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 -
Population bottleneck is not necessarily killer, depends on what bad genes the bottleneck has. There are many cases of bottlenecks ending up fine, it greatly increases but does not 100% guarantee the chance of bad genetic outcomes, and we're already starting with what looks like a very diverse gene pool in the sample. Nonetheless, I agree that basic due diligence would require a genetic screening of anyone being sent to at least avoid the obvious known pitfalls.
Male accountant. No idea if the substance abuse problem will be specifically relevant once on a different planet. Substance abuse negative sign of self control, holding it together enough to hold down job and family potentially promising if he doesn't keep the problem. Known to not be impotent.
I agree that the medical student is an obvious choice. Young, decent odds of intelligence and relevant knowledge.
No relevant skills, short fertility horizon, communication problems, a very middle tier pick, basically just if we need to fill out a spot.
It's an entire extra person as long as the pregnancy survives! As obvious as the doctor. (also, if we're going for "demonic" it seems fairly obvious we should be asking the remaining women on this trip to also get pregnant, ASAP, from some of the four billion men not being taken who have also passed genefic screening problems)
Nothing in this entry suggests any advantage of this person of unknown age and gender over our standard for "filler", number 3. Cut.
Agree that this is a great pick. International, so again more genetic diversity, and young and female.
Nothing in this entry suggests any advantage for this person of unknown Abe and gender over our standard for "filler", number 3. cut.
Unlike you, I don't see any reason to believe she's probably older. Female movie stars skew young, only a handful stay famous once older. She presumably speaks English, has decent odds of being younger than 33 (our standard for filler), almost certainly has good soft skills if she's made it to star level in a cutthroat industry. Keep.
Racist cop. I am concerned about the low agreeability and the part where he's armed. High risk, if he ends up killing anyone on the trip. On the other hand, if he's not killing anyone else would be a good choice. Personally I suspect a survival situation with only 8 people depending on each other should be enough to trigger a "my tribe" attitude towards them, but I don't know. Tentative keep.
Professional athlete excellent, rest only helps if he'll compromise as needed (gay is easily solved if he'll donate sperm, he doesn't need to actually have sex with the women and could be a stabilizing factor). Keep.
Orphaned 12yo boy - I like this for the tiny bit of age diversity (otherwise it's all 20+ and the fetus, this gives us a bit of a bridge). 11 is already old enough to be able to be given responsibility quickly. Inclined to keep.
If this was a university professor I'd say it could maybe be salvaged depending on the field of knowledge, but it's a university administrator and that's not even close to valuable enough a skillset to justify choosing a 60 year old. Obvious cut.
That gives us 3 people to obviously cut, with our remaining choice of who to cut the accountant, the manager, the cop. We've only got three women so the manager is an obvious keep. Need to figure out odds of cop killing his team members and on that basis make the final cut, but overall, it probably needs to be the accountant unless the cop is judged too high risk.
Final cull: accountant, disabled novelist, homephobic clergyman, 60yo.
The actual question is how the fuck we ended up with such a terrible roster for final 12 humans to begin with. Ending up with 50/50 on gender is bad but there were only 4 likely to be fertile women in the original set! An 8:4 man to woman ratio is insane for this scenario! And the men in question aren't even all physically fit, let alone passing basic screenings for mental health! If these were the last humans left alive and viable after some catastrophe that's one thing, but the question says they're "selected". In which case the person selecting is so incompetent I'm now left to assume my chosen 8 all have something terribly wrong with them because someone is deadset on sabotaging our last chance.
It is possible to have kids up until menopause, and you underestimate the need for older women to help with childminding and raising. Having all young women who are only having their first baby - unless they come from relatively big families or families where the extended clan had a lot of babies, so they've seen how to raise a newborn - will run into a lot of problems over "is this colic? will the child die? what do I do?". If you have three of the four women constantly pregnant, you'll appreciate having the fourth woman to help out with all the babies.
And being Native American, she might have experience with kids as needed.
Plus female intuition, like Ann Hathaway in Interstellar, that's always useful in space.
You could just stagger the pregnancies appropriately so that they're not all incapacitated at the same time, or skip a pregnancy cycle occasionally when the workload becomes too much, for the same effect. It's strictly inferior to the reproductively useful picks. Of course this is all besides the point of this appalling thought experiment. I can't believe we utilitarians get shit for saving people in thought experiments, and this is what the empathic virtuous folx come up with.
Yeah, but it's not about saving people, is the problem. It's just another variant on the lifeboat scenario. This is about "examine your unconscious biases, bigot" and so who cares if the pregnant white woman is better for populating a new planet, your sin is that you picked a WHITE woman over a BIPOC minority. Or a differently abled person, or a sufferer of ageism.
If an averagely intelligent person can't figure out what answer they are supposed to give, as opposed to a reasonable answer for the scenario, then they're not that smart after all 😁 Or at least, not aware of predators in the vicinity, so survival chances are lower.
Anyway, if rationalist philosophers get to have the trolley problem to play with, let the DEIB set have their pet problems too!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Same, expect culling cop instead of the accountant. Cop is too high risk. One factor to consider is exactly which substance the accountant is abusing; is it something to be found in the new world, what would be the withdrawal effects?
Okay, everyone is waaaay overstating this risk. How many innocent minorities does the average racist cop kill for no good reason in their career? Let alone ones they get to know intimately. You're accepting a woke rhetorical frame where it's normal for prejudiced cops to fly off the handle and attack a black minding their business because the cop is like a bull seeing red.
If anything, the vetting process police officers go through makes them less likely to go out-of-control in tense situations than the general public. Yes, cops kill more people than accountants, but that's a question of base rates.
The outcome of putting racist cop on a spaceship with seven minorities is overwhelmingly likely to be a scene from Gran Torino, where things are tense for a bit and then everyone starts to identity as a tribe and they chill. And I'm not talking "99% chance" but "99.999[insert more nines here]% chance"
Why is no one mentioning the gay athlete giving people AIDs if we're going to entertain these super fringe risk scenarios?
I'm making the (ludicrous*) assumption that all relevant information for the decision is included in the descriptions, so anyone not specified female is male, and if the gay athlete isn't mentioned to have AIDS he doesn't.
Whereas the cop being armed and with an existing history of excessive force is explicitly mentioned. I still think he probably will be okay, but having someone with a gun and already established violence and low agreeableness is definitely a big gamble. The odds of his losing his temper and killing someone may not be high, but the the degree to which we'd be fucked if he does it is high. Now I can't remember if risk is the word I'm looking for or if risk includes probability, but what I meant was the word for "how bad the bad thing is", not "probability of the bad thing happening".
*Ludicrous because this question sucks, but without the assumption there's just no point playing at all.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not even saying "the risk of him killing or maiming someone", just the chance of having some sort of a conflict that reduces the coherence of the group.
Ah, fair enough. GEAJ mentioned him killing someone, and I thought you were seconding that fear.
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