Spastics and the Selfish Gene

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

You seldom see a spasticated animal. But - if you look in the right places - you can see an awful lot of spasticated humans. There’s a secret world of the mentally handicapped, a world of grief, toil, and mess. These poor wretches have zero chance of procreating, and contribute next to nothing to those who do, so why has the selfish gene let them live?

It’s simple. Throughout this planet’s evolutionary history, in the wild, no spastic got much further than infancy, for obvious reasons. It was therefore a perfectly acceptable strategy (evolutionarily speaking) for their parents to treat all their young the same; there was no need to add the complication of having to weed out and reject the spastics when they’d die of their own accord anyway!

But in the modern human world, with its unprecedented medical and social infrastructures and institutions, it has become possible to keep spastics alive indefinitely. Parents follow their il-prepared instincts instead of reason, and the consequence is the existence of the terrible underground world of the mentally handicapped. If you have the luxury of being able to ignore or avoid this world, be very grateful!

Disclaimer: People nowadays love to boast about how we’ve “shed our taboos” and can talk about anything. But no one ever talks about spastics, even on the web! I have started this thread not to launch a hate campaign against some of the most unfortunate human beings on the planet, but to fill in a gap. Plus I wanted to test my theory about why the world of the handicapped exists as it does.

If you’ve taken offense at this post, my response to you is that you should be grateful your brain was capable of understanding it in the first place.

2

Hello Chimney, my fellow spastic, this is an interesting topic and none that I will make quick comment too.

My friend, Kiddy, is a care worker, he works full-time caring for a man in his mid 30’s who suffers from a severe case of autism and physical retardation (awkward poasture, spinal malajustment).

My friends job consists in caring for the mans basic physical human needs: washing, dressing, toliet, general maintenance. Kiddy also has to prepare a long schedule of social activities throughout the Mans week, to keep him active and, to some extent, stimulated.

These excursions invovle Horse Riding, Boat Rides, Visits to the Museum, Visits to Exhibitions, Days Out and trips to other Cities.

Now, it is strange, that most fully functioning able bodied people don’t recieve any of these luxuries and many can ill afford such extravagenses; yet, we who pay tax, indirects fund a lot of this autistic man, and most spastics, colourful social life.

Is this an example of Political Correctness gone bonkers?

Should we able bodied in some way concede, that as we are not disabled, we can allow such extravenganses to be lavished on the disabled because their quality of life is so poor compared to our own? Or, should we be outraged that these vegetables undertake all kinds of interesting acitivies, without actually having the soundness of mind to fully comprehend what they are doing?

More questions than answers…but it raises some interesting points…regarding, equality and inequality, a british health system that is already overstreched, choatically funded and generally discarded.

Should we rid ourselves of the Mongos? Should compassion really cost this much?

 <img src="/uploads/default/original/2X/7/78536cf08b5cbccb06a10e44ddb8da50bfc1554d.gif" width="22" height="16" alt="#-o" title="d'oh!"/>
3

That is the whole point of contention. Chimney is correct, evolutionarily they should be erased as a matter of utility, to the genetics and the species in general.

Although under the confines of society, one can always make the metaphysical argument that we’ve “evolved” past eugenics or culling, the one issue that intensely irritates me with regard to this is not in being forced to accept that we are going to continue to pay for them … but at least here in the states, they often procreate …

Which just blows my mind.

If we lived in a pragmatic world, they would not be continued just because it satiates social individuals synthetic morals and makes them feel like a “good person” … but we don’t. We live in a metaphysical simulation where individuals emotions carry more social weight than the utility of assigning values pragmatic, and disposing of that which does a disservice to all.

Then again, I’ve been told I’m a heartless ogre because I see no reason for prisons either.

4

TY for sharing that with us, Colin. That’s a good argument I hadn’t thought of here. It reminds me of the thing about sending young offenders on holidays at the taxpayers’ expense. My opinion is that what’s happening is that foolish left-liberal decision-makers are trying to approximate the real world to a perfect world - the consequence is a world that’s subperfect and, moreover, worse than it was before!

I can sympathise with what you write, Mastriani. It’s the fear of being labelled “evil” that IMO stops a lot of people from so much as questioning the maintainance of the nightmarish spastic empire.

5

::stops filing horns on head, hides file under leg::

Huh? Oh, well that is the penance in blood we pay for being social members.
Reasonable and pragmatic policies are set at the back, to ensure the comfort of the majority, especially where the synthetics of morality are concerned.

It is a protracted war that can never be won, however unfortunate.

6

It is as with economics, a set of rules and regulations is put in place to minimize the risks to the individual or to the elite in control.

In economics a monopoly is sought out, or a system of social contracts that ensures pension plans and alleviates the suffering of bankruptcy or illness.

In social behavior it can be called civility or morality.

7

Back on 07.19.06 Nick a wrote in my thread, “Life:a reaction to the void”:
Somehow I raised a pair of young angelfish into maturity. They began to breed even though my water is considered to alkaline and hard for angelfish to breed. Somehow, this pair of beautiful semi veil black marble angelfish avoided the books and let nature take its course. Now they produce broods of several hundred with no problems.

I’ve learned that ethical breeders only put the best on the market and stunted or deformed which worsen the gene pool are destroyed or fed to adults.

I went through it. I didn’t know that this pair would do the unusual where I live and breed in this water. Pet stores are glad to buy these young once they are nickel size. On advice of breeders and officials in aquarium societies, I now don’t sell or give away anything that doesn’t meet the standards of the adults.

In the Amazon river, the natural home of angelfish, a female can lay 500 to a thousand eggs and whatever hatches competes for life. The stunted and deformed are weak and an easy catch for predators. My tank has no predators so I’ve come to believe that it is my responsibility to do what is required by nature for the gene pool…

Initially I thought that it would be nice to donate some breeding pairs that I can easily raise and since these new breeding pairs will have acquired the parenting skills from their parents care, I thought it would be nice to donate some to schools to show the kids how they lay and take care of the eggs, remove the fry from shells and place them on a leaf, pick them up in their mouth, clean them off, and spit them back out. Then they guard them for the seven days required for the fry to be free swimming and once free swimming, they protect them.

In this day and age where care of young is becoming obsolete, I thought it would be good to show young students what these fish are capable of as parents. It is biology. However, when it comes to maintaining the gene pool by destroying the runts, stunted, and deformed, teachers don’t want to deal with it. It is not PC and can lead to difficult questions. How does a teacher explain that it is our obligation to compensate for the loss of natural competition for the good of the gene pool?

So, if you were an elementary school teacher taking over a class with a healthy breeding pair of angelfish that are excellent parents raising a brood and you learn that for the preservation of the gene pool and in the absence of life’s normal competition, you will have to destroy a sizable portion of young fish, How would you explain it to the class?

I replied:
…but I will say it (the story)was lovely and that it was considerate of you to give me “In the Amazon river, the natural home of angelfish” to start my answer. It seems to me that by putting the fish in an unnatural environment you have created an ethical question that does not need to exist. In my view, with our unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, to give extraordinary meaning to life, we remove ourselves somewhat from the natural environment we create with the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; and generate countless ethical questions that will remain unresolvable in our unnatural environment.

8

More good replies, and no bad reactions! Much better than I expected.

That’s a very relevant anecdote, Doug. It opens the can of worms which is the human unwillingness to accept that he’s an animal. And it makes the point that you’ve got to be cruel to be kind sometimes.

9

The consequence of this exchange has been another thought. It is unlikely that anyone will read the post I made in my thread. However, it also appears on my web site where it is more likely to be read. So there at least I think I am going to change “to give extraordinary meaning to life” to, “to give supernatural meaning to life”. Thanks for the thought CS.

10

well I a certainly not in favor of the thinking. Reminds me of Hitlers thinking.
We many have some animals instincts but we are ‘suppose’ to be more intelligent.

11

I changed “extraordinary” to “supernatural”, sat and thought about it some more then changed “to give supernatural meaning to life” to, “to give unnatural meaning to life”. I think I am happy with the phrase now. Thanks again CS.

12

I know - thousands of liberal wannabe do-gooders seem to think you can counteract the influence of a culture that glorifies violence, objectifies sex and commodifies everything in sight simply by being pleasant to criminals for a few hours a week.

The notion of actually taking on the culture that produces chavs and their breadbin is beyond these people.

13

Far more disturbing the thought that where physical deformities and mutations are easily perceived, what of the mental deformities and mutations that go unnoticed?

Let us consider stupidity, or dimness of mind, and psychological retardation, a deformity or mutation akin to a club foot or a spinal curvature.

Now let us also consider the uncomfortable possibility that these mental deformities are actually beneficial to social integration, and let us then deduce the results of this.

The culling of the herd is a predators job, but in modern human environments, where threats are eradicated and safety sought, the burden of dealing with the consequences of human meddling is left to innovation, technology and religion.

Man, in his desire to escape the natural premises that bind him and to build a ‘paradise on Earth’ only considers the consequences of his activities, after they beginf affecting him negatively.
That is a positive always has a negative byproduct, just as a gain always entails a cost.

14

I worked as a care worker for over a year.
I took care (meaning, showered, changed, dressed, shaved, cooked for, cleaned up after, and took on trips) of 5 guys with learning disabilites (obviously not on my own).
I got to know them, and, as is inevitable, care for one or two of them.
I can say this, at least two of the guys i looked after would have survived naturally due to having just enough about them, although physically they would never have excelled and if they were animals the mere fact that they were smaller and more contorted might mean they would have died.

one of them most definately would have died very quickly. this individual could not speak, not because he was unable, but because his mental capacity was that he couldn’t learn how to. he also couldn’t do anything for himself. and while he was the biggest most ‘strong’ looking and aggressive, he had no comprehension of food or warmth or hazards. i think in the case of individuals like this, who clearly don’t enjoy any activities or have any quality of life, it would be fairer for them not to be alive. and you can say it’s like hitler, but imagine, living in a house, with 4 other guys or whatever, who you could never speak to, where nothing in your life gave you any enjoyment other than lashing out at others, and if you got lost in ‘public’, you could turn up run over thinking you were no worse off. i once spoke to this man’s mother, and she told me that if there had been a test when she was pregnant for the disability he had, she would have had him terminated. when a mother says that about her child because she’s experienced them and she MEANS it, could you turn around and call her hitler?

i think that the majority of the ‘general’ public have little to no experience with any body with learning disabilities of the nature of this discussion, i’m not saying dyslexic or people in wheel chairs, i’m talking severe brain abnormalities. and with no experience of the amount you have to give to take care of these individuals, i don’t think that a correct opinion about how people with learning disabilities behave is conveyed. you all see the papers saying carers abuse individuals, but what about carers when a service user beats them up and they’re not allowed to fight back, merely try to escape and hide behind a door with a lock til it’s over? that’s worth the expense and suffering and sick pay and injury benefits the governemnt has to pay? when even their own mothers wish they could turn back time?

i agree that some should be euthanised. but not all. and it would be about their suffering more than the people around them.

15

Doug: You evidently appreciate the importance of precision in philosophy!

Well said Satyr and Siatd.

Raven’s Moon: Is it really fascistic to speculate as to why there are spastics in our society?

Gingersnaps: When I read your first line, I thought I was gonna be in for a roasting :slight_smile: I’m very pleased to see that someone who’s been “on the inside” has posted here in a constructive way. Re the carer’s perspective, I remember reading about a woman whose son was handicapped and who looked after him full time for 36 years. How did it end? It ended when she killed him and then herself, because the whole draining experience had finally overcome her maternal instinct and driven her mad. I wonder how many over people are on similar fuses, and how many of them will snap?

That comment from a mother you mention is very revealing. They’re in a terrible situation: they simultaneous want and don’t want their offspring. They’d do everything in their power to save it’s life, but they’d be greatly relieved if it died.

16

You aren’t refering to my friend kiddy who is A care worker?

And are you making a comparison between criminality and mental retardation?

Kiddy is certainly not a liberal wanna-be or a do gooder; in fact, he can be quite assertive and rather cruel, but that is another issue.

But, I do agree, that ‘taking on’ our apathetic indifferent and morally empty culture, is never broached by many well-meaning, Liberals.

The notion of actually taking on our culture is a hard notion indeed. We can counter it by simply refusing to adhere to its imperatives, but as a collective, there seems to be no drive to join together, to over turn, or expose our culture as largely baseless and vain.

Tough times: for spastics, idiots and intellectuals.

And, this is hardly an original thought, but there are a minority of mentally retarded people, who are quite capable of absract thought: Steven Hawkins: even if you see fault in his thinking; he asserts himself as a disabled man, who is not entirely futile.

(interesting topic)

17

Who recalls Dr. Kevorkian?

Our society didn’t agree with him. We value life at the expense of all- you can see signs of this all around. What does ‘W’ say defines us vs them??

Had she not killed herself and only killed him, perhaps out of complete pity, would it not be likely she’d be in jail? 80% chance I think…

18

some deformities mental and physical are a drain on society, but lets look at others as benificial to society. They are like sign posts or markers. that remind us of how fickle and how lucky we are. they remind us to not take life for granted, they allow us to keeper the much softer and gentler thoughts, emotions and deeds to balance us out.

I can’t see culling out all, some that are pure shell to almost pures shell should be given the respite of permanent sleep.

I am endeavoring to keep an inbred kitten alive. Why? Because he is fighting to live. Everyday he opens his eyes and struggles to stand or eat or urinate means he wants to live. When he curls up in my hands and purrs it tells me that he is finding a simple pleasure in such a hard life. His brothers are small but healthy, 8 months they are the size of 4 month olds, he is the size of a two month old, he has a weak body and is mostly blind and his body is quitting slowly. but, he tries.
Should I deny him the simple pleasures that he gets, that he must struggle for? Perhaps you can, I can’t. To him happiness and comfort is a luxury that is hard earned.

Mentally challenged or physically challenged people do the same. they don’t know what we do, they just know they want to have some moment of happiness or comfort. Is it right to deny them something that they stuggle harder for than we do? Their bodies and minds face greater challenges than we know. Their world may seem simple, but, it is not. Theirs is a small compact world with hints of greater things that they cannot grasp. Is that any different than us? What is simple for us is a complicated challenge to them. Because we see it as simple we have no compassion for their challenge. Is that the right thing to think?

Little Link is giving me a very new perspective and respect for the handicapped of this world. He will have a short life probably. He may die within the next week but, that boy is ekeing out as much as he can as fast and as hard as he can. I for one am proud to assist the tough little mite.

The least and the most of it is: He is helping me to grow just as I am trying to help him grow.

19

That is one of the most precise statements I’ve seen on the subject matter, well done Colin.

We love to finger point, but still maintain our habituations in direct opposition to that which is more edifying of the society as a whole. Seems Brits and Yanks aren’t really that far apart after all.

20

Kriswest,

You’re doing it. That is exactly the perspective that Chimney is bringing out of the dark corners to sit under the interrogation lamp.

It shouldn’t be individual perspectives that carry more weight, when the burden on society is to such a level that it creates advantage for those who can’t produce, by leveraging those who can to a maximum that invariably leaves them on the losing end.

The synthesis of morality into the social structure keeps the decrepit in play, and that isn’t to the local, national, or global societies benefit.

What’s best for the majority is now a lost concept, especially where pragmatics and utility are concerned. We need to get it back more than ever.

You should check the article I posted from the Comptroller General of the U.S. It’s crap like this that is ensuring the onset of a depression that we will never get back out from under.