Response to ykm's article

Let me first declare that my tagline is not, 'Let the inferior people die'. Rather, it is more akin to 'society should not channel an over proportionate amount of resources into pushing people with an inability onto the same plane as people with inborn qualities which predisposes them to have a better chance at survival and for taking the human race forward, and if by doing so it causes the premature curtailing of living for these people, it would be an acceptable loss.'

Darwinian theory of evolution dictates that the fittest survive. The question here is, what determines who or what is the fittest. There is no value or scale that exists which can assign each and every individual his place in the pecking order of elimination by falling out of the evolution rat race. Yet, in over indulging our aid to people who will give a fairly low probability of return, we risk a misallocation of resources. Let me pose a scenario. Do you want to pile a person who is mentally slower with tuition and other academic stimuli to enable him to scrap through the education system, or would you prefer to give these services to a person with an average level of mental capacity to enable him to progress further. The point i am making, is that the peak amount of achievement is not a general platform shared by everyone. Some people have a greater propensity to achieve greater heights than others. Why impose a cap on the top just to achieve a mediocre rate of return from the bottom. Human progress was never defined by what is languishing below, it is defined by the soaring heights to which talents take society. Draw you a case in point, people today still uses technologies that were introduced from ancient history. Yet, why are the continued usuage of such technologies not mentioned when we talk about progress? It is the new introductions which enter society which shapes the fabric of society and defines progress. We need people of ability to carve out new openings in every field everywhere. They shoulder a great burden in dragging society forward. Would it not be more prudent to alleviate their load and help their cause instead? That being said, i believe that everyone should be given a bare minimum level of help, if required to get them to a certain point. From then on, it is all up to them.

This is not a suggestion to intentionally put down people who are on the lower rungs of society. As quoted from ykm, Hellen Keller surmounted her disabilities to achieve her goals. If people are at the lower reaches of society, then more effort will have to be put in to get them to where they want to be. I am not saying that it is a total impossibility for people to achieve what they want. If poeple do want something that badly, they should be prepared to put in an effort proportionate to their abilities, but isit too much to ask that society drag, i stress the word drag, these people up to a higher standing? Then again, there are also limits, either imposed by the being him/herself, or by current reality. For all the hard work we put in, and all the assistance society gives us, do you think you or me have the adroitness to become an astronaut? There is only so much that your enviornment and outside help can do. The rest is coded into your genes. Everyone should be given the chance to achieve their dreams, but not all dreams are meant to be attained.

I have to admit, there is no fool proof way of sieving out the strong from the weak and in deciding who should recieve a quantifiable amount of aid. There probably never will be any such method. Hence, i stress that the views i expressed here are my visions for a utopian society which maximises efficiency, something that is a close impossibility in reality due to the various factors that interplay.

Here ends my short reply to ykm,

( i'll try to organise a better response during the june hols or sometime when i am free haha, but i dont think i'll ever beat your word count. Btw i never claimed that i am the elite or near the top rung of society. I am just an average teen trying to survive my A levels year. Yups, Cheers )