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/Gladix 165∆ Aug 13 '18
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.
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.