toastman wrote:Um, non-reproductive members of a species can also benefit the species.
A) They reduce the potential population, thereby ensuring survival of the species by not depleting resources.
B) In a group scenario, they can watch over the young and defenseless, perform other duties, etc. Also, they can be risked on more dangerous tasks without fear of their removal from society will cause a dip in reproductive ability.
Because, you see, survival of the fittest, is not an individual concept to be applied to the micro level. It is a huge concept on the macro level. Our individual drives to eat, drink, and fuck form a part of that, but are not the whole.
In short, SkillsTakinPills, you are a moron. And claiming victory does not make you the winner, just an ass.
hmmm, survival of the fittest isn't on the micro level, but it is on the macro level. Interesting, and I agree. That is why I say survival of the fittest has nothing to do with being strong, fast, smart, killing machine, or anything like that. Just reproductive rates. Even if rabbits are reproducing too fast, it'll just be a short famine for the rabbits on a macro level, then once they die from famine or wolves or whatever predator, then it's back to normal. BUT reproduction is the only way to ensure that your species will survive. It matters NOT how much you can adapt or survive the elements of weather or current conditions, if you don't have offspring, then you don't have survival.
In short, if you don't have children then you are not helping us carry on the human race. Does that mean they should die? Not neccessarily, but they should get help and treatment that is available.
And A and B make no sense. We aren't talking about people that are infertile, we're talking about gay people. They choose to be that way. They can still reproduce, but there's some chemical imbalance in their head that makes them like that.
A) Fuck that. Human reasoning should be able to handle the overflow of population by advancing technologies and using new replenishable resources. In time. In time. I'm reminded of this small town in America called Houma. After Hurricane Katrina, they saw their small town almost triple in size. Nobody thought they could handle it, but they eventually adapted and all is well. It's not so much that we can't adapt to higher populations, it's just that we don't want too.
B) I wouldn't let some gay person watch over my young and defensless children. It's hard enough trusting straight people, but it seems like you're just asking for it if you let a gay person watch the young and defenseless.
But I do agree they can be used for other tasks.
In even shorter, SkillsTakinPills must be takin them smart pills. And I never claimed victory. I just said I was right, |darc| was right, and roofus is wrong. That statement was backed up by |darc| himself. Are you trying to argue with |darc|? And if I was to claim victory, it would be just to state the obvious.
