The Cigar soldier said:
Survival of the fittest was purely nature’s way of weeding out through selective processes those individuals that we would likely be better off without. Not every child is “precious”; some should be encouraged to ride a bike with no helmet. Some people should be given scissors and asked to sprint down the hallway. And some people need to text while driving so they can rear end a tractor trailer at 85 miles per hour while spilling Strabucks in their crotch. Pompous A-holes!
Preach brotha.
I just said to my wife the other day that it doesn't seem like as many kids get hit by cars these days. When I was a kid it seemed a relatively regular occurrence and served as a stern warning to the surviving rug rats to look both ways. Being struck by an automobile loomed near the top of the lsit of my childhood fears...right along with losing my arm if it was hung from the window of a car, and having a razor blade lodged firmly in the roof of my mouth if I ate unwrapped Halloween candy.
A little fear was a good thing. It built survival skills.
My wife and I don't have kids and doubt we will. Neither of us really "get" kids or why anyone would choose to possess them.
However I don't think one has to have offspring to understand that proper parenting includes protecting children. But that also includes teaching them to protect themselves. To do otherwise is to fail to prepare the child for life.
The Nanny State has succeeded in instilling the common belief that over-protecting is a duty and anything less neglect.
I don't see this as a gene pool issue but rather a exponential weakening of a species due to lack of passed on survival skills across a broad segment.
A few generations of this and we will have a society completely unable to fend for itself.
So I say we need a few more exposed wires, tall unfenced trees, and attractive swimming holes with alligators in them. Survival of the species hinges on our keeping these little bastards on their toes.
