Making better humans, or rather, making less-bad ones

[Siege]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

Even the freedom to drill water wells?

[Ideologue]

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.

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.

[Siege]

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.

[Ideologue]

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.

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[Ideologue]

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[Ideologue]

She should be encouraged to make the right choice.  By tall blonde blue-eyed men, obviously, JACOB.

[Razgovory]

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".

[Jacob]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Jacob]

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."

[Jacob]

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.

[Jacob]

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.