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 -
I don't think 'we, humanity as a whole, acting together' - like universalist, democratic humanism - works to 'deprecate the vast majority of humanity'. It'd have to be some small group doing that.
It's, arguably, good - some people clearly are more useful, or have better lives, or w/e than others, and whether you want 'the greatest good for the most' or just 'power', somehow replacing normal people with better people advances that cause. And it's very "natural", that's what evolution does, every time you want to marry an attractive girl instead of an ugly one, or someone of "good character" instead of poor character, you 'discouraging the reproduction of those with bad genes' in your own genes' reproductive interests. On the other hand, this may happen in the form of gene editing - and "normal people giving their children better lives with gene technology" and "prevent the useless people from reproducing" end up having the same observable long-term effects.
The problem is the winnowing down - as technological society progresses, the requirements to be the kind of person who is "more useful" or "has a better life" become more and more specialised and stratified. So the number of such people reduces down and down.
So now we're talking not "100 fewer peasants, 50 more factory workers", we're talking "tens of millions out of hundreds of millions" (if we even get that high) or "millions out of billions".
If only the 'useful, productive, creative' people should replace 'normal people', or those are the ones not a 'deadweight drag', then we are talking about the vast majority of humanity being deadweight that - what? should be euthanised? allowed to die of illness, hunger and other conditions of the developing world? Even within the developed world, how many people out of the entire population of the United States would you say are "the better people"? This is a general query, I'm not aiming it at either commenter above.
If I take some economic data for 2021, then the result seems to be - get rid of the whites and the blacks, leave the USA to the Asians alone, since by household earnings at the highest rate recorded here, they are plainly the "better people":
Let's see what that would look like, population-wise:
So reducing down the population to something over 20,000,000. But well worth it, because that leaves just the better people and not the deadweight!
No idea why you want to keep just Asians regardless of their skills, a high skill white/black is better than a low skill Asian. And we don't need to starve anyone. In fact we can deprecate them with kindness, at puberty (and later should they choose it) offer to hook them up to electrodes that stimulate the pleasure centres of their brain/simulate a massive open world they get to virtually rule over and leave them in bliss until they die of natural causes without leaving heirs (something like Nozick's experience machine).
In fact you can make this offer open to every single citizen and the people who refuse it will be enriched for better humans, just repeat this for a few generations and the dregs will have weeded themselves out.
Of course gene editing is also good and should be done alongside such a program.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link