Monday, June 22, 2015

Treatise regarding Societal Selection as the replacement for Natural Selection

(Read comments first if a foreword to this treatise consisting of the old time religion would suit one's tastes)
~~~~~~
Natural Selection has proven itself as the most grand and prolific force that shapes life and guides it to success under any circumstances. This concept has been proven sufficiently to the point where every human should know of the bounty it instills, and undoubtedly every human as well as every life form is indebted to this force, owing it’s own sustained ability to breath and stay alive to this force of natural selection.

The fact that natural selection can no longer operate in a civilized world should appall each human to the point where they could no longer condone existing in the world; the lack of natural selection now sends humanity on a course without it, this is like riding a bike for the first time without training wheels in the first time in the existence of any species on the planet. Without this force being replaced, then undoubtedly the human race will falter, it will fall, and it will be hurt. It may even die, for the saying undoubtedly holds true, “The bigger they are, the harder they fall”.

To reinstate an equivocal force that would provide the same assurance of success that was provided by natural selection would be a momentous task; however, this is a task that must be done, and is imperative, given that the human race wishes to survive for any extended period of time. Natural selection must be emulated in order for humanity to survive into the next evolutionary time period, or else the human race will face nothing but devolution and degradation from the lack of a force ensuring the survival of the fittest members of the species, as well as the complementary force, the natural, healing, and sacred force that is the culling of the herd.

This culling is societal selection. Culling has been practiced very successfully amongst livestock for an extended period of time. It is common sense to see that both livestock and humans are both animals of the same clade, and thus culling would work equally well within a human society and provide the same clear and obvious advantages to the species that culling any other mammalian population provides.

Culling is a humane process, by default, as regardless of having undesired traits, these animals are not normally massacred outright. These animals are instead segregated to ensure that their unsavoriness and undesired traits, natural or nurtured, does not taint that of the viable or more so viable breeding stock of the mammalian population. To fail to accomplish this within the human population is irresponsible to the point of inanity, any common human could see the lack of such a process as fecklessness on the part of all humans. The repercussions of failing to do this are echoed time and time again in fables and sayings, common place things that are used to teach children common sense. Sayings such as “A stitch in time saves nine”. I tell you, the human race could quite easily lack sufficient thread for nine stitches to mend the human race, so be reasonable, and limit this deleterious fault within the genus that is currently being exacerbated by inaction.

Culling the human population may seem like the reinstation of segregation, however, it is the reinstation of segregation for a clear, proven, and helpful medical reason. Culling the human population serves as the force that will replace natural selection for the remainder of the existence of the human population, on Earth and even throughout the universe; save for any rare case where humans are reintroduced into the wild rather than existing in a society.

Humans are largely removed from nature, and this means that natural selection will no longer function, as humans are no longer a part of nature. Humans are no part of a society, and a global society at that, and it is due time to accept the culling of the human population as a necessity for the survival and success of the genus, regardless of any moral qualms, humanitarianism, outcry of civil liberties or freedoms, or any other objections to the functional, necessary, and humane practice of culling a mammalian population that is otherwise commonplace amongst all domesticated populations of animals. The culling of domesticated populations of animals is common place for all populations with the sole exception of the human population, which is ultimately an unforgivable act of disrespect to the humanity; as humans are essentially treating livestock far better than they treat themselves, which is masochism to say the least. Yes, homo of the domus, you are a domesticated animal.

Have some dignity, and apply the insight of the ranchers that have culled their herds for countless generations in order to ensure that their herd remains viable, functional, successful, desirable, and profitable. Although heritable traits may not seem contagious, even recessive traits, and simple predispositions to conditions that are not illnesses or disorders in themselves are truly contagious and incurable illnesses diseases, they are simply only spread through reproductive intercourse. These ailments and inevitable sufferings of humanity can be averted all together if the simple practice of culling the population is mandated on a universal level just as it is within all other populations of mammals.

The reality is, it is entirely inhumane to fail to cull the human population to the highest level of performance, aptitude, and optimization possible. This is allowing many types of problems to be rampantly unchecked and dangerously cancerous to the progress and success of society and the viability of the human species all together. The lack of a culled population means that even simply reproducing and creating offspring is effectively creating a workplace hazard for not only the participants, but every human on the planet, as more so undesirable individuals could be separated from the more so desirable individuals to ensure that faults, weaknesses, disadvantages, and undesirable traits are not reintroduced to an otherwise healthy population once they have been identified.

I am not saying that these people should be killed for their inferiority. I am saying that  allowing anything that is imperfect in any way, genotypical or phenotypically, is condoning failure, weakness, undesirability, unhealthiness, and devolution of the species. With the lack of natural selection, this means humans must fulfill this role with by their own manifest and continually ensure that this force of societal selection is enforced very strictly at all times, just as natural selection spared no pity and had no qualms with removing any individual from the pool of those endowed with the sacred gift of life should that individual prove that they are unworthy in any way.

Segregation by races was a function to keep a certain unsavoriness out of another population, even though this unsavoriness was simply the fact that the minority nationalities, ethnicities, races, populations and groups were uneducated and had strange, disagreeable, foreign, or wild customs, traditions, and mannerisms that were often passed down into their children. This force as largely instilled from a fear of others rather than a true necessity; however, culling a population is different than traditional segregation; herds of animals are not culled because one group of animals fears another group of animals, a herd of animals is culled in an effort to optimize the offspring produced and ensure the ideal beast is ushered into existence, rather than an undesired beast that has less desirable traits.

Culling of the human population can be understood, respected, and defended by seeing the successes the practice of culling has within other populations of domesticated animals. If this practice were wrong, inhumane, or otherwise unjustifiable; it would not be seen as a commonplace necessity within those that professionally manage populations of mammals. The sole reason this force is absent from the human population is due to the fact that there is no farmhand or shepherd that attempts to ensure that optimum animals are created at all times, by choosing not to allow and condone the creation of animals of lower quality that are less desirable, even if there is a fairly negligible difference, a change of 5% capability, function, yield, or ability is still largely noticeable. This is a simple choice to make, even a 5% increase in optimization in the human race is making the choice between plowing 100 acres in a month, or plowing 105 acres in a month. This is choosing to make $100,000 or $105,000.

Culling is  a humane practice, while leaving a herd to become rife with it’s own faults is the truly inhumane act, remember that this is the same as quarantining sick people, as to ensure that they do not infect more people, regardless of the fact that these illnesses and disorders that they infect people with are genetic, even if they are only predispositions, they are still predispositions to inferiority, and to speak against culling, is the desire to be inferior and unsuccessful while speaking in favor of willingly spreading and exacerbating contagious sickness, illnesses, and suffering that could be contained and eliminated with proper measures; speaking against culling is to state that one desires rampant failure and tremendous preventable losses within the likes of one’s own nation, business, family, and to impact countless men and women that we all must coexist and cooperate with in order to ensure the continued survival and well being of the planet and our own species.

3 comments:



  1. This was originally a rant/speech of the old time religion that I would occasionally enjoy ranting about. Somehow it turned into productive treatise, but in case anyone wanted to read the Rallying Speech that was originally the first part of the essay, feel free. (Actual essay starts at the ~~~~)

    The rallying speech was left out because it would likely scare too many people away from the actual topic, and the treatise does not have the same tone or timbre as the Rallying Speech

    Aside: until now i would have said “treat-see” for the word treatise… who doesn’t love dyslexia. Spell check is only reason the readers don’t get copious amounts of laughs at my dyslexia. (I’ve always read that word as treatsie, but have now noticed spell check remark tat is not the way to spell that word.)


    ReplyDelete

  2. This was originally a rant/speech of the old time religion that I would occasionally enjoy ranting about. Somehow it turned into productive treatise, but in case anyone wanted to read the Rallying Speech that was originally the first part of the essay, feel free. (Actual essay starts at the ~~~~)

    The rallying speech was left out because it would likely scare too many people away from the actual topic, and the treatise does not have the same tone or timbre as the Rallying Speech

    Aside: until now i would have said “treat-see” for the word treatise… who doesn’t love dyslexia. Spell check is only reason the readers don’t get copious amounts of laughs at my dyslexia. (I’ve always read that word as treatsie, but have now noticed spell check remark tat is not the way to spell that word.)



    Some say that the holocaust did not happen; let this amnesia be erased by a far more thorough genocide of all proponents of inferior political systems and those attempting to attain welfare not through hard work and societal pertinence, but by slipping their hands into the pockets of veritably viable humans as they allege they are but searching for alms. May those who have no worth or capability gain but a grain of this by executing those opposed to true success and economic worthwhileness in favor of coddling the weak, worthless, incapable, inane, and those too misled by the delusions of fallacy and rife with baseless indigence that is truly no more than the vice of greed, thirsting for the well-being of others as a leech does for blood, doing nothing more than biting any host that such a parasite can gain sustenance from.

    There is no justification that condones actions that hinder, harm, or detract from the economic profluence and dominance of a nation. There is certainly no possible way to justify this when other nations have no appetite for this foolish culture of coddling and deluding the lives that taint otherwise healthy systems with their irrational take from the systems that provide incentives for success amongst the people. These people living off of systems funded by tax money that pay an extraordinarily negligble fraction of the money they receive from the taxpayers in the form of their own taxes, if this number is even a non-zero number to begin with.

    Condoning this would be smiling and nodding to bank-robbers and bandits that come to rob your stores of goods on a regular basis. These people are not only condoned, but given privileges that nature would in no way provide them, and to call any condemnation of these burdens bigotry would be to condemn nature, the womb that birthed all life on the planet, a bigot; for these humans could not support their own lives in the wild, and these humans would indeed be granted the same honor of death by nature for their failures and inadequacies that I as well propose as a resolution to this issue.

    ReplyDelete

  3. The lives of these parasitic existences cannot be compared to those of humans that have the capacity to provide for themselves; these humans have devolved from the shameless omnivorous scavenger that is the human being, and now have a form that even nature would in no way condone: these are now parasitic humans, the equivocal of biology such as a ringworm, infesting and eventually killing the systems that they infest, but even lower in respectability: this is the case as the parasitic humans are not prone to success in that they cannot be removed in the sense that it is difficult to remove a ringworm that is infesting an animal; instead, these humans have no survival capacity as they can easily be removed from society and disallowed from continuing with their unquenchable parasitic thirst for well-being, satiation, welfare, and even things that were not traditionally granted to truly capable functional human beings such as human rights, civil liberties, and freedom from slavery and oppression.

    Allowing these parasitic humans to even breath free air is a tremendous shame to the human race; these lives that walk the streets show that humanity is willing to condone a deadly parasitic infestation and explains their reasoning with sentimental, humane or emotional appeal. These parasites are a literal cancer that grows in strength, fervor, and deadliness if their existence goes uncorrected as time progresses; these parasitic humans are a cancer that even nature would correct and extinguish from it’s once noble wilds; wilds that are no longer preserved by natural selection; as the filth of civilization has limited the sole process that drives evolution and now rather than evolution, we see devolution and degradation of the once nobly shameless human race that would scavenge as well as it could, and kill any other human being that stood in-between itself and a more comfortable, bountiful, and pleasurable life. This was the instinct of the wild man, now removed from the wilds, his instinct fades and with it, his ability to ensure his survival.

    The common human has little foresight to understand or even realize the effect of coddling and condoning the raging cancers of society that are plaguing the “civilized” world of today. The common man is blind to the illnesses, diseases, and inadequacy that are rife within the blood of his fellow sapiens; these illnesses that do nothing but pollute the gene pool, reinforce stagnation and degradation of all economies of the globe as well as exacerbate the devolution of the human race.


    ~~~~~~

    ReplyDelete