According to gndn medical treatment should be withheld from people suffering from diseases such as Cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc. By extending their life expectancy they get to reproduce and their weak genes are passed on and the evolutionary process of allowing the fittest genes to prevail is diminished.

He endorses the Darwinian viewpoints along with the Spartan practice of exposing abnormal or weak newborn to the elements.

The idea of a mother abandoning an unwanted offspring is hardly exclusive to polar bears - certain ancient human cultures also abandoned their young if they did not pass muster. Modern, politically-correct thinking screams that this is morally abhorrent, and yet those same ancient cultures are revered for their strength and their bravery. Were the Spartans strong despite their cruelty towards their own children, or because of it?

For untold millenia, natural selection has directed the evolution of life on this planet, gradually from simple primordial goo into more complex life forms. We know empirically that this process can be wildly successful, because that process has in fact produced us - we claim with some arrogance to be the most intelligent species to ever have walked the Earth, but are we intelligent enough to interfere with the very process that produced us?

If we are the most intelligent species or better still have the power of reasoning doesn't it mean that we find some humane ways of controlling population and not go in for culling of people with diseases? It isn't the weak who are causing population to spiral out of control. Its the sturdy aggressive ones who are producing despite all odds.

Take India for example despite horrific poverty stricken conditions little ones barely survive on one meal a day grow up to sturdy adults. And in a couple of decades we will have surpassed China as as population is concerned, putting more pressure on the already limited resources.

If we go by gndn's argument even these people should be discouraged from producing since they'd be considered to be parasites mooching off society and of course they would not get any medical treatment.

On a larger scale how about nations hit by war and natural elements? Do we deprive them of aid and let millions die?

What would that make us? Little better than animals.

The answer does not lie in brutal solutions but in the power that distinguishes us from animals. We may be stalling as per evolution and not allowing a coterie of Super human beings rule the earth but its concepts like humanism, of identifying with the weak and fear of death that makes us want to survive in as many numbers as possible.

Further on gndn says:

I believe that society currently holds two contradictory views:

1. It is wrong to attempt to create better humans through selective breeding, forced sterilization, genetic manipulation, or any other form of eugenics. (We should not play god).
2. Genetically inferior humans who would surely die if left to fend for themselves should be given whatever aid they need to survive, and should have the right to reproduce if they so choose. (We should play god).

How are they contradictory? We don't need history to repeat itself where instead of the white imperialism we are ruled by genetically altered beings. And if we deprive treatment to our own what kind of society would we be living in?

Of course this individual feels that those of us who forward humanism are pussies interfering with nature but we have always gone against nature. Using fire to our advantage, building shelters to protect ourselves, using herbs etc to heal our sick which led to the evolving of Medicine, in fact entire civilizations were built on the backs of the poor and on a grander scale Imperialism was based on the same principals of Superiority which were nothing short of behaving like animals on the top of the food chain carving out their territories to systematically pillage and leech on.

The Darwian theory of the survival of the fittest is considered to be a barbaric notion when applied to human beings and that itself puts us at odds with nature.