Killing the disabled

Post Reply New Topic

And as a parent that is the thing that most concerns me - not my rights, but the rights that I want my children to have when they become adults! If we quietly sit around and say we can do nothing then we condemn our children to the same problems. I have to say though that I do have some hope for the future despite the bigotry and hatred in the world right now.

_________________
Autistic dad to an autistic boy and loving it - its always fun in our house

I have Autism. My communication difficulties mean that I sometimes get words wrong, that what I mean is not what comes out.

You guys keep saying that "it won't happen"--equality will never be a reality--but you never seem to offer any good arguments in support of that idea. You just keep saying, "That's the way it's always been; that's the way it always will be," as though you cannot think of the world as being in any other shape than what it is now.

I can point to many changes that have taken place over history--the civil rights movement, women's rights, disability rights and gay rights more recently; the end of slavery, the rise of the middle class and later on of unions and labor rights; the recognition of child and spousal abuse as being wrong. All of those things have changed. They are better now than they used to be. Why should autism rights not improve as well?

Whenever we hope, we risk being disappointed. But isn't that risk worth it?

The views expressed in the following do not necessarily reflect those of the poster, and are only a representation of the reality of nature.

Inefficiency is the quickest way to extinction. In a world and universe where the only law is "Survival of the fittest" any individual or group which does not purge itself of all inefficiencies and wastes will doom itself to destruction.

To create a world which embraces those who cannot pull their own weight one must increase the levels of bureaucracy that is already beyond rampant now... Epidemic would even be too mild a word, yet more would have to be created, then more yet would have to be created to enforce the first layer, and the word Endemic replaces Epidemic.

Look at any other species in the world. Those that cannot pull their weight are either killed or allowed to die (well, left to sink or swim on their own is a better way to say it for many species)

Look at humanity, no matter the span you use to describe our species, 70,000 years at the low end, to 5 million years at the high end... it has only been 200 years, maybe 250 years that we have "cared for those unable to contribute" The elderly were cared about, but that was because they held wisdom that was useful. Now in a society, and a world where things change so rapidly and completely from one generation to the next, even the usefulness of the elderly is in question, and their existence cannot any longer be justified from an efficiency standpoint. Disabled and/or deformed children were left at the outskirts of villages for the wild animals to get. Tests of manhood were given where weak boys would die, and childbirth served as a means to eliminate weak women/girls.

The hard cold truth that we all have to face is this: If we don't care about the future, and only about our current generation, then yes we should nurture our infirm and make sure that they breed to keep the genes leading to those debilitating conditions continue and gain foothold in the gene-pool.
But if we care about the human species, we should not allow anyone with genetic inferiorities to breed or perhaps even live.
Of course this brings up the million dollar question... where do we draw the line? and more importantly who draws that line?
But if we do so, we also have to consider how much energy is invested into someone while they are a child in the form of education, nourishment, care, etc. The judgement has to come BEFORE all those expenditures are wasted, and we know that at that point we can only look at a child and judge the potential on a statistical/probabilistic point of view.
Letting the person "sink or swim of their own accord" will not work.

Now, i'm not proposing an answer here, and i'm not recommending or advocating what i'm saying. Saying it makes my mouth taste like it's full of feces. But that doesn't mean that I don't know I'm correct in saying what I say. It simply is fact. The only world in which it is not true, is world where there are no limited resources, or any resource limitations are insignificant.

If you want to follow another line of reasoning, you can argue easily that the consumerist society in which we live in depends on having members of society which are not capable of producing what they need to survive. Because if everyone was able to produce an equivalent of what they consumed, no one would be able to produce excess, so there could be no growth, and the economy would fizzle and die. There would be no innovation, no scientific breakthroughs (or at least they would be dampened)
But as resource limitations become more and more pressing (ie, as we approach Hubbard's peak in more and more resources) this issue we're discussing becomes more and more relevant. And it is NATURAL that any species, that evolved through natural selection, will tend in times of limited resources to adopt policies and ideologies that favor the elimination of those that cannot pull their own weight.
As we are now past or fast approaching Hubbard's Peak on most resources.... well, you get the drift.

Okay, so why have i even written this. I served no purpose in helping anyone with this... I hate every time I have to talk about crud like this...
But i've said it, and I will say it again when needed so that those most affected know what they are going to be up against in this world, and it is going to get worse, not better.
Be prepared for it.

what is this talk about Bosnia? in the civil war, the old and disabled were the ones most likely to stay alive because there was no point getting rid of them - they weren't going to either fight or reproduce.

Even worse things are happening in Africa now and have been for decades, but I guess they are not the right skin colour to be worried about?


PS what really annoys me is reading self righteous indignation from those who may very likely in the same breath defend their right to bear arms and defend their homestead by killing dead whoever trespasses 'their land'.

.....