Herbert Spenser gave us this idea of Social Darw
Herbert Spenser gave us this idea of Social Darwinism - that the survival of the fittest was the best policy for the future of humans. You have to admit that if we could remove disease, genetic problems, low IQs and violent tendencies in people, the world would be a better place. Social Darwinist believed that people who are determined to carry these weaknesses should be prevented from polluting the human genetic pool. Don't they have a good point? Don't we do this with animals today, breeding the strongest and healthiest animals with one another to reduce weak and diseased creatures? Why won't this work for humans? Are not humans just another type of animal? Why should we allow societal chosen morality stop us from doing the right thing and begin reducing the population of weak, poor, and intellectually inferior humans? We would save tremendous amounts of money spent on disease treatments, the fight against poverty, and special education programs. We could actually wipe out the national debt if we did this since most of these problems are the cause of our overspending on 'social programs' like food stamps, welfare, etc. We have the ability to see the genetic code of people now. We can determine if they are going to pass on disease, low IQ, poor eyesight, etc. Should we not take the steps to perfect the human race? Why or why not. Can you make your argument without using religion?
approximately 150 words