If so, then unvaccinated individuals dying, humans wiping other species or other ethnicity is evolution too.
Dysgenics happening now doesn't occur is a stateless society. It's happens with governments which ban many things and implement income redistribution, and also governments cooperate on wide scale to prevent many things.
Evolution doesn't have a 'job', it's a mindless process that doesn't care about human values. Eugenics is merely about guiding the process to achieve results in accordance with human values. Currently, evolution is selecting for low intelligence, social malignancy, and poor immune systems, among a very long list of other undesirable things. So it would accord with my values to have a eugenics program correct for this. The future I would desire would initially look like Israel — a nation with a mere ten million relatively intelligent souls and yet also with a space program. But the sky's the limit. Who knows what wondrous societies would be possible if intelligence were pushed higher than even the Jews'?
People aren't bothered as much by infectious diseases as in the past so the selection for disease resistance is probably lessened, and we can expect immune systems to weaken or become dysfunctional due to random drift. We have basically removed all selection pressures other than fecundity for modern-day humans, so everything that evolution used to optimize for besides fecundity will be expected to decline.
Weakening selection for a trait isn't same as selection for lower values of a trait (as with "too stupid to use contraception => more children"). I think SMV is still selected and I think immune system somehow influences SMV.
it's a mindless process that doesn't care about human values.
Yes, that's kind of my point. Evolutionary fitness has fuck all to do with whatever traits you might prefer. Thus I ask you the same questions I asked @Westerly
Who do you think you are to impose your values on evolution?
Humans inevitably impose themselves on the natural world in pursuing their goals, so I would say that I am simply a human who has systematized this particular matter and sees value in bringing evolution, like other natural processes, under human cultivation. The values would have to do with wanting to see generally positive, virtuous behaviors increased in their distribution and negative behaviors decreased, and ultimately this would be because I would rather live in the resultant world rather than our present, declining one, so it would be about serving myself.
I’m nobody special, but neither is the guy that decides we need to have a policy ensuring no children starve, but his policy shapes evolution just the same. Nearly every policy that touches on life and death is influencing evolution whether you like it or not. At least we can acknowledge that and bring it into the discussion of tradeoffs. Instead you seem to just want to stick your head in the sand and pretend our actions have no effect on evolution.
I don’t seek to impose any values. I’m not arguing for sterilizing Africans or whatever you think I’m angling towards. I’m just trying to explain eugenic/dysgenic to someone that seems to be willfully misinterpreting it
Suppose we made a policy all children will be provided the necessities of life (food, medicine, shelter, whatever). This would be selecting for those who have the most children regardless of their ability to provide for them. So I mean in a sense this would be “evolution doing its job”, insofar that it was maximizing reproductive success given the situation.
But I think most would consider it dysgenic, because “has children beyond their personal means to provide” would seem to be an undesirable trait to most. To some extent we can control the environment within which “evolution does its job”, so what kind of evolution will the environment we’ve created lead to? A kind we want? Or a kind we don’t want? So the label of dysgenic or eugenic is just passing a value judgment on the results of evolution given the environment parameters we control.
I would think most evolutionary changes would not be value-neutral, so every change to the environment that affects evolution could be considered either eugenic or dysgenic. I guess you might disagree here if you consider all or most things to be value-neutral, but I think most would disagree
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If you're not in the Eugenics business, you're in the Dysgenics business. You don't get to not play the game.
Dysgenics is nothing more than a sneer-word for evolution doing it's job, CMV.
If so, then unvaccinated individuals dying, humans wiping other species or other ethnicity is evolution too.
Dysgenics happening now doesn't occur is a stateless society. It's happens with governments which ban many things and implement income redistribution, and also governments cooperate on wide scale to prevent many things.
More options
Context Copy link
Evolution doesn't have a 'job', it's a mindless process that doesn't care about human values. Eugenics is merely about guiding the process to achieve results in accordance with human values. Currently, evolution is selecting for low intelligence, social malignancy, and poor immune systems, among a very long list of other undesirable things. So it would accord with my values to have a eugenics program correct for this. The future I would desire would initially look like Israel — a nation with a mere ten million relatively intelligent souls and yet also with a space program. But the sky's the limit. Who knows what wondrous societies would be possible if intelligence were pushed higher than even the Jews'?
sorry, what?
People aren't bothered as much by infectious diseases as in the past so the selection for disease resistance is probably lessened, and we can expect immune systems to weaken or become dysfunctional due to random drift. We have basically removed all selection pressures other than fecundity for modern-day humans, so everything that evolution used to optimize for besides fecundity will be expected to decline.
Weakening selection for a trait isn't same as selection for lower values of a trait (as with "too stupid to use contraception => more children"). I think SMV is still selected and I think immune system somehow influences SMV.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, that's kind of my point. Evolutionary fitness has fuck all to do with whatever traits you might prefer. Thus I ask you the same questions I asked @Westerly
Who do you think you are to impose your values on evolution?
What values would you seek to impose?
Humans inevitably impose themselves on the natural world in pursuing their goals, so I would say that I am simply a human who has systematized this particular matter and sees value in bringing evolution, like other natural processes, under human cultivation. The values would have to do with wanting to see generally positive, virtuous behaviors increased in their distribution and negative behaviors decreased, and ultimately this would be because I would rather live in the resultant world rather than our present, declining one, so it would be about serving myself.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m nobody special, but neither is the guy that decides we need to have a policy ensuring no children starve, but his policy shapes evolution just the same. Nearly every policy that touches on life and death is influencing evolution whether you like it or not. At least we can acknowledge that and bring it into the discussion of tradeoffs. Instead you seem to just want to stick your head in the sand and pretend our actions have no effect on evolution.
I don’t seek to impose any values. I’m not arguing for sterilizing Africans or whatever you think I’m angling towards. I’m just trying to explain eugenic/dysgenic to someone that seems to be willfully misinterpreting it
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Suppose we made a policy all children will be provided the necessities of life (food, medicine, shelter, whatever). This would be selecting for those who have the most children regardless of their ability to provide for them. So I mean in a sense this would be “evolution doing its job”, insofar that it was maximizing reproductive success given the situation.
But I think most would consider it dysgenic, because “has children beyond their personal means to provide” would seem to be an undesirable trait to most. To some extent we can control the environment within which “evolution does its job”, so what kind of evolution will the environment we’ve created lead to? A kind we want? Or a kind we don’t want? So the label of dysgenic or eugenic is just passing a value judgment on the results of evolution given the environment parameters we control.
I would think most evolutionary changes would not be value-neutral, so every change to the environment that affects evolution could be considered either eugenic or dysgenic. I guess you might disagree here if you consider all or most things to be value-neutral, but I think most would disagree
Two simple questions;
Who do you think you are to impose value judgments on evolution?
What values do you seek to impose?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah you do, it's called Natural Selection.
More options
Context Copy link
If you are not the one deciding what genes are "good" and what are "bad", you are in the game, but as a ball, not as player or referee.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link