This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You're discounting that gestational time plays into most people's moral calculus. Most people feel differently about six weeks than six months. Which is logical: miscarriage rates start dropping precipitously after six weeks, and are minuscule after ten weeks. Many people might be placing those abortions of fetuses the size of peas in the meh category automatically, as the probabilistic child isn't probable enough or present enough at that stage.
To piggyback off of what @The_Nybbler said. This comes down to a bright line definition of when life starts. And an honest debate about abortion would have that at its center.
It's funny, we've all heard the joke about it being impossible to be "a little bit pregnant" - you are or you aren't. It seems, however, you can be pregnant with something that is only "a little bit human."
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that this becomes the Sorites Paradox -- the paradox that asks the question "how many grains of sand make a heap?" (Worse, actually, because time is continuous). It's not resolvable.
@100ProofTollBooth
I'm not saying it doesn't present a philosophical illogicality. What I am saying is that philosophical consistency ends up requiring (for most people) taking counterintuitive actions in real life.
Taking a hard black-and-white stand at conception or at birth prevents you from ever facing inconsistency. But each requires biting the bullet and accepting some tough choices. The shift from people identifying as pro-life vs pro-choice is mostly capturing shifts in the perceived environment around those people, their actual beliefs resemble neither philosophically consistent position.
The polling is like asking people "Do you think we should paint things Blue?" Some small percentage of people will genuinely never tolerate anything blue, and some small percentage of penn state fans want everything blue. Most people will change their minds depending how many things are already blue.
I see what you're saying. This makes sense. And I appreciate the comment on philosophical consistency.
I'm not pro-life because of dogmatic adhere to religious teachings (although I do that in my spare time). I'm pro-life because I think philosophical consistency would push the more rabidly pro-choice into favoring eugenics.
To the extent that this is true, this would be an extremely positive development.
Just to be clear, you're an explicit eugenicist?
I would say I’m an explicit eugenics advocate; I lack any serious scientific training and cannot meaningfully contribute to the project of eugenics in any way other than internet advocacy and my own hypothetical future mating decisions, so I think to call myself a “eugenicist” would be to give myself too much credit. But yes, I believe that eugenics is a salutary project which will be a key part of policymaking at every level - including, at some point, probably global - in the future.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Two questions:
Can you point to an example of intentional, explicit eugenics delivering clear benefits?/
Do you support price controls?
Yes, in the early 20th century, many states implemented programs which resulted in the sterilization of women who had been institutionalized for mental illnesses, or who had criminal histories, or who had profound mental disabilities. This prevented the births of what would have been another generation of orphans, invalids, wards of the state, and criminals. The fact that these laws and programs were abandoned after a few decades had nothing to do with their efficacy and everything to do with what I would consider small-minded moral squeamishness.
I will not pretend to have a strong grasp of economics, which is why I rarely comment on economic/financial policy. Given what I know, and the opinions of commentators I trust, it seems like price controls are generally a very bad policy, distorting the market and incentivizing massive corner-cutting in order to squeeze profits out of what is already an industry with extremely tight margins.
Okay. Given that this practice was carried out at some scale for a couple decades, what evidence convinces you that it had a clearly beneficial effect? Murder rate per capita would be my go-to here, and while I can't find a chart at the moment due to them all starting in the 1950s, I'm pretty sure the graphs I've seen doesn't support a story where the sterilization program provided an obvious benefit. How are you measuring the outcomes, and what are the observed measurements?
We're on the same page here. Obviously, we both recognize the idea of "coordinate effort to create positive value where none existed before" is generally a pretty good strategy. Naïvely, one might think that this general model would work for price controls too; the prices are "wrong", and we coordinate effort to fix them, thus creating positive value that would otherwise not be available to us. The problem is that the coordination doesn't work, because while effort can be coordinated, the information needed to determine how that effort should be spent to achieve the desired outcome is absent. As a consequence, the effort is wasted, and the result is a loss of value rather than a gain.
I think Eugenics has the same problem. I don't believe that I can define "good people" any more than I can define "good prices". I certainly don't believe that other people can do so, nor do I particularly trust them to even try. Absent the definition and trust, there's no reason to believe that the effort won't be wasted, resulting in loss of value. I certainly don't think "MOAR INT PLOX" does it; a lot of very, very smart people went in for Communism and the New Soviet Man, with results that seem very obviously dysgenic even from a steelmanned Eugenics perspective.
Table stakes for this idea should be a demonstration that "good people" can be reliably produced at a community level, and that these people remain "good" at least three generations down the line. There's no actual obstacle I can see to such an effort, and indeed I observe a number of people and groups who have tried this sort of thing in the past. The results I'm aware of don't strike me as promising for your thesis, and the best results I'm aware of come pretty much exclusively from the religious, not from the sort of Materialist Rationalism it seems you prefer.
First off, I don’t think that we have access to comprehensively-collected (let alone still-available) data, nor were these programs widespread enough to show an obvious effect. I do plan to do significantly more research on the topic in the future, though, and I’d love to find out that I’m wrong about the paucity of data. However, a drop in the murder rate absolutely does not seem to be what the people administering these programs were optimizing for; rather, they were mostly trying to prevent the births of individuals who would be lifelong burdens on state and local resources, due to profoundly low IQ and other mental disabilities, and to the inability of the mother to provide care. Imbeciles, the insane, etc.
I’m sorry, but I don’t really think you’re trying very hard. Clearly you and I both agree that there is a vast mushy middle ground of people who have some combination of good and bad traits, and while it may be possible to fiddle around with genetics to move the dials, I don’t know of any serious eugenics advocate who is overly concerned with making normal people significantly different - at least, not until way further down the line, after we’ve already dealt with the far easier and more important low-hanging fruit.
What eugenics advocates are concerned with are the extremes. I just simply do not believe that you don’t know that it’s better to have an IQ of 110 than it is to have an IQ of 65. The profound limitations on the life a 65-IQ person can ever hope to live are something I wouldn’t wish on anybody. We’re talking about people who are just simply incapable of experiencing the vast majority of things that make human life living, and who have essentially no chance of making any significant contribution to society at even the hyper-local level. People who will be burdens for their entire lives. People who lack the impulse control do do anything other than live in the moment. I don’t care if they’re “Good People” in some moral sense; they’re just absolutely not worth having around. We gain nothing from their presence.
You also absolutely know what a Bad Person looks like, at the extremes. Psychopaths, serial killers, those with profound unrestrained aggression and sadistic urges. And yes, you’re correct that many of these people are in fact quite intelligent - which is why no serious eugenics advocate, to my knowledge, has ever advocated for simple one-dimensional IQ-maxing. I don’t want to create a race of Ted Kaczynski genius psychopaths, and nor does anyone else. But your claim that we just have to throw our hands up and admit that we can’t reliably identify any good qualities or bad qualities in humans is simply not worth taking seriously. Any one of us can pretty easily identify certain qualities that are basically pure downside; if you don’t think material science provides any tools that could reliably lead to a reduction in the prevalence of those qualities, then that’s a separate conversation; to claim that we don’t even know what they are is risible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not squeamishness, some of us would just like to be something more than livestock, bred by the elites to whatever twisted goals pop into their heads.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link