Poll
Question:
If the technological infrastructure was present for public eugenics, would you be okay with it?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 8
Option 2: Yes, but only for truly insuperable diseases, like harlequinism and Tays-Sachs
votes: 10
Option 3: No, private eugenics has done a great job
votes: 8
Option 4: I'm okay with Jaron being sterilized
votes: 6
Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere. I know I have no place in any better world.
I distinguish between public and private eugenics for good reason: private eugenics is practiced universally without serious objection. Like the free market, it is irrational and doesn't function properly. (Strictly speaking, my proposal is not only "eugenics," since it would also cure non-heritable congenital disorders.)
Anyway, the question, more fully formed, is assuming that in the near future, Gattaca-like cheap gene sequencing/reading could be implemented for all conceptions, what is the actual objection to using it to flag children whose genes predispose them toward less happy lives?
Since, obviously, I do have pretty serious issues with forcing people to have abortions or sterilize them, I'd prefer a system that incentivized abortions by offering screening procedures for free and a tax credit regime that would basically give couples (or, possibly, individuals) money to "try again" if an embryo evidences negative traits. "Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness. The actual determination would probably be more complicated than binary yes/no decisions by the board tasked with awarding the credits, since it's unlikely any embryo is ever going to be "perfect." Aborting an embryo with a combination of negligibly negative traits with positive ones would probably not result in a reward. But you get the general idea. [Derspeiss' note: There would probably have to be some kind of lifetime cap to prevent people buying Cadillacs with their abortion money]
I expect this idea somehow upsets liberals and conversatives alike. If so, wouldn't that be strange? Consider: unlike most of my crazy ideas, this one impinges on no established rights, and is strictly geared toward increasing aggregate utility with zero cognizable harm. The worst I can see is that it would somehow "stigmatize" people who were not given "approval" to be born because their parents didn't love them enough to abort them (i.e., "the plot of Gattaca"). Most of these people are "stigmatized" anyway, or at least face serious obstacles in life.
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending. Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.
Leaving aside the moral and ethical issues, I think the resulting loss of genetic diversity would make us more vulnerable to deadly viruses.
Aw, you took that from a conversation we had with Vinraith like five years ago. And he was right--but that context was genetic engineering using standardized parts.
I'm unsure to what extent, if any, mere embryo selection would seriously reduce genetic diversity.
Quote from: Malcolm Reynolds
Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
Non-analogous social engineering project. Also the main issue with the Pax was that it should have been given Phase III clinical tests before it was pumped into the atmosphere of an entire planet. Oops!
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 11:03:13 PM
Aw, you took that from a conversation we had with Vinraith like five years ago.
Naturally, as I am incapable of independent thought.
Quote
I'm unsure to what extent, if any, mere embryo selection would seriously reduce genetic diversity.
You select against traits, they disappear. Then you select against new traits, which also disappear. This is just a slower form of genetic engineering.
OK, I didn't mean to offend you.
As I understand it, the genetic diversity that gives us protection against global pandemics involves the exact kind of proteins we express, like the CCR5 gene that, in most configurations, generates a receptor site for HIV. (Whereas the Delta 35 mutation leaves that receptor site out, rendering its carriers immune.) Multifactorial traits like intelligence or depression aren't triggered by one gene, and embryo selection would not select against those genes except in certain combinations. The genes themselves would live on and the proteins they express continue to be expressed, for good or ill.
And for what it's worth, genetic diversity within the human population is already low and we're ridiculously vulnerable to a pandemic. Using HIV as an example again, only like 1% of the population is immune. I mean, I'm all for dieback, but that's a little excessive.
Anyway, what are the moral and ethical issues?
I'm not offended. Well, maybe a little at first. I simply don't recall this conversation.
I find it dubious that embryo selection won't result in the disappearance of genes. Perhaps they will be few enough to be worth the risk. I dunno.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.
This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.
So, the only area where this could possibly "work" is where the foetus is so damaged, the person born out of it would be essentially a "vegetable" - in such cases, the parents are already heavily incentivised to have an abortion and if they do not, it is because of very strong convictions, so getting a handout to "try again" would not change their mind.
I'm shocked that Ide suggests Enhanced Abortion Techniques. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2014, 03:28:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.
This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.
My understanding is that while we don't know the cause of the disease that Hawking has, there doesn't appear to be a genetic component, so I'm not sure that Ide's suggestion would make any difference with it.
That said, I do believe I agree with your general point. Also, when it comes to attractiveness, we might question whose standards of attractiveness is going to be used.
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2014, 03:28:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.
This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.
Apparently your argument is that preventable suffering doesn't matter, because sometimes the innocent sufferers' existence is good for society?
Well, as we don't currently possess the infrastructure for screening, any child could be the next Hawking; should we not take the risk and outlaw abortion?
Since you won't breed, should you be forced to? Just in case your heir is the one who gets us to Mars?
But really your argument is on its face quite wrongheaded, because you're assuming lives that are not in being. I don't think my ideas revolve around building fucking time machines and going back to kill Stephen Hawking in the womb. This is the false equivalence that makes people uncomfortable: the notion that by deciding, going forward, no one will have to suffer motor neuron disease, it diminishes the value of people who currently have motor neuron disease. Others suffered, so the future must suffer as well? It's simply aborting fetuses--contemporary ones, mind. It's something we do every day for all sorts of reasons.
All sorts of potential people never exist. Including the potential people denied existence, because we let nature take its course and less-happy children were born instead of their ethereal brothers and sisters.
Incidentally, do you think it is immoral for a parent to decide to abort a child due to a "minor" defect like ALS?
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2014, 04:12:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2014, 03:28:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.
This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.
My understanding is that while we don't know the cause of the disease that Hawking has, there doesn't appear to be a genetic component, so I'm not sure that Ide's suggestion would make any difference with it.
That said, I do believe I agree with your general point. Also, when it comes to attractiveness, we might question whose standards of attractiveness is going to be used.
ALS can come from several different sources. There are genetically-carried variants, which is ultra-dangerous as it is autosomally dominant. However, most are not genetic in nature.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. As I explained, this isn't solely or even mainly about improving the gene pool but rather the idea that removing fetuses with defects (as opposed to living humans like Stephen Hawking, just to be super-duper clear) would make a happier society, simply by dint of it being a society freer from pain. Eugenics is a slight misnomer as it would be a broader mandate.
Annoyingly, I can't determine if Hawking's ALS was a result of an SOD1 or other mutation and hence familial ALS, or environmentally-caused sporadic ALS.
He has three kids with no ALS, though, so I guess it's unlikely to be one of the typically autosomally dominant mutations that cause familial ALS. I did find an article that dropped Hawking's name in a discussion of potential gene therapy which would turn off the SOD1 gene. However, it seems to have been written by a person with a very poor understanding of how ALS functions, given that they leave the question open of whether it would "cure" Hawking, who has spent like 40 years having his motor neurons destroyed. So I don't credit that as a definite "Hawking has genetic ALS."
Hawking may be a terrible example, then, since I also don't advocate for abortions based on the possibility adult children may be hit by a fucking bus.
If we had complete mastery of genetic engineering and could design a race of Kahn like supermen, sure. I do not think that such a thing is likely to be possible in my life time, so I'd be against anything more complex than option #2
Only for diseases and very minor tweaks.
A world of upper-class supermen would not be a great place.
Also, I am not sure I understand the proposal. Already abortion is legal for cases with fetal genetic disorder, and in most civilised countries the cost of the procedure is refunded by the national health service. Likewise, in most civilised countries pre-natal tests are free and offered by the national health service.
So what's the difference between that and your proposal?
I'm not stopping my breeding programs.
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2014, 07:49:18 AM
Also, I am not sure I understand the proposal. Already abortion is legal for cases with fetal genetic disorder, and in most civilised countries the cost of the procedure is refunded by the national health service. Likewise, in most civilised countries pre-natal tests are free and offered by the national health service.
So what's the difference between that and your proposal?
Kickbacks to people who decide to abort weenies.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2014, 07:49:18 AM
Also, I am not sure I understand the proposal. Already abortion is legal for cases with fetal genetic disorder, and in most civilised countries the cost of the procedure is refunded by the national health service. Likewise, in most civilised countries pre-natal tests are free and offered by the national health service.
So what's the difference between that and your proposal?
Kickbacks to people who decide to abort weenies.
As I said already it is not a viable incentive. Those who consider abortion to be a valid choice will do so anyway as long as you allow this to be refunded by a NHS - those who consider it morally unacceptable won't do it for a cash reward.
I don't know if that's true: non-crippling defects might be amenable to a little grease. You've got to overcome inertia, after all.
I'm glad nobody puts Ide in charge of anything more important then a crew of short order cooks.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 02:41:13 PM
I'm glad nobody puts Ide in charge of anything more important then a crew of short order cooks.
I'm being trained to be in charge of developing privilege logs for multibillion-dollar litigation. So, in other words, you overestimate me. :(
I'll support you, Ide.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2014, 05:30:09 AM
If we had complete mastery of genetic engineering and could design a race of Kahn like supermen, sure. I do not think that such a thing is likely to be possible in my life time, so I'd be against anything more complex than option #2
Ah, eugenics wars. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 14, 2014, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2014, 05:30:09 AM
If we had complete mastery of genetic engineering and could design a race of Kahn like supermen, sure. I do not think that such a thing is likely to be possible in my life time, so I'd be against anything more complex than option #2
Ah, eugenics wars. :P
Eugenics wars? Tim is talking about Oliver Kahn, the former German goalie.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
I'll support you, Ide.
:)
I never understood the Eugenics Wars premise. If you can engineer superior intelligence, you can engineer superior empathy. Maybe they decided, rightly, that it was a weakness in individual men and women.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 03:38:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 14, 2014, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2014, 05:30:09 AM
If we had complete mastery of genetic engineering and could design a race of Kahn like supermen, sure. I do not think that such a thing is likely to be possible in my life time, so I'd be against anything more complex than option #2
Ah, eugenics wars. :P
Eugenics wars? Tim is talking about Oliver Kahn, the former German goalie.
We need more Madeleine Kahns. :mad:
She was fun.
Strauss-Khan seems like he'd be fun at parties.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 03:40:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
I'll support you, Ide.
:)
I never understood the Eugenics Wars premise. If you can engineer superior intelligence, you can engineer superior empathy. Maybe they decided, rightly, that it was a weakness in individual men and women.
The power of genetics wasn't well understood by the public in the 60s. Really, it still isn't. The word 'eugenics' was no doubt used in Khan's backstory because of the relation to Nazism.
The Nazis built roads and rockets. We still use those. :(
Cher Khan knew how to party.
Not nearly as much as Chaka Khan. She feels for you.
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
If it has a genetic component, then it can be selected against, or perhaps cured. Wouldn't it be nice if the homosexuals just born were the last ones?
No, because the fashion and furnishings world would suffer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2014, 05:50:16 PM
No, because the fashion and furnishings world would suffer.
It's not like women couldn't step up. And surely the social benefits would be worth it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2014, 05:50:16 PM
No, because the fashion and furnishings world would suffer.
It's not like women couldn't step up. And surely the social benefits would be worth it.
What, and be left with doilies and "country kitchen" motifs? Pass.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2014, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2014, 05:50:16 PM
No, because the fashion and furnishings world would suffer.
It's not like women couldn't step up. And surely the social benefits would be worth it.
What, and be left with doilies and "country kitchen" motifs? Pass.
It wasn't like that before we allowed gays to function in society. We would be fine.
Quote from: Tyr on December 14, 2014, 05:51:09 AM
A world of upper-class supermen would not be a great place.
When phrased like that no one would agree, but that was not the question he asked.
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2014, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.
Why the factors exist are irrelevant. What is relevant is simply that they are undesirable factors. Besides, much easier to do a medical procedure then to force every person to like gays better or make gays less slutty. I had previously suggested that if it homosexuality acquired prenatally, (it's unlikely to be genetic and likely to be hormonal), and this condition could be altered in the womb, that homosexuality would all but disappear, not out of hate but simply from parents wanting children to be like them. I imagine that within a hundred years gay rights will be irrelevant.
Most parents would probably opt for bisexuality, doubling one's chances of finding domestic splendor.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 07:39:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2014, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.
Why the factors exist are irrelevant. What is relevant is simply that they are undesirable factors. Besides, much easier to do a medical procedure then to force every person to like gays better or make gays less slutty. I had previously suggested that if it homosexuality acquired prenatally, (it's unlikely to be genetic and likely to be hormonal), and this condition could be altered in the womb, that homosexuality would all but disappear, not out of hate but simply from parents wanting children to be like them. I imagine that within a hundred years gay rights will be irrelevant.
Yeah and this conversation is going along just like it did last time, where you fall into the same lines of what is the expedient path.
I'm out. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 07:59:21 PM
Most parents would probably opt for bisexuality, doubling one's chances of finding domestic splendor.
Nah. Altruism is an evolutionary dead end.
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
Harsh toke
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2014, 09:49:10 PM
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
:thumbsup:
Don't forget, I was the first one to mention the Technological Singularity here in Languish.
Give me a high five if you have seen Transcendance with Johnny Depp, or Automata with Antonio Banderas.
Also, Her with Natalia Romanov or The Machine with...some British people.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2014, 09:49:10 PM
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
Right. I also believe in a progressive income tax. Therefore, since I hold the proposition, progressive income tax is stupid etc.
Ide: history's greatest monster
I'm not. I'm really angry at Jake for ignoring the very first thing I said (and probably failing to read any of it) and thereby being a pompous, disingenuous shit. I want to say mean(er) things back, but I won't.
But since he brought it up: if I'm such a big joke, why should I have been born, Jake? If I can't manage my life, and you're right, why should I have been given existence when another combination would have been happier? You don't have an answer, other than platitudes.
Sorry for the negativity.
Eeyore mode, activate!
See, and depression is also stigmatized by society.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2014, 09:49:10 PM
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
Where do you get the idea that Ide can't manage his life from? Because he doesn't meet your standards of success? Because he has to struggle and scrape to get by?
Fuck you, you arbitrary cunt. Where you get of judging some kid trapped in one of the worst places in the western world, I don't know.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 11:39:18 PM
Fuck you, you arbitrary cunt. Where you get of judging some kid trapped in one of the worst places in the western world, I don't know.
He has as much or more right to judge Ide as you do to judge South Carolina. At least he knows Ide.
SC does kinda suck, tho.
Anyway, in fairness, many of those reports come from me. -_- I don't manage my life very well except in the sense I've stayed out of jail and have mostly been able to afford my keep.
However, I've been trying to figure out why Jacob gets bent out of shape about, like, practically every idea I've had in the last several years, even though we share many of the same general goals for society. I think it's because Jake is a for-real liberal humanist, which is nice and not really evil or anything, but it is in contrast to what I stand for, which is an significantly less liberal leftism that recognizes (or, at least, supposes) a general badness in humanity that needs to be either countered or improved in order for society to really get well. I'm a splitter, Jacob can sometimes come off as offering nothing but platitudes in the face of terrible and ongoing harms, though I know he doesn't mean to and he has a good heart, like most everybody here.
I think he also fears that I'll go, like, full Nazi or something. I appreciate that he has concern for my soul, but it's not necessary. :)
He's Scandi-Canuck, man. He's twice the wattage of your usual Balls of Light. :P
It's certainly no Georgia, with your big-city sophistication.
I've heard nothing but nice things about Charleston.
It's fine, I guess.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 07:59:21 PM
Most parents would probably opt for bisexuality, doubling one's chances of finding domestic splendor.
I thought you wanted to decrease unhappiness. I can't see why anyone would want to be bi--it just doubles the number of people you can be rejected by.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 07:59:21 PM
Most parents would probably opt for bisexuality, doubling one's chances of finding domestic splendor.
No wonder you didn't pick a STEM degree! I don't think there are enough homosexuals or bisexuals to increase your chances by 100%.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 03:37:20 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 07:59:21 PM
Most parents would probably opt for bisexuality, doubling one's chances of finding domestic splendor.
No wonder you didn't pick a STEM degree! I don't think there are enough homosexuals or bisexuals to increase your chances by 100%.
Well, if all parents made their children bisexual, there would be. :P
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2014, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.
I can't believe anyone still falls for Raz's trolling. :D
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2014, 09:49:10 PM
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
Was it addressed at Ide or Raz? :D
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 10:53:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2014, 09:49:10 PM
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
Right. I also believe in a progressive income tax. Therefore, since I hold the proposition, progressive income tax is stupid etc.
Yes, and yes.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 11:20:21 PM
See, and depression is also stigmatized by society.
And you are not even gay. Talk about drawing the shortest straw.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2014, 12:07:35 AM
I've heard nothing but nice things about Charleston.
It's awesome.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2014, 11:57:43 PM
He's Scandi-Canuck, man. He's twice the wattage of your usual Balls of Light. :P
:lol: POTM
What would be the opposite of a Ball of Light?
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2014, 08:13:16 AM
What would be the opposite of a Ball of Light?
Cube of Darkness?
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2014, 03:41:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2014, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.
I can't believe anyone still falls for Raz's trolling. :D
No troll, but the cult of gay pride refuses to acknowledge that it's possible the condition of homosexuality has certain medical downsides and instead take the somewhat belligerent attitude of, "Well that's every one else's problem, not mine!". Which is sort of like the black power movement blaming sickle cell anemia on racism. I am simply suggesting that if homosexuality is prenatal then it is logical it should be able to be detected in the womb. If that's true, then someone will find a way to alter sexuality before a person is born. In such a situation, medical ethics would demand a parent be informed of that choice. Since statistically parents are more likely to be straight then gay, even higher then the ratio of straights to gays in the general population the number of gay children being born is likely to decrease dramatically. There is little reason for a straight parent to chose a sexuality for their child that different then their own, and is lots of reasons not to do so.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2014, 03:41:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2014, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.
I can't believe anyone still falls for Raz's trolling. :D
No troll, but the cult of gay pride refuses to acknowledge that it's possible the condition of homosexuality has certain medical downsides and instead take the somewhat belligerent attitude of, "Well that's every one else's problem, not mine!". Which is sort of like the black power movement blaming sickle cell anemia on racism. I am simply suggesting that if homosexuality is prenatal then it is logical it should be able to be detected in the womb. If that's true, then someone will find a way to alter sexuality before a person is born. In such a situation, medical ethics would demand a parent be informed of that choice. Since statistically parents are more likely to be straight then gay, even higher then the ratio of straights to gays in the general population the number of gay children being born is likely to decrease dramatically. There is little reason for a straight parent to chose a sexuality for their child that different then their own, and is lots of reasons not to do so.
I see your point, Marti, and my apologies. -_-
The problem with the notion of eugenics is that the public has always been motivated by current fads and moral panics, not by notions of impersonal, objective science like the progenitors of eugenics expected. There is no guarantee that any eugenics rules established would actually prove beneficial for humanity, rather than simply reflecting the transitory desires of the people who happen to have caught the mood of the moment when the rules are put in place.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere. I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending. Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.
Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.
Deciding a baby's eyes color while in the womb, giving him 6 fingers, increased intelligence, muscle coordination, etc, I'd be against it.
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2014, 08:13:16 AM
What would be the opposite of a Ball of Light?
Scrotum of Freedom and Liberty.
Considering the names some parents blight their children with, I'm strongly opposed to any kind of eugenics program, public or private.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 11:06:36 PM
I'm not. I'm really angry at Jake for ignoring the very first thing I said (and probably failing to read any of it) and thereby being a pompous, disingenuous shit. I want to say mean(er) things back, but I won't.
But since he brought it up: if I'm such a big joke, why should I have been born, Jake? If I can't manage my life, and you're right, why should I have been given existence when another combination would have been happier? You don't have an answer, other than platitudes.
Sorry for the negativity.
Sorry... was in a pissy mood when I posted that.
My point is that it's very difficult to distinguish between how you articulate the negativity you feel about your own life and how you articulate your arguments for eugenics, so the eugenics thing really comes across as an extension of your current self-loathing. Also, I'm really unfond of eugenics.
For what it's worth, I think you're managing your life fine other than the apparently fundamental unhappiness.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 10:53:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2014, 09:49:10 PM
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
progressive income tax is stupid
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2014, 09:49:10 PM
If you can't even figure out how to manage your own life, you sure as fuck shouldn't be making plans about how to run the species. So yeah, take your eugenics and shove 'em.
Where do you get the idea that Ide can't manage his life from? Because he doesn't meet your standards of success? Because he has to struggle and scrape to get by?
Fuck you, you arbitrary cunt. Where you get of judging some kid trapped in one of the worst places in the western world, I don't know.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 12:37:51 PM
For what it's worth, I think you're managing your life fine other than the apparently fundamental unhappiness.
I don't. Dummy's buying too many fucking Blu-Rays for movies he'll never watch again, and not socking it away for the inevitable downsizing/layoff/shareholder value/"we're flattening the organization"/unemployment.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 11:54:32 PMHowever, I've been trying to figure out why Jacob gets bent out of shape about, like, practically every idea I've had in the last several years, even though we share many of the same general goals for society. I think it's because Jake is a for-real liberal humanist, which is nice and not really evil or anything, but it is in contrast to what I stand for, which is an significantly less liberal leftism that recognizes (or, at least, supposes) a general badness in humanity that needs to be either countered or improved in order for society to really get well. I'm a splitter, Jacob can sometimes come off as offering nothing but platitudes in the face of terrible and ongoing harms, though I know he doesn't mean to and he has a good heart, like most everybody here.
I think he also fears that I'll go, like, full Nazi or something. I appreciate that he has concern for my soul, but it's not necessary. :)
It's a good question. I think you manage to push my buttons because:
a) I take what you say at face value rather than as trolling;
b) Because you like to take on ideas that have been progressive at one point or another, but at the same time, in my view, have a historical record of causing real and serious misery (like eugenics);
c) Your penchant for grand sweeping statements and idiosyncratic positions reminds me of myself in earlier days, and I think it's pretty normal to swerve between annoyance and indulgence at someone engaging what you perceive as your own mistakes of the past.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2014, 11:39:18 PMWhere do you get the idea that Ide can't manage his life from?
His own constant pissing and moaning? :huh:
Like I said, objectively speaking I think Ide is doing fine if he was less hard on himself.
QuoteBecause he doesn't meet your standards of success? Because he has to struggle and scrape to get by?
Fuck you, you arbitrary cunt. Where you get of judging some kid trapped in one of the worst places in the western world, I don't know.
And fuck you too you pretentious contrarian trollkin :hug:
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 09:53:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere. I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending. Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.
Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.
But then you get into the debate over what exactly constitutes a genetic disease or defect. Raz seems to argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whereas in fact we don't even know for certain that it's genetic at all. And further up the thread, Ide postulated that empathy is determined by genetics.
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
+1
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
It seems like most things are created with shorter people in mind. To take a Raz vein, I wonder if it would be easier to weed out tall people or to re-shape the world to accommodate everyone being tall. :hmm:
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 09:53:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere. I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending. Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.
Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.
But then you get into the debate over what exactly constitutes a genetic disease or defect. Raz seems to argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whereas in fact we don't even know for certain that it's genetic at all. And further up the thread, Ide postulated that empathy is determined by genetics.
The thing is, I don't think Ide's ideas are even that radical - they are simple ineffective.
As I already said, in most civilised countries you can already abort pregnancy where a foetus is damaged or suffering from a disease; and both prenatal tests to check that and the cost of the abortion procedure is refunded by the local NHS. So people can take a decision more or less freely. I don't think promising additional hand-outs to people would make them take a different decision (and if it does, it would be for wrong reasons which should not be encouraged by the state).
If there is a question I guess, it is whether the state should assist you financially if you want to raise a kid who is, effectively, a vegetable and you were aware of this while you could still have a legal abortion. This is, imo, a much more interesting moral conundrum. I think it should, as the cost is likely negligible in the overall order of things, and the alternative is much more problematic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
:wacko:
This would only accelerate humanity's growth spurt.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 15, 2014, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
:wacko:
This would only accelerate humanity's growth spurt.
The point is that people will make genetic decisions based on flawed assumptions like what is too tall, too short, too etc etc etc. If Ide were put in charge we would have a society genetically predisposed to have no artists.
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 09:53:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere. I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending. Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.
Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.
But then you get into the debate over what exactly constitutes a genetic disease or defect. Raz seems to argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whereas in fact we don't even know for certain that it's genetic at all. And further up the thread, Ide postulated that empathy is determined by genetics.
Science has a pretty good definition of what is a disease. Having brown eyes is not a disease.
In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person.I can't see how we fit homosexuality in there.
I think we can narrow it down sufficiently to avoid abuses, heck, aren't we already correcting stuff like down syndrome? or simply detecting it and aborting the foetus? Anyway, it is the same reasoning.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 09:43:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2014, 03:41:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2014, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.
We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.
I can't believe anyone still falls for Raz's trolling. :D
No troll, but the cult of gay pride refuses to acknowledge that it's possible the condition of homosexuality has certain medical downsides and instead take the somewhat belligerent attitude of, "Well that's every one else's problem, not mine!". Which is sort of like the black power movement blaming sickle cell anemia on racism. I am simply suggesting that if homosexuality is prenatal then it is logical it should be able to be detected in the womb. If that's true, then someone will find a way to alter sexuality before a person is born. In such a situation, medical ethics would demand a parent be informed of that choice. Since statistically parents are more likely to be straight then gay, even higher then the ratio of straights to gays in the general population the number of gay children being born is likely to decrease dramatically. There is little reason for a straight parent to chose a sexuality for their child that different then their own, and is lots of reasons not to do so.
I see your point, Marti, and my apologies. -_-
Not something you are comfortable with facing are you?
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 09:53:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere. I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending. Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.
Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.
But then you get into the debate over what exactly constitutes a genetic disease or defect. Raz seems to argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whereas in fact we don't even know for certain that it's genetic at all. And further up the thread, Ide postulated that empathy is determined by genetics.
Actually I said the opposite. Homosexuality seems more probable in each subsequent child born to the same mother. For instance the 1st born child is less likely to be gay then the 3rd child who is turn less likely to be gay as the 7th. This is not the pattern of genetics but of hormonal change possibly triggered by multiple pregnancies.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 03:18:16 PM
Science has a pretty good definition of what is a disease. Having brown eyes is not a disease.
In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person.
I can't see how we fit homosexuality in there.
I think we can narrow it down sufficiently to avoid abuses, heck, aren't we already correcting stuff like down syndrome? or simply detecting it and aborting the foetus? Anyway, it is the same reasoning.
You don't see how being homosexual can cause social problems or distress?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 15, 2014, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
:wacko:
This would only accelerate humanity's growth spurt.
The point is that people will make genetic decisions based on flawed assumptions like what is too tall, too short, too etc etc etc. If Ide were put in charge we would have a society genetically predisposed to have no artists.
Yeah, if there's one thing I fucking hate, it's artists.
:hmm:
Ide, if you have gotten over your STEM infatuation I applaud you
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 03:18:16 PM
Science has a pretty good definition of what is a disease. Having brown eyes is not a disease.
In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person.
I can't see how we fit homosexuality in there.
I think we can narrow it down sufficiently to avoid abuses, heck, aren't we already correcting stuff like down syndrome? or simply detecting it and aborting the foetus? Anyway, it is the same reasoning.
You don't see how being homosexual can cause social problems or distress?
no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.
With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2014, 01:16:12 PM
The thing is, I don't think Ide's ideas are even that radical - they are simple ineffective.
As I already said, in most civilised countries you can already abort pregnancy where a foetus is damaged or suffering from a disease; and both prenatal tests to check that and the cost of the abortion procedure is refunded by the local NHS. So people can take a decision more or less freely. I don't think promising additional hand-outs to people would make them take a different decision (and if it does, it would be for wrong reasons which should not be encouraged by the state).
If there is a question I guess, it is whether the state should assist you financially if you want to raise a kid who is, effectively, a vegetable and you were aware of this while you could still have a legal abortion. This is, imo, a much more interesting moral conundrum. I think it should, as the cost is likely negligible in the overall order of things, and the alternative is much more problematic.
Whoever you are that has taken over Marti's account, I agree. Well, except for some of the spelling.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 03:38:36 PM
no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.
With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.
This is true of most paraphilic disorders, but they are still considered disorders. It is where atypical sexual attraction causes distress or impairment. If we regard social reaction as only standard we end up with some oddities. A person of who is sexually attracted to children can be "cured", by him immigrating to culture where such a behavior is acceptable. One of the medical risks of homosexuality is significant increased chance of STDs. It is difficult to figure out what changes in societal standards are possible to prevent this.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
It seems like most things are created with shorter people in mind. To take a Raz vein, I wonder if it would be easier to weed out tall people or to re-shape the world to accommodate everyone being tall. :hmm:
We could just put rotating blades in every public place six feet above the ground.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2014, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.
It seems like most things are created with shorter people in mind. To take a Raz vein, I wonder if it would be easier to weed out tall people or to re-shape the world to accommodate everyone being tall. :hmm:
We could just put rotating blades in every public place six feet above the ground.
The weak always try to bring down the strong. Or steal their wine. Tis the way these days.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:38:23 PM
Ide, if you have gotten over your STEM infatuation I applaud you
See, I get pushback on education reform like what I'm suggesting is genuinely crazy, but it's really Languish that is crazy on this one. Eugenics, the transparency society, communism, establishment of world state--these are radical ideas, that maybe people aren't (quite) ready for (because they're weak and greedy and cowardly, which is why they're necessary in the first place). But my view that there is a catastrophic problem in how we fund higher education? Not only is this entirely mainstream, it is increasing in popularity every day. This is one fight I'll almost certainly win.
Anyway, once art programs are made efficient enough to produce, with reliability, commercially viable artists (and history programs, commercially viable historians, etc.), I'll be very happy to fund them at that level.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2014, 11:06:36 PM
I'm not. I'm really angry at Jake for ignoring the very first thing I said (and probably failing to read any of it) and thereby being a pompous, disingenuous shit. I want to say mean(er) things back, but I won't.
But since he brought it up: if I'm such a big joke, why should I have been born, Jake? If I can't manage my life, and you're right, why should I have been given existence when another combination would have been happier? You don't have an answer, other than platitudes.
Sorry for the negativity.
Sorry... was in a pissy mood when I posted that.
My point is that it's very difficult to distinguish between how you articulate the negativity you feel about your own life and how you articulate your arguments for eugenics, so the eugenics thing really comes across as an extension of your current self-loathing. Also, I'm really unfond of eugenics.
Well, obviously, any insights I have on the subject come from my experiences, which have been routinely bad, largely as a result of poorly-adapted traits, like impulsivity, aggressiveness, poor social intelligence, poor intelligence in other things, and narrow shoulders.
QuoteFor what it's worth, I think you're managing your life fine other than the apparently fundamental unhappiness.
Yeah, me too. -_-
Quote from: MartThe thing is, I don't think Ide's ideas are even that radical - they are simple ineffective.
As I already said, in most civilised countries you can already abort pregnancy where a foetus is damaged or suffering from a disease; and both prenatal tests to check that and the cost of the abortion procedure is refunded by the local NHS. So people can take a decision more or less freely. I don't think promising additional hand-outs to people would make them take a different decision (and if it does, it would be for wrong reasons which should not be encouraged by the state).
If there is a question I guess, it is whether the state should assist you financially if you want to raise a kid who is, effectively, a vegetable and you were aware of this while you could still have a legal abortion. This is, imo, a much more interesting moral conundrum. I think it should, as the cost is likely negligible in the overall order of things, and the alternative is much more problematic.
Fwiw, I think you actually have very good objections to a soft eugenics program. (Though I disagree that it matters what the motives are for taking the money. It's behavior that interests me.)
What I'd like, though, is that the debate on eugenics be reopened, without the hateful baggage of the past, if for no other reason than to educate people acting in their private lives and maybe open up new horizons for them. A lot of people are taught that unconditional love for a child means bringing it to term, even if it sucks and its life will suck. I don't think this is a very useful expression of a parent's love at all. But I can't even
discuss this with prospective partners--because the topic itself is forbidden. Yeah, if I had my druthers, I'd abort my kids till I got a girl, specifically, without any physical, behavioral or cognitive impairments. It's impossible to explain that to people without coming off as hateful, when hate has nothing to do with my opinions on the subject. Being a parent means creating a life and that is a profound responsibility that we take altogether too lightly. I'd like people to be able to say, without fear of recrimination, "I really do not want a kid with depression," because that isn't an expression of disdain, it's an expression of clear-sightedness.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:18:40 PM
See, I get pushback on education reform like what I'm suggesting is genuinely crazy, but it's really Languish that is crazy on this one. Eugenics, the transparency society, communism, establishment of world state--these are radical ideas, that maybe people aren't (quite) ready for (because they're weak and greedy and cowardly, which is why they're necessary in the first place). But my view that there is a catastrophic problem in how we fund higher education? Not only is this entirely mainstream, it is increasing in popularity every day. This is one fight I'll almost certainly win.
Anyway, once art programs are made efficient enough to produce, with reliability, commercially viable artists (and history programs, commercially viable historians, etc.), I'll be very happy to fund them at that level.
Who's the "we" you refer to?
America. I've always wondered why CC had such strong feelings about an issue that doesn't affect him, but whatever. I'm used to foreigners getting bent about American politics.
I don't know if the Canadian model is even that similar. Your SLs can be discharged in bankruptcy, for example.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:36:31 PMI'd like people to be able to say, without fear of recrimination, "I really do not want a kid with depression," because that isn't an expression of disdain, it's an expression of clear-sightedness.
See... this really makes you come across as saying "I wish I'd never been born at all" but wrapping it up in so much bombastic rhetoric and rationalization.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:40:03 PM
America. I've always wondered why CC had such strong feelings about an issue that doesn't affect him, but whatever. I'm used to foreigners getting bent about American politics.
I don't know if the Canadian model is even that similar. Your SLs can be discharged in bankruptcy, for example.
If you think that American politics and policies do not affect Canada you are mistaken.
Build your own goddamned ports and ship your own oil, dammit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 04:42:40 PM
Build your own goddamned ports and ship your own oil, dammit.
:lol:
We are trying.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:40:03 PM
America. I've always wondered why CC had such strong feelings about an issue that doesn't affect him, but whatever. I'm used to foreigners getting bent about American politics.
I don't know if the Canadian model is even that similar. Your SLs can be discharged in bankruptcy, for example.
So you're doing the thing where you talk only about the US, but you use universal arguments to do so. Because when you talk about the value of STEM and the uselessness of the humanities, as is your wont, you typically do so in terms relating to the inherent values of those fields rather than how they fit into the education systems and economy of the US at present.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:36:31 PM
Yeah, if I had my druthers, I'd abort my kids till I got a girl
:hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:40:03 PM
Your SLs can be discharged in bankruptcy, for example.
FWIW, that's a problem about bankruptcy laws, not about higher education funding
per se.
Okay let's sterilize Ide.
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2014, 04:48:41 PM
Okay let's sterilize Ide.
He keeps eating the way he does, he'll take care of that on his own.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:40:03 PM
America. I've always wondered why CC had such strong feelings about an issue that doesn't affect him, but whatever. I'm used to foreigners getting bent about American politics.
I don't know if the Canadian model is even that similar. Your SLs can be discharged in bankruptcy, for example.
So you're doing the thing where you talk only about the US, but you use universal arguments to do so. Because when you talk about the value of STEM and the uselessness of the humanities, as is your wont, you typically do so in terms relating to the inherent values of those fields rather than how they fit into the education systems and economy of the US at present.
I speak universally in the sense I'm speaking about any country that forces young adults to debt-finance their way into a shot at a middle-class lifestyle, without either a market mechanism or strong central planning to ensure that waste is minimized, and that the efforts of student and taxpayer provide a return on their investment of time and money. Does this apply to Canada? Then congratulations, Canada sucks. I don't know if this is so, because I don't live there, and have not studied Canada's system closely. I have studied the American case, and it is just awful.
Nobody's forced to take student loans. At least not in any American jurisdiction AFAIK. Canada might be different.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 04:43:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:36:31 PM
Yeah, if I had my druthers, I'd abort my kids till I got a girl
:hmm:
The 21st century will favor the feminine over the masculine. This is, by and large, a good thing, but the transition will be miserable. Therefore, I want my kid to be on the right side. Further, we've seen the male version of me. It's tremendously dysfunctional, in large part due to Y-chromosome related behavioral difficulties, notably aggression and impulsiveness.
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 04:58:05 PM
Nobody's forced to take student loans. At least not in any American jurisdiction AFAIK. Canada might be different.
You have a very narrow definition of the word "forced." Nobody is "forced" to participate in the economy at all. There does remain a freedom to starve.
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 04:58:05 PM
Nobody's forced to take student loans. At least not in any American jurisdiction AFAIK. Canada might be different.
I think what you are saying is that nobody is forced to go to university. Unless students come from wealthy families or obtain full ride scholarships they are most certainly forced to pay for their education by going into debt.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:36:31 PM
But I can't even discuss this with prospective partners--because the topic itself is forbidden. Yeah, if I had my druthers, I'd abort my kids till I got a girl, specifically, without any physical, behavioral or cognitive impairments.
This is a bit puzzling to me, to be honest. Have you ever seriously considered having kids with somebody? I mean, if you're bringing it up after the second fuck or whatever, when things are supposed to be all about the passion of the budding relationship (or the casual disposable sex, because it takes a bit to sort out which it is) then yeah, people will look at you as if you're some sort of obsessed weirdo, because that is in fact an obsessive weirdo thing to talk about at that point in time.
The time for talking about that sort of stuff is some time after you've decided that yes, you're going to try to get pregnant right now. Certainly, my wife and I had conversations about what we'd do if there were problems detected with the foetus. It's certainly part of the conversations you have with the doctors. If the woman is over a certain age, there's a higher risk of down's syndrome for example, which can be tested for; but the test (extracting amniotic fluid, for example) carries a small risk of doing damage to the foetus, which while small is greater than the risk for down's in younger women - so you have to decide how you manage that risk and prepare for the consequences.
Those choices, and decisions, are very personal however. So you definitely should be able to discuss them with your partner, once having kids is a serious consideration; the fact that you have not been able to have those discussions may indicate a bad fit. On the other hand, the fact that you approach such a personal and vital thing in a way that sounds like intellectual masturbation for the sake of iconoclastic position taking, may put some of the onus for the bad fit on you.
People totally decide to abort foetuses for severe developmental problems, though others decide not to. That's soft eugenics in a way, yes.
That's not the issue. The issue is that you frame the discussion about something so very personal, something that shapes the lives of the people involved profoundly and touches on core philosophical and ethical values, as one where the right and wrong decision should be set by the state rather than the individuals affected; and what's more, you suggest that it should be done on trivial grounds, and insist on following it out into all kinds of far fetched hypotheticals (like "the potential to be depressed").
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:03:47 PM
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 04:58:05 PM
Nobody's forced to take student loans. At least not in any American jurisdiction AFAIK. Canada might be different.
You have a very narrow definition of the word "forced." Nobody is "forced" to participate in the economy at all. There does remain a freedom to starve.
Better to starve on your feet than live on your knees with student loans. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:55:55 PMI speak universally in the sense I'm speaking about any country that forces young adults to debt-finance their way into a shot at a middle-class lifestyle, without either a market mechanism or strong central planning to ensure that waste is minimized, and that the efforts of student and taxpayer provide a return on their investment of time and money. Does this apply to Canada? Then congratulations, Canada sucks. I don't know if this is so, because I don't live there, and have not studied Canada's system closely. I have studied the American case, and it is just awful.
You say that now, but when you talk shit about the humanities and fine arts you leave out all of that. If you were actually concerned about America, you'd think you'd spend more time looking at ways you can alter the system rather than valorizing STEM to ridiculous degrees and denigrating the humanities (which you do whenever they come up, including in contexts outside of the US).
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:55:55 PMI speak universally in the sense I'm speaking about any country that forces young adults to debt-finance their way into a shot at a middle-class lifestyle, without either a market mechanism or strong central planning to ensure that waste is minimized, and that the efforts of student and taxpayer provide a return on their investment of time and money. Does this apply to Canada? Then congratulations, Canada sucks. I don't know if this is so, because I don't live there, and have not studied Canada's system closely. I have studied the American case, and it is just awful.
You say that now, but when you talk shit about the humanities and fine arts you leave out all of that. If you were actually concerned about America, you'd think you'd spend more time looking at ways you can alter the system rather than valorizing STEM to ridiculous degrees and denigrating the humanities (which you do whenever they come up, including in contexts outside of the US).
I think it's really more a question of making them all cheaper so people don't have to do such an ROI analysis on their schooling.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:02:50 PM
The 21st century will favor the feminine over the masculine. This is, by and large, a good thing, but the transition will be miserable.
Proof of this assertion? And what sort of timeline are you looking at for such a shift to occur?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:02:50 PM
Further, we've seen the male version of me. It's tremendously dysfunctional, in large part due to Y-chromosome related behavioral difficulties, notably aggression and impulsiveness.
Well a child isn't a clone - so it seems a little silly to think about this when only your side of the genetics is potentially known. And I say potentially as it seems you are just choosing to attribute those behaviors to your genetics.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2014, 05:15:00 PMI think it's really more a question of making them all cheaper so people don't have to do such an ROI analysis on their schooling.
That sounds much more sensible, yes.
You'd think someone like Ide would be all over the German example (free university tuition) rather than be all invested in eliminating education that doesn't immediately lead to jobs that can repay exorbitant student loans. But no, instead of actually attempting to address tuition, he goes tilting at humanities windmills.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 09:53:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2014, 10:49:51 PM
Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere. I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending. Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.
Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.
Deciding a baby's eyes color while in the womb, giving him 6 fingers, increased intelligence, muscle coordination, etc, I'd be against it.
Ok, I understand being against stupid shit like giving a kid a physical or mental disadvantage, like those two lesbian hags trying to have a deaf child. But why do you oppose healthier, smarter, stronger, and better looking kids?
Natural selection. When people start having superkids those who decide to be "natural" will give their kids a disadvantage and will eventually be breed out.
Besides, there is nothing natural about humankind. We have been effing with nature for a very long time. We have been mixing with our technology from the very beginning. Or do you think domesticated plants and animals are that productive because of nature?
People say, "hey kid, you are playing too much with that Xbox. Go and read a book", like if writing was not THE most important technology man ever invented, which allowed everything else we had since.
Everything is technology. Our friggin clothes are artificial skin, airplanes are time machines to bump you across thousand of miles in hours, domestication of the cow the greatest energy revolution, converting solar energy into calories for us, and even our smartphones are memory and processing upgrades for our brains, or do you remember all those phone numbers in your phone's memory? How ever used its calculator? What about googling information? Smartphones are brain upgrades. External upgrade, granted, but still...
Serious question: Would it be better to treat a fetus in the womb to prevent undesirable traits rather then just abort them?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:26:19 PM
Serious question: Would it be better to treat a fetus in the womb to prevent undesirable traits rather then just abort them?
They do that now.
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2014, 05:21:53 PM
Ok, I understand being against stupid shit like giving a kid a physical or mental disadvantage, like those two lesbian hags trying to have a deaf child. But why do you oppose healthier, smarter, stronger, and better looking kids?
You have a kid, right?
So, the scenario that's being proposed is that when your wife is pregnant they run some tests and they come back with a report like this:
"likely to be of average intelligence, brown eyes, 15% chance of being an impulsive chucklehead, with high disposition towards obesity, and a 4% chance of retaining teenage angst well into his 30s."Government standards say that for a foetus to be considered viable, it needs to have less than 5% chance of being a chucklehead and less than 5% of long lasting teenage angst, unless there's a blue-eye exemption (rare trait that we've decided is good looking) or the kid looks likely to have high or better intelligence.
So as a result, government policy mandates that the foetus is aborted. If you want a kid, please try again and hope that it tests better.
Ide was not proposing some sort of magic engineering that'll somehow make everybody's kids smarter and better looking; he was proposing a set of government tests and standards and if the kid doesn't score high enough policy mandates that the foetus is aborted independently of the parents wishes.
I don't know about you, but for me that's not something I think is a good idea, even if Ide promises it'll improve the species or whatever.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:26:19 PM
Serious question: Would it be better to treat a fetus in the womb to prevent undesirable traits rather then just abort them?
I believe human 2.0 will select the proper genes before fecundation.
I found abortion very immoral, though I recognize the right of every couple to make their own decisions in this matter.
Abortion didn't use to bother me, but then I became a father and that changed my perspective.
Still, if we are going to defend freedom, we need to defend all freedoms.
Even the freedom to drill water wells?
To Jake, the Liberal Arts Warrior:
Well, there are certain potentially universal things we can say about STEM vs. TLA. One is that most economies can, in general, only absorb as many degree-holders within any given field as there is demand for the skills conferred, reflected, or signaled by that degree. Therefore, if the field of history offers 100,000 jobs, producing 200,000 history majors seems like a bad idea, and this can possibly be applied universally. Even if those skills are valued outside the field, it is still generally better that training be undertaken outside that field, and in the fields that are underserved. It's like--and this is a reductionist anaology--if you make 200,000 widgets for an order of 100,000, and eventually sell off the surplus in a hundred smaller orders over the course of ten years, you'd still probably have been better off using the same productive resources to make 100,000 nails, which you could've sold immediately. And the widgets, if they were sentient and valued finding a place where they belonged, would probably feel the same way, and wish they'd been made nails instead.
This probably also applies to the eugenics argument. :hmm:
Of course the really big problem with America--again, can't speak of Canada--is that we're just overproducing degrees generally. The economic waste and spiritual damage is staggering. But change is coming, you mark my words.
To Jake, The Man Who Never Met a Human He Didn't Like:
Firstly, I think this should be something people should talk about early. I don't, because it's not done. I'm different, but I'm not abjectly stupid. But given that it involves both a prospective spouse's values and one of the major points of having a spouse is childbearing, it is inefficient and dumb not to be able to talk about it.
The two women I've ever seriously entertained the thought of having children with were very negative toward the prospect of embryo selection.
I also disagree that it's a personal issue. There is hardly such a thing as a truly personal issue. Most choices impact society. The management of society is the state's reason for existence.
It is, specifically, not the case when the actions of two people can either benefit or harm a third party. Even the most classically liberal state recognizes this in its child abuse laws already: you cannot beat a child; you cannot starve a child; and so forth. But you can bring a child into the world with vast disadvantages that will cause them pain far greater than a punch in the face or a few missed meals. The line drawn there is arbitrary. Of course the state has a place in managing the lives of individuals, even within the sanctity of the family unit. That's not in question for me. What's in question is, "What freedom can people be given to make mistakes that affect others?" Fearing the possibility that a coercive state would make vast and systemic mistakes, I don't advocate total control over individuals' reproductive choices. But the state should be there to encourage what are obviously better choices; and so should society at large. It really is everyone's business.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2014, 05:21:53 PM
Ok, I understand being against stupid shit like giving a kid a physical or mental disadvantage, like those two lesbian hags trying to have a deaf child. But why do you oppose healthier, smarter, stronger, and better looking kids?
You have a kid, right?
So, the scenario that's being proposed is that when your wife is pregnant they run some tests and they come back with a report like this: "likely to be of average intelligence, brown eyes, 15% chance of being an impulsive chucklehead, with high disposition towards obesity, and a 4% chance of retaining teenage angst well into his 30s."
Government standards say that for a foetus to be considered viable, it needs to have less than 5% chance of being a chucklehead and less than 5% of long lasting teenage angst, unless there's a blue-eye exemption (rare trait that we've decided is good looking) or the kid looks likely to have high or better intelligence.
So as a result, government policy mandates that the foetus is aborted. If you want a kid, please try again and hope that it tests better.
Ide was not proposing some sort of magic engineering that'll somehow make everybody's kids smarter and better looking; he was proposing a set of government tests and standards and if the kid doesn't score high enough policy mandates that the foetus is aborted independently of the parents wishes.
I don't know about you, but for me that's not something I think is a good idea, even if Ide promises it'll improve the species or whatever.
Oh shit fuck no.
Gubmint have nothing to do in people's private lives and method of reproduction.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com%2Fimages%2FGovernment_Regulations_Demotivator.jpg&hash=4ddcdb0fd3731f419428ab819dae79f079dfada1)
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 05:18:05 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2014, 05:15:00 PMI think it's really more a question of making them all cheaper so people don't have to do such an ROI analysis on their schooling.
That sounds much more sensible, yes.
You'd think someone like Ide would be all over the German example (free university tuition) rather than be all invested in eliminating education that doesn't immediately lead to jobs that can repay exorbitant student loans. But no, instead of actually attempting to address tuition, he goes tilting at humanities windmills.
Student loans offered without oversight is what led to insane tuition. At a deeper level, lack of central control over universities did, but that's a dead letter in America thanks to federalism and our private educational sector.
Anyway, I've said that free (maybe even compulsory!) tertiary education is a potentially great idea. I also think nationalizing the economy is a good idea. These are aspirations, but not realistic goals.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 05:18:05 PM
That sounds much more sensible, yes.
You'd think someone like Ide would be all over the German example (free university tuition) rather than be all invested in eliminating education that doesn't immediately lead to jobs that can repay exorbitant student loans. But no, instead of actually attempting to address tuition, he goes tilting at humanities windmills.
The two are related. AFAICT the Yuro model constricts demand for university education by tracking a significant portion of the high school population into vocational education.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:02:50 PM
The 21st century will favor the feminine over the masculine. This is, by and large, a good thing, but the transition will be miserable.
Proof of this assertion? And what sort of timeline are you looking at for such a shift to occur?
Mass-army warfare is gone, so we don't need men for that. Construction and agriculture are largely mechanized, so we don't need men for that. Our current society disapproves strongly of violence-based hierarchies, so we don't need men for that. It still loves status-based hierarchies, but that's where women shine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:26:19 PM
Serious question: Would it be better to treat a fetus in the womb to prevent undesirable traits rather then just abort them?
They do that now.
Well, I was wondering if an underlying revulsion toward the practice of abortion my be unconsciously affecting people's reactions to Ide's idea. Most people on this board are pro-choice and support a women's right to chose. However, when we are getting into the specific reasons of why a woman may choose this, there is major backlash. It seems slightly incongruous to support things like Planned Parenthood but get out of shape for the promotion of abortion towards some greater social end.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:26:19 PM
Serious question: Would it be better to treat a fetus in the womb to prevent undesirable traits rather then just abort them?
They do that now.
Well, I was wondering if an underlying revulsion toward the practice of abortion my be unconsciously affecting people's reactions to Ide's idea. Most people on this board are pro-choice and support a women's right to chose. However, when we are getting into the specific reasons of why a woman may choose this, there is major backlash. It seems slightly incongruous to support things like Planned Parenthood but get out of shape for the promotion of abortion towards some greater social end.
Not sure it is all that incongruous. The assertion that a woman should have the right to choose does not mean she will necessarily choose one way or the other.
She should be encouraged to make the right choice. By tall blonde blue-eyed men, obviously, JACOB. <_<
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:26:19 PM
Serious question: Would it be better to treat a fetus in the womb to prevent undesirable traits rather then just abort them?
They do that now.
Well, I was wondering if an underlying revulsion toward the practice of abortion my be unconsciously affecting people's reactions to Ide's idea. Most people on this board are pro-choice and support a women's right to chose. However, when we are getting into the specific reasons of why a woman may choose this, there is major backlash. It seems slightly incongruous to support things like Planned Parenthood but get out of shape for the promotion of abortion towards some greater social end.
Not sure it is all that incongruous. The assertion that a woman should have the right to choose does not mean she will necessarily choose one way or the other.
If there is a major backlash toward one of the choices, then why allow the choice at all?
"You are allowed to choose A or B, but if you choose B you are a horrible monster".
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:36:37 PM
To Jake, the Liberal Arts Warrior:
Well, there are certain potentially universal things we can say about STEM vs. TLA. One is that most economies can, in general, only absorb as many degree-holders within any given field as there is demand for the skills conferred, reflected, or signaled by that degree. Therefore, if the field of history offers 100,000 jobs, producing 200,000 history majors seems like a bad idea, and this can possibly be applied universally. Even if those skills are valued outside the field, it is still generally better that training be undertaken outside that field, and in the fields that are underserved. It's like--and this is a reductionist anaology--if you make 200,000 widgets for an order of 100,000, and eventually sell off the surplus in a hundred smaller orders over the course of ten years, you'd still probably have been better off using the same productive resources to make 100,000 nails, which you could've sold immediately. And the widgets, if they were sentient and valued finding a place where they belonged, would probably feel the same way, and wish they'd been made nails instead.
This probably also applies to the eugenics argument. :hmm:
Of course the really big problem with America--again, can't speak of Canada--is that we're just overproducing degrees generally. The economic waste and spiritual damage is staggering. But change is coming, you mark my words.
I don't disagree with your last paragraph. What I don't get is that your analysis suggests there's a systemic problem in terms of how degrees are being overproduced generally (including STEM graduates now, I believe), how the economic incentives are horribly misaligned, and how students are misinformed throughout the process until it's too late and they're saddled with heavy, nondischargeable debt disfiguring their economic prospects. Nonetheless the bulk of your conversation on the topic involves hurling collegiate invective at the humanities and suggesting that the whole system should fixed by fiddling with a few knobs so more students end up in STEM rather than the humanities. It's just kind of silly, really.
QuoteTo Jake, The Man Who Never Met a Human He Didn't Like:
Firstly, I think this should be something people should talk about early. I don't, because it's not done. I'm different, but I'm not abjectly stupid. But given that it involves both a prospective spouse's values and one of the major points of having a spouse is childbearing, it is inefficient and dumb not to be able to talk about it.
The two women I've ever seriously entertained the thought of having children with were very negative toward the prospect of embryo selection.
I also disagree that it's a personal issue. There is hardly such a thing as a truly personal issue. Most choices impact society. The management of society is the state's reason for existence.
It is, specifically, not the case when the actions of two people can either benefit or harm a third party. Even the most classically liberal state recognizes this in its child abuse laws already: you cannot beat a child; you cannot starve a child; and so forth. But you can bring a child into the world with vast disadvantages that will cause them pain far greater than a punch in the face or a few missed meals. The line drawn there is arbitrary. Of course the state has a place in managing the lives of individuals, even within the sanctity of the family unit. That's not in question for me. What's in question is, "What freedom can people be given to make mistakes that affect others?" Fearing the possibility that a coercive state would make vast and systemic mistakes, I don't advocate total control over individuals' reproductive choices. But the state should be there to encourage what are obviously better choices; and so should society at large. It really is everyone's business.
So let's posit this: a couple faces the prospect of their new born child having conditions that will likely result in the child being confined to a wheelchair for life, reaching a maximum level of intelligence to that of a 6 year old, and with assorted other problems. What incentives do you possibly think the state - and the rest of society - could possibly provide that compare to the irrevocably life-altering experience of committing to taking care of this child?
Conversely, if you are talking about lesser, more abstract things - say "a tendency towards impulsiveness" - there are no tests for it, nor significant evidence that such traits are genetic rather than the results of environmental factors. In short, it's straight up wankery.
And if you're talking about something more concrete, but less severe - like say being born deaf or very short - what is the actual social impact that must be guarded against? Plenty of people with those conditions live full and happy lives. How do you know with such certainty that society would be better off if, say, Peter Dinkelage had been aborted rather than born?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:46:06 PM
Well, I was wondering if an underlying revulsion toward the practice of abortion my be unconsciously affecting people's reactions to Ide's idea. Most people on this board are pro-choice and support a women's right to chose. However, when we are getting into the specific reasons of why a woman may choose this, there is major backlash. It seems slightly incongruous to support things like Planned Parenthood but get out of shape for the promotion of abortion towards some greater social end.
It's not at all incongruous.
One position says that reproductive choice should be made by the woman in question (with access to competent medical advice).
The other position says the state can intrude.
The reason for the state to intrude is irrelevant, whether it's "for a greater social end" or "to save the lives of the unborn."
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:54:18 PM
If there is a major backlash toward one of the choices, then why allow the choice at all?
"You are allowed to choose A or B, but if you choose B you are a horrible monster".
Where's the major backlash against B? Who here has objected to a woman choosing to abort a foetus because they perceive the foetus to be at risk for health problems? Who - outside of pro-life fundamentalists - in the rest of the world outside of languish object to it?
You can probably find someone to object to society wide gender-bias in abortions in some places, but that hasn't actually been brought up yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2014, 05:43:27 PM
The two are related. AFAICT the Yuro model constricts demand for university education by tracking a significant portion of the high school population into vocational education.
There's more than one Euro model, but yeah vocational education is definitely a thing in many of them, as are somewhat limited places.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:44:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:02:50 PM
The 21st century will favor the feminine over the masculine. This is, by and large, a good thing, but the transition will be miserable.
Proof of this assertion? And what sort of timeline are you looking at for such a shift to occur?
Mass-army warfare is gone, so we don't need men for that. Construction and agriculture are largely mechanized, so we don't need men for that. Our current society disapproves strongly of violence-based hierarchies, so we don't need men for that. It still loves status-based hierarchies, but that's where women shine.
Oh so nothing then. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:53:24 PM
She should be encouraged to make the right choice. By tall blonde blue-eyed men, obviously, JACOB. <_<
Jacob's wife doesn't need my advice.
America's Future Leaders:
Well, sometimes I joke, because I like to have fun. I am coming to realize that some of my positions are extreme enough that I'm susceptible to Poe's law. I'll try to make it clear when I'm kidding. That said, overall, STEM outcomes are better than LA outcomes. Further, there are underlying reasons that history/English/etc. do not provide ROI at the same rates, and a big one is that they don't provide special skills--reading, writing, and research are not special skills. I think my classification of them as hobbies for most, careers for few (almost exclusively schoolteachers), is largely accurate.
However, when you talk about the
actual arts--graphic design, music, film, dance--you
are talking about special skills. Even if talent is missing, you at least come out with some technical expertise. And I'd suspect that the ROI on these fields is higher, because they offer something to the market. They're not going to build bridges or make vaccines, but those programs are in comparison far, far more useful. They're also more expensive. English and history--like law--require books and rooms. That sound you hear of a cash register opening is a metaphor.
Happy People Science:
The impact is on the child themselves. Even if the state winds up spending a million bucks with no return, the most egregious suffering belongs to the kid. Since they are not an extant human life from conception till (let's say for simplicity's sake) birth, avoiding that suffering does not in any sense impinge on a non-extant person's rights to exist. It's a neat trick: the worst you can do to a non-extant person is stop them from being alive; you can do so much worse to a living human being it isn't funny.
Regarding tests for "impulsiveness" and the like--my hypothetical assumed the technological capacity to test for it. And, of course, it's coming, so it's not just "intellectual masturbation" or whatever you called it. And yes, "impulsiveness" is way genetic.
I think Peter Dinklage is a pretty good actor. I have decided it best not to play into this kind of rhetorical gambit: Dinklage is. He's beyond the ambit of the discussion. The only person who can decide whether Dinklage should have been aborted or not is him. This is, however, not the case for people who do not have brains yet--at that point, they are just material, to be molded, shaped, or discarded based on our best knowledge and practices, without sentiment.
QuoteSo let's posit this: a couple faces the prospect of their new born child having conditions that will likely result in the child being confined to a wheelchair for life, reaching a maximum level of intelligence to that of a 6 year old, and with assorted other problems. What incentives do you possibly think the state - and the rest of society - could possibly provide that compare to the irrevocably life-altering experience of committing to taking care of this child?
Education is the key part: a shift in the values away from the Judeo-Christian "life" to a materialist "quality of life." Depending upon the amount of pain experienced by the person over the child's lifetime, it's possible it edges into outright abuse. I don't know if it should be a crime, but it is certainly a sin.
Riddle me this: what is morally different with creating a life that you know will be torturous, and kicking an infant in the head until it has brain damage?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:44:26 PM
Mass-army warfare is gone, so we don't need men for that. Construction and agriculture are largely mechanized, so we don't need men for that. Our current society disapproves strongly of violence-based hierarchies, so we don't need men for that. It still loves status-based hierarchies, but that's where women shine.
We'll still need lots of cops to give out thousand dollar fines and beat up black people.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2014, 06:22:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:44:26 PM
Mass-army warfare is gone, so we don't need men for that. Construction and agriculture are largely mechanized, so we don't need men for that. Our current society disapproves strongly of violence-based hierarchies, so we don't need men for that. It still loves status-based hierarchies, but that's where women shine.
We'll still need lots of cops to give out thousand dollar fines and beat up black people.
Nah. Robots can already tell the difference between light and dark.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2014, 06:27:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 04:43:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 04:42:40 PM
Build your own goddamned ports and ship your own oil, dammit.
:lol:
We are trying.
Try harder.
Agreed. Ideally the Keystone pipeline will be delayed long enough that it wont be needed any longer and all our oil can go to more profitable markets. Win win right?
Send us Swiss Chalet. I need a Boston Market replacement. My words are backed with Nuclear Weapons.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
Education is the key part: a shift in the values away from the Judeo-Christian "life" to a materialist "quality of life."
That's really the key to your whole socio-political outlook, isn't it--at heart, you want the state to impose your values on everyone else.
Of course. That's true of everybody.
You think libertarians don't?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
Agreed. Ideally the Keystone pipeline will be delayed long enough that it wont be needed any longer and all our oil can go to more profitable markets. Win win right?
It springs a leak in Oklahoma, I don't see any of you fuckers coming down with a bottle of Dawn and a roll of paper towels to clean it up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
Agreed. Ideally the Keystone pipeline will be delayed long enough that it wont be needed any longer and all our oil can go to more profitable markets. Win win right?
It springs a leak in Oklahoma, I don't see any of you fuckers coming down with a bottle of Dawn and a roll of paper towels to clean it up.
...says the guy driving a gas guzzler. I don't see any of you fuckers giving up driving so that we won't need that oil.
I drive a Camry. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
Agreed. Ideally the Keystone pipeline will be delayed long enough that it wont be needed any longer and all our oil can go to more profitable markets. Win win right?
It springs a leak in Oklahoma, I don't see any of you fuckers coming down with a bottle of Dawn and a roll of paper towels to clean it up.
Still safer than hauling it in Warren Buffett's rail cars. You going down with the Dawn for the next derailment?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 05:36:37 PM
Well, there are certain potentially universal things we can say about STEM vs. TLA. One is that most economies can, in general, only absorb as many degree-holders within any given field as there is demand for the skills conferred, reflected, or signaled by that degree. Therefore, if the field of history offers 100,000 jobs, producing 200,000 history majors seems like a bad idea, and this can possibly be applied universally. Even if those skills are valued outside the field, it is still generally better that training be undertaken outside that field, and in the fields that are underserved. It's like--and this is a reductionist anaology--if you make 200,000 widgets for an order of 100,000, and eventually sell off the surplus in a hundred smaller orders over the course of ten years, you'd still probably have been better off using the same productive resources to make 100,000 nails, which you could've sold immediately. And the widgets, if they were sentient and valued finding a place where they belonged, would probably feel the same way, and wish they'd been made nails instead.
University education is not vocational education. You do not get a degree just so you can slot into a job with a similar name as the degree. The even if the "field of history" is restricted to history degree holders, history degree holders are not. People are not widgets that are produced and forever frozen in a certain form. Yes, many companies get anal about what type of degree you have, but many are only interested in you having a degree
and the necessary skills. Skills development is only partially related to university-level studies.
Stop complaining about how all these STEM kids have it so good and do something about it: build some STEM skills yourself.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 06:02:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:54:18 PM
If there is a major backlash toward one of the choices, then why allow the choice at all?
"You are allowed to choose A or B, but if you choose B you are a horrible monster".
Where's the major backlash against B? Who here has objected to a woman choosing to abort a foetus because they perceive the foetus to be at risk for health problems? Who - outside of pro-life fundamentalists - in the rest of the world outside of languish object to it?
You can probably find someone to object to society wide gender-bias in abortions in some places, but that hasn't actually been brought up yet.
It was my understanding that Ide's idea was not forcible abortions but government subsides and incentives for abortions for the purpose of eradicating bad genes. As such I'm seeing people angry at the idea of the government incentivizing such abortions. But from your posts I get the idea that you are basically okay with the same act so long as government is not explicitly endorsing it for this reason. Oh and people who oppose abortions are "fundamentalists". Is my understanding correct?
I should note that when was Ide was in law school and bragging about being part of the "Knowledge economy", I suggested he actually try to a degree in engineering because he seemed to have real talent with mathematics. He brushed me off saying Math was just something he did for fun.
That doesn't sound like me at all. What kind of math did I do for fun? I used to multiply large(ish) numbers in my head, but that's not really High Math. I've always been bad at serious mathematics. I got like 540 or some similar low-ass number on my math SAT.
Anyway, I was stupid then.
Quote from: Berkut on December 15, 2014, 07:02:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
Agreed. Ideally the Keystone pipeline will be delayed long enough that it wont be needed any longer and all our oil can go to more profitable markets. Win win right?
It springs a leak in Oklahoma, I don't see any of you fuckers coming down with a bottle of Dawn and a roll of paper towels to clean it up.
...says the guy driving a gas guzzler. I don't see any of you fuckers giving up driving so that we won't need that oil.
Go fuck yourself. Sideways.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2014, 07:04:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
Agreed. Ideally the Keystone pipeline will be delayed long enough that it wont be needed any longer and all our oil can go to more profitable markets. Win win right?
It springs a leak in Oklahoma, I don't see any of you fuckers coming down with a bottle of Dawn and a roll of paper towels to clean it up.
Still safer than hauling it in Warren Buffett's rail cars. You going down with the Dawn for the next derailment?
At least that's an American mess.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
America's Future Leaders:
Once again you're speaking in absolute and universal terms on the values of STEM, LA, and FA while ostensibly discussing the US.
Anyhow we've been over this ground interminably, and you're treading the same ground you always tread. I still think you are full of shit in your idiosyncratic way. I'm sure we'll revisit the topic again, but that's it for me right now.
QuoteHappy People Science:
The impact is on the child themselves. Even if the state winds up spending a million bucks with no return, the most egregious suffering belongs to the kid. Since they are not an extant human life from conception till (let's say for simplicity's sake) birth, avoiding that suffering does not in any sense impinge on a non-extant person's rights to exist. It's a neat trick: the worst you can do to a non-extant person is stop them from being alive; you can do so much worse to a living human being it isn't funny.
But by disregarding the parents, you are doing harm to them. Forcing women to abort children based on your standards, rather than theirs, is harming them, however much the foetus may not care.
I don't know how many pregnant women (or expectant fathers) you've been around, but imposing unwanted abortions on them is gonna fuck them up. That's a fact. Miscarriages are rough. Forcing them on unwilling people with all the machinery and bedside manner of the state is going to make them a whole lot worse.
QuoteRegarding tests for "impulsiveness" and the like--my hypothetical assumed the technological capacity to test for it. And, of course, it's coming, so it's not just "intellectual masturbation" or whatever you called it. And yes, "impulsiveness" is way genetic.
Making moral arguments based on a non-existing technology, with a scientific basis that consists of your bald assertion, to address an issue based on discredited sociology is pretty much the definition of intellectual masturbation.
QuoteI think Peter Dinklage is a pretty good actor. I have decided it best not to play into this kind of rhetorical gambit: Dinklage is. He's beyond the ambit of the discussion. The only person who can decide whether Dinklage should have been aborted or not is him.
... well, and his parents, right?
QuoteThis is, however, not the case for people who do not have brains yet--at that point, they are just material, to be molded, shaped, or discarded based on our best knowledge and practices, without sentiment.
This probably goes to the very core of my disagreement with you. Your argument that these life and death decisions, that shape the lives and psyches of everyone involved, should be made without sentiment is basically abhorrent. That's where eugenics went wrong in the past, and that's where your arguments are wrong now. The sentiments of the people involved are of supreme importance, and anything that discards them for abstract reasons of policy or ideology is frankly monstrous (and for the record, oh my sensitive friend, I am not calling you abhorrent or monstrous, just this argument you are making).
Incidentally, it supports my longtime observation that whenever people attempt to dress up moral (and most other) arguments in "logic," "dispassionate facts," and "pure reason" they're trying to pass off their own sentiments without even acknowledging that's what they're doing. Your argument is not based on our best knowledge and practices, it's based on your emotions and abstract hypotheticals removed from the realities of how people live their lives and divorced from any actual science on the subject.
QuoteEducation is the key part: a shift in the values away from the Judeo-Christian "life" to a materialist "quality of life." Depending upon the amount of pain experienced by the person over the child's lifetime, it's possible it edges into outright abuse. I don't know if it should be a crime, but it is certainly a sin.
I don't have a problem with the concept of valuing "quality of life" over "life", but I think that is a choice to be made by the individual, not the state.
Incidentally, it's pretty silly - and outright contradictory - that you speak of moving away from Judeo-Christian values yet use its language and conceptual framework to argue you position... well, actually, you're using Christian language - nothing Jewish about sin.
QuoteRiddle me this: what is morally different with creating a life that you know will be torturous, and kicking an infant in the head until it has brain damage?
The answer is: fuck you Martinus, that's a shit analogy.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 06:37:02 PM
Of course. That's true of everybody.
You think libertarians don't?
Well, in theory at least, libertarians want to allow each individual to follow his or her own values. In practice, of course, even someone arguing for basic human rights is seeking to impose their values on the body public. My problem with what you're doing is you're essentially trying to pass off your opinions and value judgments as scientific fact. Or as Jacob worded it:
Quote
whenever people attempt to dress up moral (and most other) arguments in "logic," "dispassionate facts," and "pure reason" they're trying to pass off their own sentiments without even acknowledging that's what they're doing. Your argument is not based on our best knowledge and practices, it's based on your emotions and abstract hypotheticals removed from the realities of how people live their lives and divorced from any actual science on the subject.
Damn it, Ide's force me into the position of agreeing with Jake....
Quote from: Jake... well, and his parents, right?
Not anymore, at least not under SC law. But you guys are really pro-choice in Canada, so it could be different. :P
Jake, I can't respond to a lot of that because you keep mentioning this "forced abortion" thing that I've never advocated. "Should" and "I'll make you" are two different propositions, after all.
Quote from: dpsWell, in theory at least, libertarians want to allow each individual to follow his or her own values. In practice, of course, even someone arguing for basic human rights is seeking to impose their values on the body public. My problem with what you're doing is you're essentially trying to pass off your opinions and value judgments as scientific fact. Or as Jacob worded it:
I've also always said that the scientific determinations should be left to scientists. I'm speaking in generalities about principles, not in the language of administrative decisions.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 09:37:30 PM
I've also always said that the scientific determinations should be left to scientists. I'm speaking in generalities about principles, not in the language of administrative decisions.
So that there will be more politicking among scientists/medical practitioners than there already is?
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 09:37:30 PM
I've also always said that the scientific determinations should be left to scientists. I'm speaking in generalities about principles, not in the language of administrative decisions.
So that there will be more politicking among scientists/medical practitioners than there already is?
Taken on its face, that post from Ide would imply that he's unaware that, politics aside, scientists universally agree on almost nothing and even facts on which they are in general agreement have historically often been shown to be inaccurate.
Beyond that, some of the stuff Ide is talking about, I don't see how you could scientifically determine what's desirable. Sure, pretty much any sane person is going to agree that not having cystic fibrosis is better than having it, but what about a tendency to be impulsive? Is being impulsive categorically a bad thing? I don't see how it is. Sure, diving into a body of water with no idea how deep it is and cracking your skull open on a submerged rock is a bad thing, but without some impulsiveness, there'd probably be no creativity, either.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 09:37:30 PM
Not anymore, at least not under SC law. But you guys are really pro-choice in Canada, so it could be different. :P
:lol:
QuoteJake, I can't respond to a lot of that because you keep mentioning this "forced abortion" thing that I've never advocated. "Should" and "I'll make you" are two different propositions, after all.
I was getting your position on eugenics mixed up with your heavy state dirigisme in other areas, I guess, if you are only proposing "incentives" rather than "brute force." Still, I don't think the state should be involved in that sort of thing; the alleged benefit to the population and state is nebulous at best, in spite of the fondest wishes of your sci-fi fantasies.
Quote from: dpsI've also always said that the scientific determinations should be left to scientists. I'm speaking in generalities about principles, not in the language of administrative decisions.
That has, historically, not produced the best result. Forced sterilization of different races and social classes, for example, has been carried out by scientists using contemporary scientific facts and knowledge. Atrocities have been carried out by scientists in the name of science.
Leaving ethics to science easily leads to very gross things.
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 09:29:09 PMDamn it, Ide's force me into the position of agreeing with Jake....
:console:
See? That's the kind of thing that happens! :cry:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 07:27:47 PM
It was my understanding that Ide's idea was not forcible abortions but government subsides and incentives for abortions for the purpose of eradicating bad genes.
He's basing it on a science-fantasy understanding of genetics - the "bad" genes that cause depression, impulsiveness, studying the humanities, and taking on too many student loans in a fucked up educational eco-system have not in fact been isolated; nor will they, I'm willing to wager.
QuoteAs such I'm seeing people angry at the idea of the government incentivizing such abortions. But from your posts I get the idea that you are basically okay with the same act so long as government is not explicitly endorsing it for this reason.
I'm not okay with the gov't incentivizing it either, though it's less abjectly terrible than forcing it. The gov't should stay out of fucking around with the gene-pool and improving the race. That shit is discredited.
QuoteOh and people who oppose abortions are "fundamentalists". Is my understanding correct?
Maybe fundamentalist is the wrong word, since it apparently has fairly specific meanings in the context of various religions. That said, I think the only people who would seriously admonish a woman for terminating a pregnancy where significant health problems were expected - which is what I'm talking about - would do so out of profound religious convictions. More specifically, I think they'd be doing so out of profound Christian convictions, as I'm not aware of other religions that have staked a strong position there.
And those people are, IMO, somewhere between severely misguided to outright evil.
Actually, I doubt they could be isolated. Those are traits with many genes acting in concert to produce them. It's the specific combinations we'd seek to reduce the incidence. The human species would probably not benefit from improved genetic hygiene.
I'd leave that for actual genetic engineering.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 10:45:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 07:27:47 PM
It was my understanding that Ide's idea was not forcible abortions but government subsides and incentives for abortions for the purpose of eradicating bad genes.
He's basing it on a science-fantasy understanding of genetics - the "bad" genes that cause depression, impulsiveness, studying the humanities, and taking on too many student loans in a fucked up educational eco-system have not in fact been isolated; nor will they, I'm willing to wager.
QuoteAs such I'm seeing people angry at the idea of the government incentivizing such abortions. But from your posts I get the idea that you are basically okay with the same act so long as government is not explicitly endorsing it for this reason.
I'm not okay with the gov't incentivizing it either, though it's less abjectly terrible than forcing it. The gov't should stay out of fucking around with the gene-pool and improving the race. That shit is discredited.
QuoteOh and people who oppose abortions are "fundamentalists". Is my understanding correct?
Maybe fundamentalist is the wrong word, since it apparently has fairly specific meanings in the context of various religions. That said, I think the only people who would seriously admonish a woman for terminating a pregnancy where significant health problems were expected - which is what I'm talking about - would do so out of profound religious convictions. More specifically, I think they'd be doing so out of profound Christian convictions, as I'm not aware of other religions that have staked a strong position there.
And those people are, IMO, somewhere between severely misguided to outright evil.
I'm not a geneticist, I don't think I Ide is, nor do I believe you are. I'm not in a position to decide what exactly is discredited or not. I do know that some people have genetic pre-disposition towards certain things. Many of these pose "significant health problems". When you say things like, "The gov't should stay out of fucking around with the gene-pool" are you saying that you would government efforts opposed to curing genetic illnesses like Tay-Sachs? Cause that's what it sounds like with such blanket statements. So perhaps you would like to clarify.
I would also like the to know are you okay with the government providing money for abortions in general and just become outraged if the government has a motive for their action beyond simply providing money.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 11:24:24 PM
I'm not a geneticist, I don't think I Ide is, nor do I believe you are. I'm not in a position to decide what exactly is discredited or not.
I'm glad that's out of the way, then.
QuoteI do know that some people have genetic pre-disposition towards certain things. Many of these pose "significant health problems". When you say things like, "The gov't should stay out of fucking around with the gene-pool" are you saying that you would government efforts opposed to curing genetic illnesses like Tay-Sachs? Cause that's what it sounds like with such blanket statements. So perhaps you would like to clarify.
Curing diseases = good.
Instituting eugenics programs to encourage breeding practices in the human population = not good.
QuoteI would also like the to know are you okay with the government providing money for abortions in general and just become outraged if the government has a motive for their action beyond simply providing money.
I'm in favour of universal health care. Abortion is a health care service. So I'm not only okay with I'm actively in favour of government funded abortions.
Where the government does not fund health care, abortion should not be outlawed or discouraged in any particular way, and should be available through whatever means the population gets healthcare (i.e if it's employer provided healthcare, employers should pay for abortions).
I hope that helped.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 11:30:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 11:24:24 PM
I'm not a geneticist, I don't think I Ide is, nor do I believe you are. I'm not in a position to decide what exactly is discredited or not.
I'm glad that's out of the way, then.
QuoteI do know that some people have genetic pre-disposition towards certain things. Many of these pose "significant health problems". When you say things like, "The gov't should stay out of fucking around with the gene-pool" are you saying that you would government efforts opposed to curing genetic illnesses like Tay-Sachs? Cause that's what it sounds like with such blanket statements. So perhaps you would like to clarify.
Curing diseases = good.
Instituting eugenics programs to encourage breeding practices in the human population = not good.
QuoteI would also like the to know are you okay with the government providing money for abortions in general and just become outraged if the government has a motive for their action beyond simply providing money.
I'm in favour of universal health care. Abortion is a health care service. So I'm not only okay with I'm actively in favour of government funded abortions.
Where the government does not fund health care, abortion should not be outlawed or discouraged in any particular way, and should be available through whatever means the population gets healthcare (i.e if it's employer provided healthcare, employers should pay for abortions).
I hope that helped.
Spell out to me why the Eugenics program is bad? I'm having a hard time making a distinction between that and preventing disease. After all eliminating the gene that causes Tay Sachs is eugenics. Is it only bad if the government does it or is it bad if a private individuals do it?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 03:38:36 PM
no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.
With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.
This is true of most paraphilic disorders, but they are still considered disorders. It is where atypical sexual attraction causes distress or impairment. If we regard social reaction as only standard we end up with some oddities. A person of who is sexually attracted to children can be "cured", by him immigrating to culture where such a behavior is acceptable. One of the medical risks of homosexuality is significant increased chance of STDs. It is difficult to figure out what changes in societal standards are possible to prevent this.
Paraphilias are acquired, not in-born, anyway.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2014, 04:40:03 PM
America. I've always wondered why CC had such strong feelings about an issue that doesn't affect him, but whatever. I'm used to foreigners getting bent about American politics.
I don't know if the Canadian model is even that similar. Your SLs can be discharged in bankruptcy, for example.
So you're doing the thing where you talk only about the US, but you use universal arguments to do so. Because when you talk about the value of STEM and the uselessness of the humanities, as is your wont, you typically do so in terms relating to the inherent values of those fields rather than how they fit into the education systems and economy of the US at present.
Yeah. It seems to me that Ide is taking the flawed US system and trying to find flawed solutions to it.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 12:41:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2014, 03:38:36 PM
no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.
With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.
This is true of most paraphilic disorders, but they are still considered disorders. It is where atypical sexual attraction causes distress or impairment. If we regard social reaction as only standard we end up with some oddities. A person of who is sexually attracted to children can be "cured", by him immigrating to culture where such a behavior is acceptable. One of the medical risks of homosexuality is significant increased chance of STDs. It is difficult to figure out what changes in societal standards are possible to prevent this.
Paraphilias are acquired, not in-born, anyway.
:huh: Where on earth did you get that idea?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2014, 12:59:00 AM
:huh: Where on earth did you get that idea?
He was born with it? :hmm:
Why so much opposition to the keystone pipeline?
Think of the economic benefits.