic ?!

> For that reason, I hope I die before I get to a state
> when I'm just taking up space and money.

Okay, that's your decision.

> In more "primitive" time, the
> traits in question would be less common, because of the process of natural
> selection.

I don't think so because every old or ill member of a "primitive" society  
went out for death on *his* own decision....

> Hmm, I still haven't answered the question...I suppose that
> physical traits wouldn't matter much in a more high tech society, (there are
> plenty of jobs that just require a functioning brain to do) and that could
> transfer over into anarchy. Mental traits would be a bigger deal now, but in
> the switch-over to anarchy, more physical labor may be required, (at least
> at first) so people with problems like learning disabilities and other minor
> traits would still be able to contribute. Major mental problems would be up
> to the family of the person involved. Hopefully, people will know whether or
> not its worth keeping someone alive. The big issue here is social traits.
> People who have leadership abilities, would be valuable, but only if they
> are not overly domineering. Natural followers would get along well, but may
> be too reserved to speak up about their own ideas. The problem traits are
> people who are very abrasive, stubborn, and lazy. These are people able to
> contribute, but refuse to do so for a myriad of reasons. These people would
> probably be ostracized from their community and have to strike it out on
> their own.

I think, this work to much with the Work Ethics....

Nico






## CrossPoint v3.11 ##