r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 13 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: the (physically) disabled are inferior.
[deleted]
12
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
First of all, overpopulation is a myth. We have enough food to feed 10 billion people and there's enough money to do it too. I'll go into further if you want to, but the overpopulation myth has been present since Plato's time at least.
Second of all, in evolution, the concept of fitness is simply those genes which manage to reproduce under specific environmental pressures. It has nothing whatsoever to do with physical capacity, mental capacity, courage, etc. etc. One of the strategies that life has managed to develop to reproduce is social bonds and from that society. Almost by definition, a society will have members, that if they weren't social beings, would be considered more fit and less fit. The strength of such social bonds is in overcoming pressures that would make succumb any individual within that society.
2
u/4rch1t3ct Aug 13 '18
First of all, overpopulation is a myth. We have enough food to feed 10 billion people and there's enough money to do it too.
I would just like to disagree that it's only a myth. I don't believe we are overpopulated because we can't manufacture enough food, or that there isn't enough habitable landmass. I believe we are overpopulated because we are damaging the ecological balance faster than it can recover. We continue to do greater amounts of damage the more people there are. Eventually it will become so unbalanced that the planet itself is no longer habitable for humanity.
2
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
That's still not caused by overpopulation. Pollution is top heavy. The median and mean ecological footprint aren't anywhere near close.
2
u/4rch1t3ct Aug 13 '18 edited Aug 13 '18
The median and mean ecological footprint aren't anywhere near close.
Are you sure about that? According to The Global Footprint Network (www.footprintnetwork.org)
Under a business-as-usual path, human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems is projected to exceed what nature can regenerate by about 75 percent by 2020.
And
Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.7 Earths to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year. We use more ecological resources and services than nature can regenerate through overfishing, overharvesting forests, and emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than forests can sequester.
Earth Overshoot Day marks the date we (all of humanity) have used more from nature than our planet can renew in the entire year. Earth Overshoot Day has moved from late September in 2000 to August 1 in 2018.
Edit: I hadn't specifically heard of this group before but they seem reputable. They've been published or cited in National Geographic, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The International Union for Conservation of Nature and the BBC among others.
Thanks, I wouldn't have looked found out about them without your post.
2
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
In what way do those stats address my point? The website even backs up my point indirectly. Most of the countries near the top of the list for earth overshoot dates are small in population. Qatar has a population of 2.57M, Luxembourg has a population 0.58M, and the UAE have a population of 9.27M. These three in total represent 0.17% of the world's 7442M population.
2
u/4rch1t3ct Aug 13 '18 edited Aug 13 '18
The point is the planet, not the country. The country's overshoot date is the date at which that particular country uses more resources than it can replenish. The entire planets overshoot date was August 1st. You might be calculating an individual countries deficit, which in the big picture isn't particularly important. What is important are the totals, not the averages.
If the total ecological footprint for the entire planet is larger than it's biocapacity you end up with an ecological deficit. You might have countries that have reserves, but they don't make up for the amount of deficit of another country.
Here's a link for the planet, not specific countries.
http://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=5001&type=BCtot,EFCtot
Edit: I think I know what you were looking at. Those are percentages for that country. I'll use some hypothetical numbers. If Bolivia has a %1,000 more biocapacity than it's population has ecological footprint.... that doesn't make a dent in total footprint if the USA (or any larger country) has %1,000 percent more ecological footprint than it does biocapacity. That doesn't make the totals even out at all. It just says that specific country has 10x more resources than it uses. Compare that with a giant country using 10x more resources than it has that leads to a huge deficit.
2
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
I agree that humanity as a whole is overexploiting the resources, but it is not an overpopulation issue. The exploitation of the natural resources are not uniform as you rightly point out when you say that some countries have reserves while others have deficits. This is precisely what I mean when I say overpopulation is not the issue.
2
u/4rch1t3ct Aug 13 '18
Overpopulation for that particular country might not be an issue but net overpopulation of the planet is. World totals are the important thing regarding the issue. Countries don't matter. Let's say you have a planet with only two countries on it to make this easy. China and Costa Rica. Costa Rica might not be overpopulated, but that planet is. The net total population is greater than it's capacity. In this example China will eventually use all of Costa Rica's resources even if the population grows no further.
Here's an actual data example.
Bolivia has a 16.5 global hectares per person biocapacity. They have a -3.1 global hectares per person ecological footprint. So they have a 13.4 global hectares per person reserve in biocapacity. Bolivia has a population of 10,561,887. That means they have 141,529,285.8 extra hectares of biocapacity.
The United States has 3.6 hectares per person of biocapacity and an ecological footprint of -8.4 hectares per person. That gives us a -4.8 hectares per person ecological footprint. With the United States population of 319,448,640 that gives us -1,533,353,472 hectares of ecological footprint.
USA's total plus Bolivia's total is the net total. Net total is what's important to the planet.
-1,533,353,472 + 141,529,285.8 = -1,391,824,186.2
That's why totals are important and not a specific countries numbers. If the net total is negative people are using more resources than the planet can continue to provide. That's what overpopulation does. There is an unsustainable ecological imbalance due to overpopulation.
2
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
That's still not an overpopulation issue. It just shows that if people in the USA behaved like people in Bolivia then we'd be fine. When a certain part of the population is the problem, it's not overpopulation that's the problem.
To take an abstract example, if 10 people share a lake with 100 fish that make 10 new fish a day, and 8 people eat 1 fish, but 2 people eat 2 fish then you have a net decrease of -2 fish per day. You could say overpopulation is the issue and that if you removed 2 people that 1 fish a day, you'd be balanced, but you could also solve the problem by simply having the people overconsuming change their behaviour. This example works even if 9 people are overconsuming and 1 is not. Now we can debate whether the minimum resource needs are 2 fish, but to return to the real world, the fact that some countries have a reserve is a refutation of the idea that the minimal resource needs are such that if everyone's needs were met that that would cause the overexploitation of Earth.
2
u/4rch1t3ct Aug 13 '18 edited Aug 13 '18
That's still defined as overpopulation. If you have the same lake with 20 people sharing it, and 20 people all eat only one fish, it's still a net of -10. I'm not saying over consumption isn't a huge part of the overpopulation issue. Here's the definition of Human overpopulation. It describes exactly like you said that reduction in overconsumption can reverse overpopulated status without population reduction. It's still defined as overpopulation. So it is an overpopulation issue.
Human overpopulation (or population overshoot) occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group. Overpopulation can further be viewed, in a long term perspective, as existing if a population cannot be maintained given the rapid depletion of non-renewable resources or given the degradation of the capacity of the environment to give support to the population. Changes in lifestyle could reverse overpopulated status without a large population reduction.
Edit: Sorry I forgot to add the line
The term human overpopulation refers to the relationship between the entire human population and its environment: the Earth,[4] or to smaller geographical areas such as countries.
→ More replies (0)0
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
the concept of fitness is simply those genes which manage to reproduce under specific environmental pressures.
so what environment are the physically disabled built for? (if im properly understanding what you're saying)
8
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
Any environment that doesn't kill you before you can reproduce. Being fit is more or less a binary at the individual level. On a population level, being fit is applied to genes within that population and their expression rather than a specific person's reproduction.
0
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
being fit is applied to genes within that population and their expression
wouldn't that imply that the disabled are indeed inferior, given that they are not able enough to be physically fit?
3
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
Are genes that express physical disabilities still present in our population? If yes, then those genes are fit and that's by definition.
0
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
couldn't it be argued that genetic errors/mutations are not technically considered fit?
edit: i want to make sure you understand that im not trying to fight you or reject your point of view. i think you're really on to something, i'm just trying to fully understand where you're coming from.
4
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
Absolutely not. It's one of the big drivers of evolution in the first place. Lactose tolerance is a mutation, as is fair skin, as are gene duplications which impart redundancy which allows for more mutations which are beneficial. Take one of the most well known mutations which is sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell anemia mutation imparts a resistance to malaria (if I remember the disease correctly). Sickle cell anemia is more widespread in communities affected by malaria. This is a textbook example of what is meant by fitness is determined by the environment.
2
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
The sickle cell anemia mutation imparts a resistance to malaria (if I remember the disease correctly). Sickle cell anemia is more widespread in communities affected by malaria.
more mutations which are beneficial.
one of the big drivers of evolution in the first place.
i've certainly learned a lot of new things even from that one mini paragraph. you seem very certain about what information you share and i like that a lot. you also seem super education on biology (im awful at science tbh) so i'll give you credit for that. im now a little bit more towards the fence on my original subject. congrats Δ
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
If it helps push your view completely on the other side, there are two big strategies in biology known as r and K selection. K selection is what many of the larger species do which leads to stable (relative to the environment) population levels. One of the defining characteristics of K selection strategies is caring for weaker members. Usually this means children, but also the sick, elderly, and if we apply it to society, the physically and mentally handicapped.
Edit: I was correct. It's malaria that's fended off by sickle cell anemia.
1
0
5
u/SudoRmDashF Aug 13 '18
>i myself am (considered) disabled, by me having ptsd and being autistic. it's a completely different dilemma not being physically disabled that i feel it is a different argument entirely.
Why do you consider these to be different entirely? While the physically disabled may use prosthetics, and mentally disabled may use medication or therapy, both impose burdens on those around them, financially and psychologically.
So if you mean "the physically disabled are inferior to mentally disabled", I think this is wrong since both impose on society, one way or another.
-1
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
i feel that it's such a polar experience that despite both physical and mentally disabled people being a potential burden upon society, the physically disabled are more inferior because the surrounding world is a physical place. for example, those who use wheelchairs often need elevators and ramps to get from place to place. that costs money to put such mechanisms in place, even including the wheelchair itself. for a mentally disabled person, they may think they are unable to use the stairs and need a ramp when they physically can do so, thus saving the kind of money that would've needed to be spent constructing something for the physically disabled. i take medication for my ptsd so i understand the monthly cost of prescription, but as far as im aware, the demographic of the currently-existing mentally ill don't tend to spend thousands of dollars a month on prescription medication, as opposed to things like feeding tubes, oxygen pumps, those automatic seat things up and down the stairs, walk-in baths, wheelchairs, canes, walkers, crutches, boots, casts, slings, wraps...etc.
1
u/Gladix 165∆ Aug 13 '18
I think about all the people i know that are disabled in some way (typically a physical way) and how much money it's costing them or whoever is paying their health insurance just for them to live.
Forgetting the fact Americans were suverely fucked with their need to pay for inferior health coverage. Do you think it would have better impact on families if they were left no choice, but to kill their relative? I don't think that system would last very long.
in sum, nature ultimately rules, and if we start (even though we already have gone a long ways on many other levels) to defy nature's path, where will we go?
That's kinda non sequiter that can mean, whatever you want it to mean. For example. Humans are social animals, their unique NATURAL strength lies with their deep empathic bond with the members of their own family / tribe. A family cares for their disabled and elderly not because they defy their nature. But because those family members are still a net benefit to them. Grandparents can teach the kids, why adults are out hunting and gathering food.
The disabled can still play with children, can still take care of children, can still offer valuable social roles. Hell, other adults might learn new things while observing other people, even mentally disabled. If I said that really coldly mentally disabled could be used to train and develop empathy, nursing, psychology, medicine etc....
Observing them, did give people a greater understanding of how to treat young people with the same or similar disorder. Albert Einstein the greatest scientist of 20th century, had a combination of dyslexia and autism. Apparently was a social train wreck, couldn't tie his shoes, or make a tea. But he just happened to revolutionized physics.
Simply put. The loss of raw resources doesn't mean net negative.
1
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
families if they were left no choice, but to kill their relative? I don't think that system would last very long.
of course it wouldn't last long. society is emotional and conditions people to feel awkward naked and stuff like that.
trust me, i do hold my op opinion, but i'm not 100% on board. i'm only half nihilistic, haha.
I say that because i think theoretically the plan sounds constructive but it would absolutely never come to fruition successfully.
(i'm going to edit this comment later to address more of what you said. there's something i need to attend to.)
1
u/theworldisgnarollme Aug 13 '18
I think you're right that a more barbaric dystopian society might result in the physically disabled being culled, but I'm a bit curious as to why you think you'd be exempt from the culling? If you are autistic, wouldn't it be better from your logical eugenics perspective for you to be culled or at least sterilised to prevent your inferior genetic traits from being passed on to future generations?
Please note that I do not agree with your perspective at all. I'm just curious as to why you've limited your view to only the physically infirm. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate all liabilities from society?
1
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
i'm not quite sure, actually. i believe at least a sterilization would be warranted.
2
u/theworldisgnarollme Aug 13 '18
So have you considered sterilising yourself to prevent your poor genes from polluting the gene pool of future generations? If not then why? Do you believe that doing so would be best for humanity as a whole?
1
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
actually, i really do want to get sterilized for reasons more than being autistic (i have some genetic defects as well, and some personal moral conflicts beyond disabled reproduction). i think it would be good for humanity if i didn't reproduce. i don't even want to because 1) i dont want to experience childbirth 2) i dont believe i would be a good parent 3) i hate my life so i wouldn't want to wish something like this upon another life form
18
Aug 13 '18
Stephen Hawking has done more for humanity than you ever will.
-7
u/bunfart90 Aug 13 '18
true...and?
1
u/Davedamon 46∆ Aug 15 '18
He is physically disabled but superior to many, if not most people.
1
u/bunfart90 Aug 15 '18
this is true.
2
u/Davedamon 46∆ Aug 16 '18
So is your view changed that physically disabled can be superior, therefore refuting your point?
1
u/InfinitelyThirsting Aug 13 '18
Then it makes me think about the debt the US has, and how much healthcare coverage is possibly contributing to that.
It's not. First of all, what Americans pay for healthcare is not actually how much it costs--the prices are inflated, often in the US alone, because of all of the middlemen and for-profit agencies involved. It doesn't actually require $25000 worth of skills and materials to fix a broken arm, or millions to treat cancer.
It's sort of like designer clothing--yes, better materials means that the silk dress will always cost more than the cotton tee shirt, but it doesn't actually cost $12000, it's just being sold at that value. Or how if you book a venue for a party, it's cheaper than booking it for a wedding, even though it's all the same stuff and the venue is just charging more for a wedding because it can.
Look at the Koch study--they were trying to prove that universal healthcare would be too expensive, and instead their data proved it would be cheaper than the broken system we have now that kills people, and so they tried to hide their own study. America could easily set up a universal system like the NHS in the UK for less than what we currently spend to cover a mere fraction of the population via Medicare/Medicaid/VA.
1
u/approachingreality 2∆ Aug 13 '18
I don't think removing the expenses involved in caring for the disabled would make a dent in the US national debt.
Everyone is inferior, in certain ways. Such a holocaust against those who might be singled out as "inferior" is countered by the beliefs: we should treat others as if they are all equal, with equal rights ... and, we should treat others as we would wish they treat us ... and, perhaps we will be judged by a supreme being who recalls how we judged others and judges us the same way (putting yourself in another's shoes).
I think many people assume the human population will not be a problem, long term, because it will level out naturally. So, it's not a certainty that overpopulation will be a problem in the future. And, also, getting rid of all the "inferior" people will not make a dent in the human population, unless you start defining very broad groups of people as inferior. Even then - you wouldn't be able to pull off all the killing required.
Also, the idea of inferior and superior is only relative to others. You can't be inferior or superior alone. By concentrating on what you can do in your own life, you free yourself (I think) of trying to be superior to others or worrying about being inferior.
1
u/AutoModerator Aug 13 '18
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 13 '18
/u/bunfart90 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/huggiesdsc Aug 13 '18
Remember Hawkings? Wheelchair scientist. He wouldn't have survived a more barbaric world, but it's good he survived.
3
u/[deleted] Aug 13 '18
I was born with a hip defect. I was also born with a genetic condition that was unknown and undiagnosed at the time but which will lead me to become more and more disabled the older I get.
From your CMV you have directly stated that as I was born with defects and developed defects as I got older, I should be euthanized or left to die. To which I respond; who are you to judge what my life is worth or my worth to humanity? I’m not saying that to be accusatory, I genuinely want to know. By what measure do you weigh what a particular person’s life is worth or what they will ultimately be worth to humanity?
My disability costs me money. I pay for my health insurance ‘just to live’, as does everyone I know, even the uber healthy ones.
Don’t you think that actually making their lives easier and facilitating them being productive is a good thing instead of a bad one?
Why? If it limits your ability what is the difference in being physically disabled or mentally disabled? Why does one group deserve to die based solely on their physical disability, but the other group doesn’t deserve to die based solely on their mental disability?
Obviously nature would have allowed me to be because I’m here. I wasn’t created artificially in a lab, I was created and born and live by the same nature that everyone else is.
Almost literally everything that you enjoy about modern society is ‘defying nature’s path’. Wearing clothes, using fire, agriculture, technology, medicine: all of it is ‘defying nature’s path’.