1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Too many laws in place to protect idiots....

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Bad Brains, Dec 28, 2005.

  1. Bad Brains

    Bad Brains Banned

    Jan 7, 2004
    Detroit, michigan
    Before the semester was over we had a final project critique for one of my classes. A student did a project about many of the stupid things people do in real life.

    My professor then started talking to us about how so many people these days seem so detached from reality. He then said there are so many laws out there that help protect these idiots. What is the point of seat belt or helmit laws? If you are dumb enough not to use them then it's hopeless. If these people are this dumb then they should be weeded out of the population by natural selection so they can't breed an entire new generation of idiots.

    It was kind of funny hearing this come from my teacher, but I can't help but agree. It's one hell of a point.
  2. seat belt laws protect other people. If you're wearing a seatbelt you're more likely to be able to regain control of a vehicle and prevent it from injuring others, in certainscenarios, although they aren't that common. Helmet laws can probably also help others in a similar manner.

    There should be laws that prevent teachers from wasting peoples time by subjecting them to their poorly thought out ideas.
  3. fourstringdrums

    fourstringdrums Decidedly Indecisive Supporting Member

    Oct 20, 2002
    I don't think it's a matter of people being stupid 100% of the time, I think alot of it just has to do with how certain people naturally are. Young kids on a bike or a skateboard may not have the experience or the common sense yet to know what damage could be done from not wearing a helmet. They also worry about being cool, which most of us did at that age. Alot of young drivers also think they're invincible and that's why they figure they don't have to use their seatbelt.

    It may sound stupid, but when it comes to kids and young teenagers, that's just how their brain works at that age.
  4. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002
    Natural selection doesn't apply to humans anymore.
  5. Bad Brains

    Bad Brains Banned

    Jan 7, 2004
    Detroit, michigan
    Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a poorley thought out idea. It's still a good point.
  6. M.D.S.


    Nov 8, 2004
  7. actually, it probably is a decent point, but seatbelt laws aren't a good example. Maybe helmet laws.
  8. Bad Brains

    Bad Brains Banned

    Jan 7, 2004
    Detroit, michigan
    I suppose the seatbelt example wouldn't be the best example, because as you said it can endanger others.

    I have talked to police about the "click it or ticket" law they have here in Michigan. The law says they can pull you over and ticket you for not wearing your seat belt. (how they can accuralty tell you're not wearing a seatbelt while you are driving is beyond me). Most say the law is just in place to generate more money, they could care less if someone wears their seat belt, it's their own life and they should have the common sense to wear it.

    But it's when they have kids that aren't wearing one is when they get mad and start writing tickets.
  9. fourstringdrums

    fourstringdrums Decidedly Indecisive Supporting Member

    Oct 20, 2002
    You mean the car full of kids that are all bouncing around in the back seat? :)

    I remember I was in the drive through of McDonalds once and the car in front of me had 3 kids in the back seat. One of the kids actually kept climbing up into the area between the back window and the top of the seat and I could tell the parent wasn't saying anything. They were still goofing off as the car drove away. That parent should have been put in jail IMO.
  10. burntgorilla


    Jan 24, 2005
    A girl near me got knocked down and killed after she stopped in the middle of a busy road to tie her shoelaces. It might sound awful, but is she a great loss to the gene pool?
  11. also, i was joking about the professor and forgot to put this guy ther :D

    that, and I'm subconciously angy at the world because I'm on the northshore. I came here for christmas and my ride back missed me because of a non-working phone. I have $2,002 in my wallet, but that is overshadowed by my hatred for this place. That I recognize this place as the source of my hatred is a sign of what's called "emotional intelligence." You can take an EIQ test. I did once, but I didn't finish because I was angry, probably because I was here. :mad:
  12. kserg


    Feb 20, 2004
    London, UK
    I dont think it never should have been applied to humans and when it does its done wrongfully and very anti-social. So yeah...

    I find something funny about Darwin's Natural selection and survival of the fittest theory... its one of the most racist things i've heard and yet to this day everyone uses it so much...
  13. Bryan R. Tyler

    Bryan R. Tyler TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002 Staff Member Administrator Gold Supporting Member

    May 3, 2002
    People who get injured from not wearing helmets and get sent to the hospital ends up costing you (the taxpayer) and the government money. That's why it's become a law.
  14. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002
    It doesn't apply to humans. What are you talking about? :eyebrow:
  15. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002

    In a society where a 400 lbs slob can survive next to a 170 lbs athlete with no challenge. It is clear that natural selection and survival of the fittest is irrelevant. We have technology to take care of our basic needs, food, shelter, health. We no longer live based on our strength and wits. Dumb people will do dumb things and get themselves killed, but that has very little to do with natural selection or survival of the fittest.
  16. And so begins the de-evolution of the human race. Whether or not you believe in macro-evolution to begin w/, there is little doubt for anyone that we'll all be apes soon enough.
  17. Not anymore your right, every since we developed as a society, as we say in the scientific community, the meme has replaced the gene as society has evolved to protect the weaker members instead of leave them
  18. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002
    No wonder King Kong did so well.
  19. I'm not sure that it ever did fully. I think when a being has the ability to rationalize and make conscious decisions regarding their own mortality, then it becomes a different issue.

    In the animal kingdom, animals strive to survive. That's the main objective of their existence. To survive and mate to further their bloodline. They don't do anything unnecessary to endanger that.

    Humans on the other hand, have done things to unneedingly endanger that all throughout history. There may be a common gene that causes people to risk their own mortality through various acts but even if it could be weeded out of the gene pool, we would still have people that even though they may not have that gene, will still make that conscious choice to do something irrational that endangers themselves and those around them.

    So, I'm kind of on the fence with this issue. There have always been people that just make dumb decisions, and when you ask people that knew them, they're not surprised at what that person is capable of doing, (in a bad way). There are also people that have always showed great wisdom in their decisions and one day make that conscious unwise decision, that eliminates them from the face of the earth. The latter is just as capable of doing something stupid as the former, even though that wise person may not have that "gene" that needs to be weeded out of society.

    I think the ability to choose eliminates one from natural selection.
  20. UnsungZeros

    UnsungZeros The only winning move is not to play.

    I'd say that natural selection still very much applies to humans. To a lesser extent then other species given our technological and medical advantages, but it still applies.

    Natural selection is often summed up as "survival of the fittest", but that isn't entirely correct. Those species with desirable traits for their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce.

    Using obese people as an example is poor because the cause of their weight is mostly not genetic. However, even if we were to go with this example and say that their genes made them more prone to becoming obese, it would still be sorted out through natural selection. Obese people live shorter lives and have more health problems than others giving them less time and more problems in reproducing. They are also generally not attractive to the opposite sex for reproduction. Thus, the likelihood of the reproduction of genes that make people more prone to obesity goes down.

    The environment plays a factor in natural selection as well. In the 20th century, technology made food so plentiful that those with a predisposition to retaining fat became more likely to do so. In ancient times, food was not nearly as plentiful and retaining fat was probably a favorable trait to have. So as the environment changes, so does the genome.