Eugenetics :

[spoohunter]

Let's forget for a moment slippery slopes, rights, and wrongs.

One reason capitalism, and other mercantile societies work so well, is that those who produce are rewarded for producing. In it's purest form, if you do nothing, produce nothing, provide no service, you will starve to death. In other words, those who do not produce for society, those who do not help us acheive our goals, are cut from the team.
A natural, easy to understand, easy to morally accept way of culling the herd.

It seems a logical conclusion then that the ideal society figures out it's maximum capicity for people it can sustain, brings in as many people as possible (both through immigration and child rearing), and then "cuts" X (where X is number of people - maximum number of people) from the team. Cutting those who least accomplish societies goals.

I understand there are umpteen moral and even pragmatic difficulties with this proposed society. Would this not be the ideal society?

[BZ_Zorro]

LOL

<edit to add> I'm not even sure what you're asking. That moral considerations aside, the society that produces the most goods most efficiently is an ideal society?

Um, no.

[spoohunter]

I did not mean to imply that a society should be measured on material production.

What I am asking is, would this not be the ideal form of society? Would this not accomplish a societies goals best, whatever those goals may be.

What's funny?

[Popinjay]

What do you mean "cuts"? Will there be a ceremony complete with torch extinguishing?

Who decides, and how do they decide?

[spoohunter]

Don't get bogged down in specifics.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am asking is, would this not be the ideal form of society? Would this not accomplish a societies goals best, whatever those goals may be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gotcha.

My ideal society is one that (in no particular order):
a) Produces goods and services as efficiently as possible
b) Promotes, encourages and provides resources for art, music, literature and other forms of expression
c) Promotes freedom of thought, education, and scientific inquiry as worthy in their own right.
d) Gives each individual the maximum achievable personal, religious, and social freedoms.
e) Protects these freedoms from infringement by others and the state.
f) Strives to minimse negative impact on the environment and other cultures.

Culling the sick, the weak and the lazy is in conflict with many of these goals.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's forget for a moment slippery slopes, rights, and wrongs.

One reason capitalism, and other mercantile societies work so well, is that those who produce are rewarded for producing. In it's purest form, if you do nothing, produce nothing, provide no service, you will starve to death. In other words, those who do not produce for society, those who do not help us acheive our goals, are cut from the team.
A natural, easy to understand, easy to morally accept way of culling the herd.

It seems a logical conclusion then that the ideal society figures out it's maximum capicity for people it can sustain, brings in as many people as possible (both through immigration and child rearing), and then "cuts" X (where X is number of people - maximum number of people) from the team. Cutting those who least accomplish societies goals.

I understand there are umpteen moral and even pragmatic difficulties with this proposed society. Would this not be the ideal society?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the X you "cut" from society are part of that society, certainly not an ideal society for them.

PairTheBoard