Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #20 - hudis (05/22/2013) [-]
I just realised a few days ago... We won the survival of the fittest.
User avatar #129 to #20 - errdayimfjing (05/22/2013) [-]
Now go watch the movie Idiocracy
#108 to #20 - anonymous (05/22/2013) [-]
For now, at least. We're living unsustainably. Unless we get our **** together or lower the population or, preferably, both, we're going to be the ones that kill ourselves.
User avatar #111 to #108 - hudis (05/22/2013) [-]
Well yeah, but that's inevitable.
#23 to #20 - dickeating (05/22/2013) [-]
And then ****** up evolution as a result of our being "Superior".
User avatar #34 to #23 - spartusee (05/22/2013) [-]
No, we won evolution. We spit in its face.
#40 to #34 - dickeating (05/22/2013) [-]
We cannot evolve. Technically, we boycott evolution by allowing the lame and weak to survive, therefore continuing 'lesser' genes and stunting our 'growth' in the system of evolution. Don't get me wrong, I believe every human has the right to live no matter what their case (Conditions do apply to my belief). Before you call me a bigot I'd like to note that I love and care for 3 younger sisters, all of whom have Downs Syndrome.
User avatar #41 to #40 - spartusee (05/22/2013) [-]
Well dickeater you sound like a great guy, but what I mean is what you just said. We don't need evolution anymore, we're the best. Healthcare, surgery, medicine and physical therapy are good examples of how we don't need it anymore. I hate all the people saying "hur dur we mesin up evolootion,, omfg we ***** it up omg" all while sitting on their ass 9 times out of ten being unproductive. So if they want to ******* fix evolution so much they can just kill them selves for a start.
User avatar #45 to #41 - mutzaki (05/22/2013) [-]
That's implying we're anywhere close to being a perfect species.
I'm not saying we actually should, but killing off everyone who is especially prone to obtaining certain diseases and disorders, like diabetes, cancer, dwarfism and Down Syndrome, or simply setting up laws to prevent them from procreating, and only letting the healthier genes continue, would not only help the overpopulation problem, but it would just help the remaining humanity in general.
Since we are also prone to fixing things like an inflamed appendix, we're also nerfing evolution in getting rid of organs that are currently causing us harm, and are debateably useless. Even if they're not useless as it is for us right now, it's still clear that if evolution were to continue, they would naturally go away in due time, because they'd become useless.
#53 to #45 - drolom (05/22/2013) [-]
To you and dickeating: I think that by letting "weaker" people live and practicing medicine we are just stalling evolution and, more importantly, expanding our genepool. And the bigger the genepool is, the better chances of survival we have in case of a disaster, because we have a greater variety of genes and features at our disposal. This is important to notice since we don't know what the world would be like after a catastrophic event and what kind of genes would be needed. Note that mutations and new genes will still exist, they just won't become more common in relation to other genes.
#87 to #53 - wtfduud ONLINE (05/22/2013) [-]
We are not expanding the genepool, since globalization, people have started taking mates from other countries/races/cultures, which creates something in the middle, little by little all races are becoming more similar to eachother, sooner or later there will only be a mix of all countries in the world. And the more people there are to evolve, the longer evolution will take.
#90 to #87 - drolom (05/22/2013) [-]
A good point. It is true that when considering this topic we have to take globalization into account, but it will take a very, very long time before this mixing you mentioned will occur, and I have a feeling that the human race will encounter some kind of global disaster (natural of caused by ourselves) before this has the time to happen.
User avatar #63 to #53 - mutzaki (05/22/2013) [-]
Well, Down Syndrome, cancer and different deformities sure won't help us after a disaster. You can just as well see it as if disaster strikes, we simply need the healthiest, most intelligent people there to survive. What you say is true in nature, when environmental changes can kill off some individuals, and those that have better means to survive the sudden change end up affecting the entire species into having those qualities. However, it doesn't make sense to draw that parallel with people carrying cancer genes. Humans are also so remarkable that we are almost always able to change ourselves by non-genetic means to handle different environments better. Extra clothing for cold, using machines to keep us cooler in warmer environments, building structures that resist earthquakes and so forth. Otherwise there's no way we'd have people living in, for example polar climate.

I think that, in the future, once we've reached enough of an understanding of genetics and such, humanity will end up setting up laws that preven carriers of particularily unwanted genes from procreating. Though, I think there's always going to be the possibility of adopting genetically advantageous children if you still want to be a parent. But this is just my speculation.
#67 to #63 - drolom (05/22/2013) [-]
Well spoken, you present good points. And perhaps in the future gene therapy and other forms on genetech have become more common, efficient and accepted so that we wouldn't necessarily need to restrict procreation, instead we could just heal genetically caused diseases ond disorders through genetic manipulation.
#68 to #67 - mutzaki (05/22/2013) [-]
That's a very good point. The way we view genetics could simply change as we might be ablt to "construct" our children pre-birth.
#69 to #68 - drolom (05/22/2013) [-]
Yes, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for us.
#49 to #45 - hellfiazz (05/22/2013) [-]
I don't know if you know buddy, but that's fairly close to euthanasia.
User avatar #57 to #49 - mutzaki (05/22/2013) [-]
I don't see your point.
User avatar #24 to #23 - hudis (05/22/2013) [-]
Pretty much. I have this theory that it would've happened regardless of our existence, though. As in, if humanity never advanced as much as we did and we remained in a primitive state of being, another species would eventually surpass us and become the cruel overlords that we are to this day. So it may not be that we developed more than we were supposed to; perhaps it's just a flaw that evolution suffers naturally.
#25 to #24 - Shmooglavoue (05/22/2013) [-]
I'd hesitate to call it a flaw. For as much as we like to paint ourselves as cruel oppressors in the animal kingdom, consider that there are many, many species that will partake in the following without a second thought.

Cannibalism
Genocide
Infanticide
Patricide
Incest
Slavery
Environmental devastation

Not to mention horrible combinations of these

Cannibalism of own children
Cannibalism of own mate
Infanticide of mates previous children

As terrible as we humans can be, nature can be equally terrible, if not more so. Remember that, barring any religious possibilities, humanity are the creators of the very concept of morality.

#29 to #25 - dickeating (05/22/2013) [-]
When you say things like that, you have to remember that all those things we consider 'horrible' are just as natural to many species as getting up in the morning and making a cup of coffee is for most people. It's in Human Nature, because of pretend ideologies that have realized themselves through human thought, to be 'good'. And really it's all just an extension of the instinct to be Better than one's opponent. The quest against cruelty to living things for instance, although to the person taking this idea on it might simply be something they are supportive of, it is rooted back deep into our instinct to do these things and follow these ideas so as to prove oneself as Better or Good. And ultimately, to impress potential mates.
User avatar #27 to #25 - hudis (05/22/2013) [-]
That's precisely my point. Any other species might have gotten to the same stage if we didn't. Nature is cruel, and we are just a warped reflection of it.
 Friends (0)