What exactly does it mean to "contribute to society?&qu

Post Reply New Topic

Don't worry your poor head too much. I'm sure the owners will invent some kind of pharmaceutical product to render the dispossessed into docile econ-men who can't dream of initiating force or disrespecting property rights. That is if stepped-up media propaganda efforts and ever more mindless bread-and-circus extravaganzas alone won't do the trick. If all else fails we can go back to the old-school tried-and-true, start some more pointless wars and rally the starving proles around the flag.

I think contributing to society means, working, paying taxes, doing volunteer work, doing community service, selling things, earning your own money from online such as from Google. You don't need to do all these things above to contribute to society and doing only one of them counts.

I have seen some childfree folks talk about how selfish" "breeders" are because they have a child who is severely disabled and will never live a normal life or who is very sick and is in pain and suffering and may not live long so they think it's cruel to have that child and have them suffer. I have seen a childfree blogger rant about this couple having a child with Treacher Collin's syndrome and her face is severely deformed and she has needed surgeries and need to be fed through a tube and the blogger was saying how "selfish" these parents were and how dare they let their kid suffer by having her. She even posted a link to the youtube video. I am sure there are parents and childless people who also feel the same way. That is why abortions happen if they know something is wrong with the child. Sometimes the baby is so sick, there is no way they will live when they are born nor live in their belly so they make the hardest decision by ending it. Sometimes the baby dies before the procedure happens and it's very sad. The parents are sad too so they grieve over it and see it as their loss. They will even say they had a miscarriage even if they had an abortion because to them abortion implies they didn't want the child. Plus I am sure they get better responses when they say they had a miscarriage rather than abortion because it's a controversial thing. People will just listen to the word than to the story and react emotionally if they are against abortions. So parents say miscarriage instead.

This is only hypothetical, right? They probably don't really think that the government should create a lot of taxpayer-funded gas chambers to execute everyone that the state deems to be an unproductive member of society, including the elderly and quadriplegics. It would probably still be cheaper than funding their living expenses with taxes though, and society would be more efficient overall.

In the original German it's Lebensunwertes Leben

It's because they give value to people based on what they can get out of them. Like, if somebody can clean a table or mop a floor, they have more value than someone who cannot perform those tasks in a labor intensive, capitalistic society (not my personal ideology btw). Existing is just existing. Nothing more, nothing less. Humans like to resemble ant colonies at times. Perhaps bees. Everyone doing something and if they aren't, like the ant they are stung by all the others.

Generally contributing to society means not becoming a drain on resources.

Working, paying taxes, these are the most common ways, but I believe even those on public assistance can contribute to society by volunteering.

The debate about the profoundly disabled is a very difficult one to have and I don't have a good answer to how to handle it.

The problem is as the number of jobs available decreases the number of people "unfit" for work grows since with increased competition those who have the most difficulty conforming will be the first to be ditched. If this category reaches a critical mass there will be big problems. The "every man for himself, don't tread on me, rugged individualism rules" mentality we have here in the US will necessarily collapse. Only a dictator like Pinochet would be able to impose a "libertarian" government with the barrel of a gun when people are literally starving in the street.

Its a vacuous statement. I think what they really mean is that they don't believe people should live who, in their opinion, don't have genes worth replicating. Sweetleaf might have a point as well - enough people might suggest that those judging perhaps start with themselves.