Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Sherman Hawk

  1. Mar 3, 2004 #1
    Sherman Hawk, The Book of Millennium

    If it be the truth that human beings, as biological organisms, are subject to the natural laws which govern other creatures, then surely it is also true that human beings, as a species, hate themselves. The one thing which has made us great, we undermine and compromise at every opportunity; the one thing which prevents us from sliding backwards into chaos and distress, we make our best efforts to attack and push away; the one thing to which we owe our humblest thanks, our deepest respect, we despise.

    That thing is natural selection.

    Countless millions have died to ensure our future — countless souls snuffed out to make us what we are today. Did those who were less intelligent, less cunning, less healthy, less able to survive and reproduce not think or feel? Did they not struggle and suffer? Was their desire for life and happiness so different from our own? Was their anguish at being denied these things less real than our own would be?

    These men and women who died without copying their genes are not to be forgotten, not to be ignored, not to be disgraced, for these men and women who died for us are our heroes! It is to their sacrifice that we owe everything we have today, our health, our prosperity, our intelligence, our sentiment — our very lives. If they had not perished, and instead had passed onto us the legacy of their genetic poverty, then the forces of natural selection, which cannot be placated or avoided forever, no matter how long we may try, would have surely destroyed us all when we were just emerging, weak, helpless, naked, from our Eden, from the place our species was born.

    Each and every great civilization we have made, from Egypt to America, has spit upon their sacrifice by encouraging its unfit to procreate. Those who would have died under the harsh system of natural selection are fed, sheltered, and encouraged to reproduce by their society. Those who would have thrived and passed on their genes were distracted by the fruits of civilization, seduced by wealth and power, addicted to the practice of thought itself, and failed to pass on their genetic wealth.

    Each and every civilization before our own, believing itself above the laws of natural selection, was eventually destroyed by those laws. As harmful mutations built up, as the less able and intelligent outbred the more fortunate, as genetic poverty washed over them in ever growing waves, the fire which kindled the light of civilization dimmed, sputtered, and died, leaving anarchy and destruction and hundreds of years of ignorance in its wake.

    If we are to break this dysgenic cycle of suffering, then we must respect those who died for us, respect the forces of natural selection which weeded out their undesirable genes, and, if we are to remove natural selection, we must replace it with artificial selection. There must be selection, in one form or another, and if we find death too cruel a sentence for those whose genes do not merit survival, then we must either reproduce responsibly and in a way which will leave our children with a heritage of genetic wealth, or else accept the whirlwind of destruction which overtakes us when natural selection, too long suppressed, cleanses our species in one nightmarish gesture.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 3, 2004 #2
    This is, indeed, evolution's natural conclusion.
     
  4. Mar 8, 2004 #3
    Not that I accept evolution, though. Is this evolution's logical conclusion? Is no one commenting on this because it's been discussed before, or is this too extreme a view to even merit a response? Discussion, anyone -
     
  5. Mar 8, 2004 #4
    Nevermind - I just found a discussion covering this topic in the social sciences section of the forum.
     
  6. Mar 9, 2004 #5
    ARE YOU SAYING THAT A BEGGARD IS WORTHLESS? THAT A PRIEST IS WORTHY?

    from a philosophical view, all are equal and living 'their experience' for their reason. what good is a perfect world that is temporal?

    i believe that we are here as part of a process that is infinite and eternal. living in the physical is a small, tho important, part.

    peace,
     
  7. Mar 9, 2004 #6

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And do you have any comments on that discussion? or contributions you'd like to make?
     
  8. Mar 10, 2004 #7
    comments and discussion? Yes, after reading through 14 pages.

    I'll revise my opinion about evolution's link with eugenics. People incorporate evolution into their philosophies in many different ways. However, I can easily see how one might leap from a detached view of species survival to a view of human survival at all cost, not witholding forced sterilization and other such measures. We're just animals, right?

    I do have a question. Eugenics is of extremely questionable value, whether theoretically or practically. But why don't we get rid of health care? If we let natural selection work for us, after a period of time there would be virtually no health problems.
     
  9. Mar 10, 2004 #8
    Originally posted by Nachtwolf

    .....respect the forces of natural selection which weeded out their undesirable genes, and, if we are to remove natural selection, we must replace it with artificial selection. There must be selection, in one form or another, and if we find death too cruel a sentence for those whose genes do not merit survival, then we must either reproduce responsibly and in a way which will leave our children with a heritage of genetic wealth, or else accept the whirlwind of destruction which overtakes us when natural selection, too long suppressed, cleanses our species in one nightmarish gesture.


    These same concepts were discussed and carried out with the Nuremberg laws of the 1940s Nazi era.

    Only the supermen were to merit survival, the necessity to cleanse the inferior races in one nightmarish gesture and reproduce the Aryan race and their need to take over the earth. All to keep the subhumans from contaminating the 'ubermenchen' and their need for space on this earth. All to honor those glorious supermen who died in the service of the LEADER.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2004
  10. Mar 10, 2004 #9
    Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs.
     
  11. Mar 11, 2004 #10
    Originally posted by Zero

    Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs.

    "Lack of a liver doesn't affect your brain?" Question, how long would a MODERN BRAIN live without a liver to perform the prime functions necessary to keep that brain alive?

    Who on this earth will decide who is inferior and not worthy of life?
     
  12. Mar 11, 2004 #11
    Maybe you are lacking something, because I said "bad liver', not 'missing' liver.


    I will decide who is worthy and unworthy...yes, ME!!!LOL
     
  13. Mar 11, 2004 #12
    Originally posted by Zero

    Maybe you are lacking something, because I said "bad liver', not 'missing' liver.

    Thank you for your prompt reply. I will again post your sentence in its entirety.

    "Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs."

    Did you mean that the lack of a limb or simply an ailing liver doesn't affect your brain? You connected lack of limb and/or a bad liver as not affecting the MODERN BRAIN?


    I will decide who is worthy and unworthy...yes, ME!!!LOL

    Heil Hitler.... "Arbeit Mach Frei"
     
  14. Mar 11, 2004 #13
    Are you being intentionally argumentative? I saidf a missing limb or a bad liver. IF the liver was missing, who cares if it is a missing healthy liver or a missing unhealthy liver?

    My point was that we have health care because weeding out correctable diseases by allowing people to die takes a back seat to the contributions that people make to society. We don't generally just let people die if there is something we can do, and that is because we generally recognize the person as being valuable regardlessof their physical status.

    And, of course, you should realize when I am joking...
     
  15. Mar 11, 2004 #14
    Originally posted by Zero

    Are you being intentionally argumentative? I saidf a missing limb or a bad liver. IF the liver was missing, who cares if it is a missing healthy liver or a missing unhealthy liver?
    My point was that we have health care because weeding out correctable diseases by allowing people to die takes a back seat to the contributions that people make to society. We don't generally just let people die if there is something we can do, and that is because we generally recognize the person as being valuable regardlessof their physical status.
    And, of course, you should realize when I am joking...


    I didn't understand your attempt at joking as your statement was not amusing. Nor did I mean to be argumentative. It was simply the structure of your sentence that confused me as even an ailing liver can be the end of the organism and death of the brain.

    Your statement about the reality that all human beings have the possibility of being valuable to humanity regardless of health is commendable.
     
  16. Mar 11, 2004 #15
    No, see, the joke was when I said that I will decide who lives and who dies!! ME!!! That's why I typed it in boldface, and put a "LOL" after it.

    I'm so glad you approve...[/sarcasm]
     
  17. Mar 11, 2004 #16
    Originally posted by Zero

    No, see, the joke was when I said that I will decide who lives and who dies!! ME!!! That's why I typed it in boldface, and put a "LOL" after it. I'm so glad you approve...[/sarcasm]

    It seems to me that joking about selections relating to who lives and dies is not something very funny. Sarcasm can be hurtful if not done to prove a point of view.

    Nice talking to you zero.....
     
  18. Mar 12, 2004 #17
    Children! children!
    (sigh)

    now then -
    What about the mentally handicapped?
     
  19. Mar 12, 2004 #18
    What about them?
     
  20. Mar 13, 2004 #19
    If intelligence and physical well-being are to be the judges of a person's profit to society's evolution, then the severely/profoundly mentally retarded have no business being kept alive. They use up resources, but give little to offset their drain on humanity.
     
  21. Mar 14, 2004 #20
    Well, they seem to make their folks happy...and the decision would fall to them, wouldn't it?

    LOL, I dunno...what I do know is that anyone who would actually sit around and try to assign different values to the lives of human beings based on ANY standard is a pretty worthless human being.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Sherman Hawk
  1. Stephen Hawking (Replies: 3)

  2. Hawking on Aliens (Replies: 71)

  3. Is Hawking worth it? (Replies: 11)

Loading...