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'm not wholly sure what you're trying to say.
Giraffes got longer necks because the ones with necks too short to reach the treetops died of starvation. In short, sexual selection is meta-Lamarckian (i.e. not Lamarckian) to the extent that successful variants reproduce and unsuccessful variants don't. Creating these conditions artificially was the core of classical eugenics, but I don't think it's what you're advocating?
Yeah maybe I should have chosen a species with less contested evolutionary causation.
from Wikipedia:
There are several hypotheses regarding the evolutionary origin and maintenance of elongation in giraffe necks.[57] Charles Darwin originally suggested the "competing browsers hypothesis", which has been challenged only recently. It suggests that competitive pressure from smaller browsers, like kudu, steenbok and impala, encouraged the elongation of the neck, as it enabled giraffes to reach food that competitors could not. This advantage is real, as giraffes can and do feed up to 4.5 m (15 ft) high, while even quite large competitors, such as kudu, can feed up to only about 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high.[63] There is also research suggesting that browsing competition is intense at lower levels, and giraffes feed more efficiently (gaining more leaf biomass with each mouthful) high in the canopy.[64][65] However, scientists disagree about just how much time giraffes spend feeding at levels beyond the reach of other browsers,[12][57][63][66] and a 2010 study found that adult giraffes with longer necks actually suffered higher mortality rates under drought conditions than their shorter-necked counterparts. This study suggests that maintaining a longer neck requires more nutrients, which puts longer-necked giraffes at risk during a food shortage.[67]
Another theory, the sexual selection hypothesis, proposes the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests (see below) to establish dominance and obtain access to sexually receptive females.[12] In support of this theory, necks are longer and heavier for males than females of the same age,[12][57] and males do not employ other forms of combat.[12] However, one objection is it fails to explain why female giraffes also have long necks.[68] It has also been proposed that the neck serves to give the animal greater vigilance.[69][70]
The point really isn't about Giraffes. The point is that you can argue for affirmative action as a sort of eugenics through social integration into a specific environment.
Appreciate it, and it's interesting to hear about the sexual selection theory.
I think my point about sexual selection still stands, though. The core of sexual selection, and of classical eugenics, is that the fit breed and the unfit die. As a method of group improvement this probably works but is ethically dubious.
I can think of two things you might be arguing for, and I'm not sure which of them you're going for:
If you introduce a fitness 0.5 individual into a fitness 1.0 environment, that individual's children are more likely to have high fitness. Unfortunately that's balanced out by their partner having less fit children, so from a population perspective it's a wash.
If you introduce people into a more stringent environment and force them to live up to new standards, they'll improve. This is what I think you mean, but there are many issues. It doesn't change the underlying genetics, and also if the affirmative action'd people can't live up to your standards then you will either have to lower your standards (fail) or try harder to force them to do something they can't do (fail + induce unnecessary suffering). In cases where residential schools and the like got really nasty, I suspect the latter was a big part of the problem.
Am I totally off here?
I read his post as
I think there are some problems with this theory. It obviously still allows for an underclass, disfavored by almost all mates. Is this “racist?” Either way, it kind of imports all the usual hazards of conventional eugenics.
When you aren't subsidising and heavily encouraging reproduction in said underclass, from a HBD perspective the problem solves itself after a few generations. You don't have to do anything particularly evil to make a population that can't reproduce fast enough to sustain itself go away - and the ones that do survive are going to be better matches for whatever you're actually selecting for to boot.
How does one actually encourage reproduction? If you know any tricks, please share them and save the west.
The way you phrased it, the only way I can think of to stop encouraging the reproduction of an underclass is to literally let them starve. Humans will breed in incredibly destitute circumstances, I suspect the worse their lot the more fecund they become.
Or are you actually suggesting to make them so rich as to voluntarily stop breeding, the Gates gambit?
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