> Exactly how do you argue that aren't the ones dying of hunger/disease by lack of treatment that are the brightest and most suitable for the needed positions of high intellectual achievement needed to run a space program?
I was in no way advocating for a culling. I was just pointing out how that wasn't the best analogy as it seemed you were trying to compare it to something ridiculous when in fact it is a common phenomenon, sadly.
> In any case, one would think than in the XXI century we would be more advanced than expecting a nation to prune the disabled/destitute part of their population by letting them die of hunger/disease while they launch rockets into space.
But we aren't. It's sad to say, but a cursory look at history finds that a significant amount of progress and technological development was fueled by human misery and suffering. American society still allows for perverse incentives like the opportunity to profit off of health care and incarceration when the moral hazard is so glaringly obvious. Welcome to profound disappointment. I believed in the promise of the Internet to create a more informed, compassionate, open, and enlightened society. Look how that turned out. What I've realized is that people haven't changed. We're still the same species we were 70,000 years ago. Our collective knowledge and institutions have evolved, but we haven't.