No one in that clip can be given any credit, certainly not the presenter, who seems to be at least as inadequate as his victim, but the point of posting it is that it supports my belief that some sort of eugenicist policy is now necessary. Perhaps it's nothing more than crude prejudice founded on a chronic intellectual deficit but I can see no purpose whatsoever to that young man's existence, nor that of the young woman sitting beside him, who has apparently decided that he is a fitting mate and father of a child, or children, she has already borne or will bear. Can anyone seriously doubt that he is nothing more than a source of irritation, annoyance, trouble, pain or harm to almost everyone he has dealings with, and she little if at all better? Can anyone say with honesty that they do not doubt his economic activity, and hers, is defined not as a net contribution but as the cost of those who are paid, or work unpaid, to manage his life, and hers, to deal with the problems he and she create, to repair, often imperfectly, the damage they do, the harm they cause and the suffering they inflict in their degraded and barbarous condition? Would it not have been better for them and us had they not been born?
I am mindful of the extremes to which eugenics have been taken but I can see no objection, for the common good, now and in future, to the judicious application of selective sterilisation.
As an aside, that is one of the reasons why I do not own a television set.
