Why are you a useful addition to the human species?

This would imply that there is such a thing as a useful human, which is a concept that I'm not exactly sold on.

Who said I was?

I'm not.

...

I am also not. I have thought a lot about this. I've not really done anything of note to benefit anybody (to date at least).

However, most work seems hollow to me. I would like to make an impact by doing research/teaching (academic or otherwise) in future, with the aim of improving society as a whole. That's what I'm working towards right now.

You need to be the judge to decide whether that potential is worth keeping me alive for, or whether it's too unlikely given the evidence

Because I can bake cake.

And if you kill me, you won't get any!

You shouldn't kill me because I have a knife.
(You should also buy me alcohol because I have a knife. Tequila please?)

Originally Posted by Runescribe

I can spell.

YES!!!! AMAZING!!!

because your boss is gonna need me...

Originally Posted by Bote

My genome > yours. Sit.

If you have extra chromosomes; you may want to consult a doctor

Originally Posted by Selene

Yeah, it seems like I did this. And it seems like you're not too fond of this way of thinking. :) What alternatives do you like better?

Not to think of individuals as a part of society. I think at the root of every evil committed by a human against another there's the reasoning that "he's part of us" or "we own him" or "he owes us".
We hold each other to the standards of our society and punish each other for breaking them. Right now this means imprisoning or punishing those who have detrimental effects to society but maybe soon any condition that makes you unable or unwilling to contribute to society (retardedness, laziness, autonomy, etc..) will be punishable or, if our methods become more subtle, "fixable". In short, I don't think we're supposed to be eusocial animals.

Originally Posted by sprinkles

I'm still coming off of the thread about killing mentally retarded people. It is not a leap to think of value in terms of benefit to society, no, but I do think it is a leap to just kill anyone who is deemed unfit.

I can see the reasoning: they're part of us, a useless and expensive part, we don't allow them to reproduce, so why should we allow them to live if it can save us a lot of money we can use better ? This kind of thing happens all the time in eusocial animals: bees kill their lazy workers, ants effectively kill cordyceps-infected individuals by throwing them out of the colony, naked mole rat queens sterilize all other females in the colony. If our goal is a better society functioning as a whole, then that gives the good of the whole precedence over the parts.

Originally Posted by roxy

I can see the reasoning: they're part of us, a useless and expensive part, we don't allow them to reproduce, so why should we allow them to live if it can save us a lot of money we can use better ? This kind of thing happens all the time in eusocial animals: bees kill their lazy workers, ants effectively kill cordyceps-infected individuals by throwing them out of the colony, naked mole rat queens sterilize all other females in the colony. If our goal is a better society functioning as a whole, then that gives the good of the whole precedence over the parts.

I'd agree with it if humans were that smart. They aren't.