If you don't force it you won't get something like what your describing.
There are large numbers of people of different races that are strongly against marrying outside their race. This phenomenon is not exclusive to a small portion of white people.
Also, it really doesn't matter what regular people do in this regard that much. The opportunity holders, the ones that get to choose whether or not to discriminate based on race are going to be the employers. So if the employers in large numbers either like a certain race or are of a certain race then we will still have the same problem.
I've worked at businesses that don't have an official policy, but they have preferred races and nationalities for jobs. For example, if your Russian you are more likely to get hired for a white collar job at one of the firm's I've worked for. Why? Because the manager believes that Russians are harder working than other groups of white people, and get this, the manager is not Russian!
But one thing that we have not discussed (at least in recent memory) is why we should care about inequality. It is just accepted that a more equal society is a better society.
Large disparities in wealth and income are each associated with a lot of social ills including crime, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, infectious diseases, and drug addiction.
Extreme income disparity is also a cyclical cause of poor economic performance.
I'm pretty sure I've talked about this on here recently. I have links I can dig up and post if you want citations.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
But one thing that we have not discussed (at least in recent memory) is why we should care about inequality. It is just accepted that a more equal society is a better society.
Large disparities in wealth and income are each associated with a lot of social ills including crime, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, infectious diseases, and drug addiction.
Extreme income disparity is also a cyclical cause of poor economic performance.
I'm pretty sure I've talked about this on here recently. I have links I can dig up and post if you want citations.
Part of it is also marginal utility.
"More equal" tends to mean making things slightly better for the downtrodden. If you lack food and shelter, giving you food and shelter is a huge increase in quality of life. If you have caviar and need to downgrade to very good steak there's not a fuck of a lot of change.
I'm not utilitarian in many instances, but it isn't hard to see how making the worst-off better off makes your society more likely to create good outcomes, even if the very best of the best outcomes are slightly less wonderful.
Also frankly, large income disparities just mean things get shittier for everyone. Like, sure if you're a billionaire you can buy most anything, but like... say you enjoy music or watercolors or games or poetry or something. You can't be a patron to "all the arts". It's a hell of a lot simpler to make sure that people aren't condemned to death if they don't hustle 24/7, and get the benefit of a more cosmopolitan society as a side effect.
There is another reason to care about inequality, and that is that once an inequal society exists, it is very advantageous for those with more of their fair share to use their resources to push for more inequality. Which is basicly the Republican agenda, but hardly unique. Wealth generates more wealth, but it also generates better education, more political influence, and if a society doesn't have some equalizing mechanic you are almost certainly going to end up with some kind of oligarchy in place. A few ridicilously wealthy dudes with ridicilously wealthy parents who get to tell the rest what to do.
I could apply the same argument to racial minorities: If we just sterilised all the browns then in a hundred years none of us superior blue eyed blondes would have to worry about a world where racial prejudice existed. What a marvellous solution!
Wait no, it's horrifying and so is your proposed Brave New World of facial conformity.
I'd prefer we just all fuck a bunch until we're a nice olive color all round
I am intrigued with your ideas and wish to subscribe to your journal.
I could apply the same argument to racial minorities: If we just sterilised all the browns then in a hundred years none of us superior blue eyed blondes would have to worry about a world where racial prejudice existed. What a marvellous solution!
Wait no, it's horrifying and so is your proposed Brave New World of facial conformity.
First, this is all highly theoretical because the technology to perform these types of genetic manipulations simply does not exist. But if it did, and instead of sterilizing people we just genetically manipulated all new children to be a single skin color, would that really be a problem? I don't think there is any more inherent value in skin color diversity than diversity of eye color.
It would be wrong because it's essentially putting a band aid on an issue. The underlying issue is that a small cross section of the population are severely intolerant of characteristics that are arbitrary. If you simply try to eliminate the characteristic your doing nothing to change underlying behavior or thinking. They'll simply latch onto a different set of characteristics they identify with to reward and punish groups of their choosing.
2000 years ago, "civilised" Romans were engaged in Cripps vs Bloods style gang warfare over who supported which fucking chariot team in the Hippodrome.
I could apply the same argument to racial minorities: If we just sterilised all the browns then in a hundred years none of us superior blue eyed blondes would have to worry about a world where racial prejudice existed. What a marvellous solution!
Wait no, it's horrifying and so is your proposed Brave New World of facial conformity.
First, this is all highly theoretical because the technology to perform these types of genetic manipulations simply does not exist. But if it did, and instead of sterilizing people we just genetically manipulated all new children to be a single skin color, would that really be a problem? I don't think there is any more inherent value in skin color diversity than diversity of eye color.
It's a problem because you're defining those being discriminated against as the problem, rather than the urge to discriminate. The logical endpoint of your argument is to have the entire population of humanity to share a single identically expressed genome. I hope you'll forgive my hopeless idealism when I say that I'd prefer a slightly more interesting future.
I'm assuming that SKFM is attempting to lead a Socratic dialogue to that conclusion, but I believe the essential flaw in his reasoning is exposed in my post above yours.
The essential flaw is that eugenics is crackpot bullshit abandoned back sometime around Harry Truman dropping the A-bomb. Your reasoning is just icing on the cake.
But if it did, and instead of sterilizing people we just genetically manipulated all new children to be a single skin color, would that really be a problem?
I could apply the same argument to racial minorities: If we just sterilised all the browns then in a hundred years none of us superior blue eyed blondes would have to worry about a world where racial prejudice existed. What a marvellous solution!
Wait no, it's horrifying and so is your proposed Brave New World of facial conformity.
First, this is all highly theoretical because the technology to perform these types of genetic manipulations simply does not exist. But if it did, and instead of sterilizing people we just genetically manipulated all new children to be a single skin color, would that really be a problem? I don't think there is any more inherent value in skin color diversity than diversity of eye color.
It would be wrong because it's essentially putting a band aid on an issue. The underlying issue is that a small cross section of the population are severely intolerant of characteristics that are arbitrary. If you simply try to eliminate the characteristic your doing nothing to change underlying behavior or thinking. They'll simply latch onto a different set of characteristics they identify with to reward and punish groups of their choosing.
2000 years ago, "civilised" Romans were engaged in Cripps vs Bloods style gang warfare over who supported which fucking chariot team in the Hippodrome.
Don't undersell it: those fans' riots brought down emperors.
I could apply the same argument to racial minorities: If we just sterilised all the browns then in a hundred years none of us superior blue eyed blondes would have to worry about a world where racial prejudice existed. What a marvellous solution!
Wait no, it's horrifying and so is your proposed Brave New World of facial conformity.
First, this is all highly theoretical because the technology to perform these types of genetic manipulations simply does not exist. But if it did, and instead of sterilizing people we just genetically manipulated all new children to be a single skin color, would that really be a problem? I don't think there is any more inherent value in skin color diversity than diversity of eye color.
It would be wrong because it's essentially putting a band aid on an issue. The underlying issue is that a small cross section of the population are severely intolerant of characteristics that are arbitrary. If you simply try to eliminate the characteristic your doing nothing to change underlying behavior or thinking. They'll simply latch onto a different set of characteristics they identify with to reward and punish groups of their choosing.
2000 years ago, "civilised" Romans were engaged in Cripps vs Bloods style gang warfare over who supported which fucking chariot team in the Hippodrome.
That's actually my point. You can eliminate race and people will still have battles over issues that are arbitrary. So getting rid of race obviously is not the answer. Though, I would like to get rid of race as a concept, it's quite an arbitrary social construct.
The real answer is education, it won't fix everything magically overnight, but it's the best, most practical solution to the problems we have.
Additionally we need a revival of the community. Americans are extremely disconnected from their neighbors (both literally, and figuratively), which makes it really easy for us to be ignorant about problems that "other" groups of people face.
I could apply the same argument to racial minorities: If we just sterilised all the browns then in a hundred years none of us superior blue eyed blondes would have to worry about a world where racial prejudice existed. What a marvellous solution!
Wait no, it's horrifying and so is your proposed Brave New World of facial conformity.
First, this is all highly theoretical because the technology to perform these types of genetic manipulations simply does not exist. But if it did, and instead of sterilizing people we just genetically manipulated all new children to be a single skin color, would that really be a problem? I don't think there is any more inherent value in skin color diversity than diversity of eye color.
It would be wrong because it's essentially putting a band aid on an issue. The underlying issue is that a small cross section of the population are severely intolerant of characteristics that are arbitrary. If you simply try to eliminate the characteristic your doing nothing to change underlying behavior or thinking. They'll simply latch onto a different set of characteristics they identify with to reward and punish groups of their choosing.
2000 years ago, "civilised" Romans were engaged in Cripps vs Bloods style gang warfare over who supported which fucking chariot team in the Hippodrome.
That's actually my point. You can eliminate race and people will still have battles over issues that are arbitrary. So getting rid of race obviously is not the answer. Though, I would like to get rid of race as a concept, it's quite an arbitrary social construct.
The real answer is education, it won't fix everything magically overnight, but it's the best, most practical solution to the problems we have.
Additionally we need a revival of the community. Americans are extremely disconnected from their neighbors (both literally, and figuratively), which makes it really easy for us to be ignorant about problems that "other" groups of people face.
I don't know either of my neighbors' names, but I'm happy to discuss political philosophy with you, my brother, even though you live several thousand miles away.
I could apply the same argument to racial minorities: If we just sterilised all the browns then in a hundred years none of us superior blue eyed blondes would have to worry about a world where racial prejudice existed. What a marvellous solution!
Wait no, it's horrifying and so is your proposed Brave New World of facial conformity.
First, this is all highly theoretical because the technology to perform these types of genetic manipulations simply does not exist. But if it did, and instead of sterilizing people we just genetically manipulated all new children to be a single skin color, would that really be a problem? I don't think there is any more inherent value in skin color diversity than diversity of eye color.
It would be wrong because it's essentially putting a band aid on an issue. The underlying issue is that a small cross section of the population are severely intolerant of characteristics that are arbitrary. If you simply try to eliminate the characteristic your doing nothing to change underlying behavior or thinking. They'll simply latch onto a different set of characteristics they identify with to reward and punish groups of their choosing.
2000 years ago, "civilised" Romans were engaged in Cripps vs Bloods style gang warfare over who supported which fucking chariot team in the Hippodrome.
That's actually my point. You can eliminate race and people will still have battles over issues that are arbitrary. So getting rid of race obviously is not the answer. Though, I would like to get rid of race as a concept, it's quite an arbitrary social construct.
The real answer is education, it won't fix everything magically overnight, but it's the best, most practical solution to the problems we have.
Additionally we need a revival of the community. Americans are extremely disconnected from their neighbors (both literally, and figuratively), which makes it really easy for us to be ignorant about problems that "other" groups of people face.
I don't know either of my neighbors' names, but I'm happy to discuss political philosophy with you, my brother, even though you live several thousand miles away.
So, you think that because we can have a conversation over thousands of miles away (even though for all you know I might be your next door neighbor), we do not have a need for geographical communities that fill the social needs of the people that live in them?
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it's really hard to tell what your trying to say.
I'm assuming that SKFM is attempting to lead a Socratic dialogue to that conclusion, but I believe the essential flaw in his reasoning is exposed in my post above yours.
If we have the power in the future to choose the best genes from two parents or even to create a genome whole sale, why wouldn't we always choose the "best" genes that we could. Is diversity of intelligence, health, eye color or skin color of any inherent value? Shouldnt we want everyone to start out with every physical advantage we give them? If not, then why?
I'm assuming that SKFM is attempting to lead a Socratic dialogue to that conclusion, but I believe the essential flaw in his reasoning is exposed in my post above yours.
If we have the power in the future to choose the best genes from two parents or even to create a genome whole sale, why wouldn't we always choose the "best" genes that we could. Is diversity of intelligence, health, eye color or skin color of any inherent value? Shouldnt we want everyone to start out with every physical advantage we give them? If not, then why?
Because this was disproven around the timee Nazi's were still a world threat. If something being bullshit for 70 years isn't enough to convince you, it's not worth the argument.
As per page 1, how does one define "best" to the satisfaction of all without sounding like a tinpot fascist, and probably a sexual fetishist to boot?
I would say that the lesson of history is that diversity (and the consequent flexibility) is a strong survival characteristic. Churchill called the English "A mongrel race"; I am happy with that description, as should you be content to be part of the melting pot. Societies that strive for homogeneity and conformity have generally proved to be brittle and fragile in the end.
Again, the question resolves to: do we see diversity as the problem, or do we see coping with diversity as the problem. Your proposal cuts the Gordian Knot, but doesn't provide the final solution to a tangled issue.
The idea of there being "best genes" has been dis-proven as far as a great deal of the scientific community is concerned. A lot of scientists, and many government agencies spent a lot of time very seriously trying to determine whether or not we could genetically engineer "super soldiers," it turns out genes don't work like that. The role of culture, education, and a whole bunch of things about peoples childhoods that cannot be controlled play a far bigger role in an individuals success or failure.
To be more specific, it was found out that genes don't do one thing. They do a lot of things and each gene affects a wide variety of other genes and how they interact with each other. Also, a lot of genes play a different role depending on environmental triggers. Like, some genes will only become active and do the things that they do if certain environmental circumstances are met. There is so much variability within genetics that people in the field do not believe there can be one best set of genes. There may be a set of genes that seems really good for a particular environment or way of living, but then when you realize that environments tend to change over time, you start to realize that the idea of "best genes" is highly context dependent.
As per page 1, how does one define "best" to the satisfaction of all without sounding like a tinpot fascist, and probably a sexual fetishist to boot?
I would say that the lesson of history is that diversity (and the consequent flexibility) is a strong survival characteristic. Churchill called the English "A mongrel race"; I am happy with that description, as should you be content to be part of the melting pot. Societies that strive for homogeneity and conformity have generally proved to be brittle and fragile in the end.
The idea of there being "best genes" has been dis-proven as far as a great deal of the scientific community is concerned. A lot of scientists, and many government agencies spent a lot of time very seriously trying to determine whether or not we could genetically engineer "super soldiers," it turns out genes don't work like that. The role of culture, education, and a whole bunch of things about peoples childhoods that cannot be controlled play a far bigger role in an individuals success or failure.
...
Cantelope, good points all, but this is what I was getting at with V1m earlier. It's like if someone asked "Why is Communism is such a bad idea?" If that fact that it's killed tens of millions of people and has never been implemented successfully isn't enough of an answer for someone, getting into the nitty gritty of details (such as by not rewarding creators it deincentivzes further advancements) is just wasting your time.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
As per page 1, how does one define "best" to the satisfaction of all without sounding like a tinpot fascist, and probably a sexual fetishist to boot?
I would say that the lesson of history is that diversity (and the consequent flexibility) is a strong survival characteristic. Churchill called the English "A mongrel race"; I am happy with that description, as should you be content to be part of the melting pot. Societies that strive for homogeneity and conformity have generally proved to be brittle and fragile in the end.
The idea of there being "best genes" has been dis-proven as far as a great deal of the scientific community is concerned. A lot of scientists, and many government agencies spent a lot of time very seriously trying to determine whether or not we could genetically engineer "super soldiers," it turns out genes don't work like that. The role of culture, education, and a whole bunch of things about peoples childhoods that cannot be controlled play a far bigger role in an individuals success or failure.
...
Cantelope, good points all, but this is what I was getting at with V1m earlier. It's like if someone asked "Why is Communism is such a bad idea?" If that fact that it's killed tens of millions of people and has never been implemented successfully isn't enough of an answer for someone, getting into the nitty gritty of details (such as by not rewarding creators it deincentivzes further advancements) is just wasting your time.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
You can't negate an idea by saying "bad people also had a similiar idea."
I have a concrete example of a "best gene" scenario. Eliminating Trisomy 21. There is no argument I am aware of that we are better off having some people have it, and so it would be a big increase for equality and utility if we used future genetic science to eliminate it. Actually, all genetic abnormalities fall into this category. There is no reason to have people with 3 or 1 copies of any gene, and if we could prevent this, we would definetly be increasing societal equality. There are also genetic diseases unrelated to chromosome numbers like Tay Sachs or Huntingtons which we could eliminate. Clearly, genes which do not cause you to have a terrible, life ruining disease or put you at an intelligence disadvantage for life are better.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
Because this was disproven around the timee Nazi's were still a world threat. If something being bullshit for 70 years isn't enough to convince you, it's not worth the argument.
It amusing you pick and choose arguments to support your view and yet claim you're intellectually honest. LMAO.
As per page 1, how does one define "best" to the satisfaction of all without sounding like a tinpot fascist, and probably a sexual fetishist to boot?
I would say that the lesson of history is that diversity (and the consequent flexibility) is a strong survival characteristic. Churchill called the English "A mongrel race"; I am happy with that description, as should you be content to be part of the melting pot. Societies that strive for homogeneity and conformity have generally proved to be brittle and fragile in the end.
The idea of there being "best genes" has been dis-proven as far as a great deal of the scientific community is concerned. A lot of scientists, and many government agencies spent a lot of time very seriously trying to determine whether or not we could genetically engineer "super soldiers," it turns out genes don't work like that. The role of culture, education, and a whole bunch of things about peoples childhoods that cannot be controlled play a far bigger role in an individuals success or failure.
...
Cantelope, good points all, but this is what I was getting at with V1m earlier. It's like if someone asked "Why is Communism is such a bad idea?" If that fact that it's killed tens of millions of people and has never been implemented successfully isn't enough of an answer for someone, getting into the nitty gritty of details (such as by not rewarding creators it deincentivzes further advancements) is just wasting your time.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
You can't negate an idea by saying "bad people also had a similiar idea."
I have a concrete example of a "best gene" scenario. Eliminating Trisomy 21. There is no argument I am aware of that we are better off having some people have it, and so it would be a big increase for equality and utility if we used future genetic science to eliminate it. Actually, all genetic abnormalities fall into this category. There is no reason to have people with 3 or 1 copies of any gene, and if we could prevent this, we would definetly be increasing societal equality. There are also genetic diseases unrelated to chromosome numbers like Tay Sachs or Huntingtons which we could eliminate. Clearly, genes which do not cause you to have a terrible, life ruining disease or put you at an intelligence disadvantage for life are better.
Saying that we should try to use genetics to ensure that no one is born or has to live with a debilitation disorder is completely different from saying that everyone should be born with a set of genes that makes them similar and is considered ideal.
I think it can be useful as a way of stripping the status quo out of the question of what inequalities we are comfortable living with and which we really see as important.
I agree that it makes sense to discern what inequalities we care about. However, I think we also need to keep in mind that reality is fundamentally unequal. When we try to construct systems of equality, we are striving against reality, itself.
Hobbes thought that all persons were equal insofar as they could all smash each other's skulls with rocks in their sleep. However, that isn't actually the case. Even if we reduce down to "We can all kill each other" there are still varying levels of skull smashing prowess.
I think it's nice to imagine a world of financial equality, of social equality, a world wherein everyone can have what they need, and sometimes get what they want.
Unfortunately, we do not live in that world. There are a finite number of peaches. Not everyone can have a peach every day. So we have peach inequality, steak inequality, yacht inequality, height inequality, athletic inequality, etc. We compete. In some sense, equality is an absences of competition.
Which, again, is not how reality functions.
I understand that persons like notion of equality. However, I think persons need to keep in mind that our notions of equality fundamentally conflict with the reality in which we live.
The conversation about equality can easily be reduced down to a conversation about desires, hopes, and ideals. It's a discussion over the tension between what we want and what we have.
TL;DR
Inequality isn't a problem we introduced, a dilemma of our own creation.
Rather, equality is the social construct. Justice and fairness are the notions we fabricated; that's the shit we made up.
It behooves us to keep that in mind.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
Because this was disproven around the timee Nazi's were still a world threat. If something being bullshit for 70 years isn't enough to convince you, it's not worth the argument.
It amusing you pick and choose arguments to support your view and yet claim you're intellectually honest. LMAO.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. My contention is that we should use advances in technology to promote equality in the most efficient way possible, and that if we can manipulate genes to improve people's starting points that this would be desirable. This is very different from what the Nazi's were doing, but even if it was not, the context is completely different. I think everyone would concede that there is at least a degree of genetic manipulation which would be desirable (eliminating defects). Is this wrong because of Nazi eugenics programs?
As per page 1, how does one define "best" to the satisfaction of all without sounding like a tinpot fascist, and probably a sexual fetishist to boot?
I would say that the lesson of history is that diversity (and the consequent flexibility) is a strong survival characteristic. Churchill called the English "A mongrel race"; I am happy with that description, as should you be content to be part of the melting pot. Societies that strive for homogeneity and conformity have generally proved to be brittle and fragile in the end.
The idea of there being "best genes" has been dis-proven as far as a great deal of the scientific community is concerned. A lot of scientists, and many government agencies spent a lot of time very seriously trying to determine whether or not we could genetically engineer "super soldiers," it turns out genes don't work like that. The role of culture, education, and a whole bunch of things about peoples childhoods that cannot be controlled play a far bigger role in an individuals success or failure.
...
Cantelope, good points all, but this is what I was getting at with V1m earlier. It's like if someone asked "Why is Communism is such a bad idea?" If that fact that it's killed tens of millions of people and has never been implemented successfully isn't enough of an answer for someone, getting into the nitty gritty of details (such as by not rewarding creators it deincentivzes further advancements) is just wasting your time.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
You can't negate an idea by saying "bad people also had a similiar idea."
I have a concrete example of a "best gene" scenario. Eliminating Trisomy 21. There is no argument I am aware of that we are better off having some people have it, and so it would be a big increase for equality and utility if we used future genetic science to eliminate it. Actually, all genetic abnormalities fall into this category. There is no reason to have people with 3 or 1 copies of any gene, and if we could prevent this, we would definetly be increasing societal equality. There are also genetic diseases unrelated to chromosome numbers like Tay Sachs or Huntingtons which we could eliminate. Clearly, genes which do not cause you to have a terrible, life ruining disease or put you at an intelligence disadvantage for life are better.
Saying that we should try to use genetics to ensure that no one is born or has to live with a debilitation disorder is completely different from saying that everyone should be born with a set of genes that makes them similar and is considered ideal.
Well, similiar would just be to the extent that we were able to somehow determine with future science that there is a better combination. If we determined that there was a combination of DNA fragments which reliably resulting in people having high IQs and which did nothing else (or in the alternative, if we developed some pill that could demonstrably boost intelligence) why would we ever choose not to give every person this advantage?
If reality is peach deficient we should produce more peaches. Maybe we can't all have the same number of peaches or a lot of peaches, but everyone should get at least one.
If reality is peach deficient we should produce more peaches. Maybe we can't all have the same number of peaches or a lot of peaches, but everyone should get at least one.
I'm not sure about that.
I get that our ideal is for everyone to have a peach, since we can imagine a world with adequate peaches.
However, it might be keen to get our norms from reality. In reality, not everyone can have a peach. So, maybe that's good.
We're conditioned to imagine things being other than what they are, and finding "goodness" in that realm of imagination.
It's interesting to flip that, sometimes, and try to conceive of what is the case as being good.
Maybe it's good that some people don't get peaches.
I'm against poverty. I think it's something we should do something about. We have the power to make sure no child on the planet goes to bed hungry, instead we ensure that the group at the top with all of the peaches don't have to share, and we've created a system that ensures that it is difficult for other people to grow them.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If reality is peach deficient we should produce more peaches. Maybe we can't all have the same number of peaches or a lot of peaches, but everyone should get at least one.
I'm not sure about that.
I get that our ideal is for everyone to have a peach, since we can imagine a world with adequate peaches.
However, it might be keen to get our norms from reality. In reality, not everyone can have a peach. So, maybe that's good.
We're conditioned to imagine things being other than what they are, and finding "goodness" in that realm of imagination.
It's interesting to flip that, sometimes, and try to conceive of what is the case as being good.
Maybe it's good that some people don't get peaches.
This is an interesting statement. Do you just mean that since the world has scarce resources, it may be better to take those resources and parcel them out in such a way that everyone has what they value? We can imagine a world where everyone starts with one of everything, and then people trade among themselves until Pareto optimally is reached. This may well be a world where some people don't have peaches, because they didn't value them as much as apples or snakes or paper shredders.
I think this example shows one of the key problems with the veil of ignorance. If we strip out our preferences, then we may create a world where people are equal, but could be much happier, since it is a world designed for people without preferences, and those don't exist.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
Because this was disproven around the timee Nazi's were still a world threat. If something being bullshit for 70 years isn't enough to convince you, it's not worth the argument.
It amusing you pick and choose arguments to support your view and yet claim you're intellectually honest. LMAO.
I don't even understand what you are saying here.
You don't understand that I'm showing how you're picking and choosing quotes of mine to paint me in the worst possible light? Really? If you you don't understand that maybe you need to go back to dining at the kiddie table.
If reality is peach deficient we should produce more peaches. Maybe we can't all have the same number of peaches or a lot of peaches, but everyone should get at least one.
I'm not sure about that.
I get that our ideal is for everyone to have a peach, since we can imagine a world with adequate peaches.
However, it might be keen to get our norms from reality. In reality, not everyone can have a peach. So, maybe that's good.
We're conditioned to imagine things being other than what they are, and finding "goodness" in that realm of imagination.
It's interesting to flip that, sometimes, and try to conceive of what is the case as being good.
Maybe it's good that some people don't get peaches.
This is an interesting statement. Do you just mean that since the world has scarce resources, it may be better to take those resources and parcel them out in such a way that everyone has what they value? We can imagine a world where everyone starts with one of everything, and then people trade among themselves until Pareto optimally is reached. This may well be a world where some people don't have peaches, because they didn't value them as much as apples or snakes or paper shredders.
I think this example shows one of the key problems with the veil of ignorance. If we strip out our preferences, then we may create a world where people are equal, but could be much happier, since it is a world designed for people without preferences, and those don't exist.
Generally, persons think "equality = good" and "inequality = bad". Equality is good because...well...equality is good.
Given that reality is not equal, we need to articulate why "equality = good" is a sensible position. We're arguing for things to be other than how they are, and generally those sorts of arguments require reasons.
I can point to the world right now as one in which not everyone has a peach.
When someone maintains that situation to be "bad", they need an argument for why it is bad.
We don't need to argue for things to stay the same. We need arguments for why things ought to change.
So, the idea is for persons to think about why reality's fundamental status of inequality is bad, given that it's the fundamental way things be.
It's an important question because the answer indicates the sort of equalities and inequalities we ought to care about.
Example:
Inequality is bad because inequality results in suffering.
Well, that means that the problem is not "inequality" so much as the problem is "suffering". If this is the case, then we can discern whether or not an inequality of peaches actually causes suffering. If so, it makes sense to care. If not, then it doesn't seem like a problem.
An inequality of yachts doesn't cause much suffering, so etc.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
Because this was disproven around the timee Nazi's were still a world threat. If something being bullshit for 70 years isn't enough to convince you, it's not worth the argument.
It amusing you pick and choose arguments to support your view and yet claim you're intellectually honest. LMAO.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. My contention is that we should use advances in technology to promote equality in the most efficient way possible, and that if we can manipulate genes to improve people's starting points that this would be desirable. This is very different from what the Nazi's were doing, but even if it was not, the context is completely different. I think everyone would concede that there is at least a degree of genetic manipulation which would be desirable (eliminating defects). Is this wrong because of Nazi eugenics programs?
As per page 1, how does one define "best" to the satisfaction of all without sounding like a tinpot fascist, and probably a sexual fetishist to boot?
I would say that the lesson of history is that diversity (and the consequent flexibility) is a strong survival characteristic. Churchill called the English "A mongrel race"; I am happy with that description, as should you be content to be part of the melting pot. Societies that strive for homogeneity and conformity have generally proved to be brittle and fragile in the end.
The idea of there being "best genes" has been dis-proven as far as a great deal of the scientific community is concerned. A lot of scientists, and many government agencies spent a lot of time very seriously trying to determine whether or not we could genetically engineer "super soldiers," it turns out genes don't work like that. The role of culture, education, and a whole bunch of things about peoples childhoods that cannot be controlled play a far bigger role in an individuals success or failure.
...
Cantelope, good points all, but this is what I was getting at with V1m earlier. It's like if someone asked "Why is Communism is such a bad idea?" If that fact that it's killed tens of millions of people and has never been implemented successfully isn't enough of an answer for someone, getting into the nitty gritty of details (such as by not rewarding creators it deincentivzes further advancements) is just wasting your time.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
You can't negate an idea by saying "bad people also had a similiar idea."
I have a concrete example of a "best gene" scenario. Eliminating Trisomy 21. There is no argument I am aware of that we are better off having some people have it, and so it would be a big increase for equality and utility if we used future genetic science to eliminate it. Actually, all genetic abnormalities fall into this category. There is no reason to have people with 3 or 1 copies of any gene, and if we could prevent this, we would definetly be increasing societal equality. There are also genetic diseases unrelated to chromosome numbers like Tay Sachs or Huntingtons which we could eliminate. Clearly, genes which do not cause you to have a terrible, life ruining disease or put you at an intelligence disadvantage for life are better.
Saying that we should try to use genetics to ensure that no one is born or has to live with a debilitation disorder is completely different from saying that everyone should be born with a set of genes that makes them similar and is considered ideal.
Well, similiar would just be to the extent that we were able to somehow determine with future science that there is a better combination. If we determined that there was a combination of DNA fragments which reliably resulting in people having high IQs and which did nothing else (or in the alternative, if we developed some pill that could demonstrably boost intelligence) why would we ever choose not to give every person this advantage?
The formation of intelligence is a kinda complicated thting. It is a bunch of different trait which are kinda related but distinct. If you find a genetic code sequence that causes one area that cause scores on IQ tests to improve that is going to make everyone good at one particular mode of, thought. It is very hard to tell what that is replacing. Diversity is good.
I mean, do you think humanity would be served by a genetic cure for dyslexia? Or autism? Or schizophrenia?
It is very hard to say there is a right way to go about forming a mind, when it is the exception ones that contribute so much to art, science and technology.
I would look down a hypothetical smart pill for the same reasons, but if you want to look at this stuff from the nurture side of things, we can do something similar. If we make sure kids are well fed and raised in nurturing, stimulating environments and educated in schools that meet their individual needs, well, we get generally smarter people who are more able to contribute to society. The great thing about that is it's the sort of equity we can work towards now.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If reality is peach deficient we should produce more peaches. Maybe we can't all have the same number of peaches or a lot of peaches, but everyone should get at least one.
I'm not sure about that.
I get that our ideal is for everyone to have a peach, since we can imagine a world with adequate peaches.
However, it might be keen to get our norms from reality. In reality, not everyone can have a peach. So, maybe that's good.
We're conditioned to imagine things being other than what they are, and finding "goodness" in that realm of imagination.
It's interesting to flip that, sometimes, and try to conceive of what is the case as being good.
Maybe it's good that some people don't get peaches.
This is an interesting statement. Do you just mean that since the world has scarce resources, it may be better to take those resources and parcel them out in such a way that everyone has what they value? We can imagine a world where everyone starts with one of everything, and then people trade among themselves until Pareto optimally is reached. This may well be a world where some people don't have peaches, because they didn't value them as much as apples or snakes or paper shredders.
I think this example shows one of the key problems with the veil of ignorance. If we strip out our preferences, then we may create a world where people are equal, but could be much happier, since it is a world designed for people without preferences, and those don't exist.
Generally, persons think "equality = good" and "inequality = bad". Equality is good because...well...equality is good.
Given that reality is not equal, we need to articulate why "equality = good" is a sensible position. We're arguing for things to be other than how they are, and generally those sorts of arguments require reasons.
I can point to the world right now as one in which not everyone has a peach.
When someone maintains that situation to be "bad", they need an argument for why it is bad.
We don't need to argue for things to stay the same. We need arguments for why things ought to change.
So, the idea is for persons to think about why reality's fundamental status of inequality is bad, given that it's the fundamental way things be.
Why is equality good?
Awesome! Now I'm not the only person on the boards taking this position
I think that there are a number of arguments for why equality is good. The declining marginal utility of money means that we get more value out of money by giving money to the poor than the rich, and this means we eventually reach a state of greater equality just from maximizing our resource of money to distribute. I also think equality is worth striving for because a society where some people reap all the benefits of our society and other barely do ultimately weakens the fabric of society, since the people who are constrained by the rules but not benefiting from them will have fewer reasons to follow them, and the net result of this behavior is a drop in overall utility since we need to spend more time and resources defending ourselves and our property from rule breakers.
This is why the argument becoming one of genetics in favor of a world where we have no more jockeys or basketball players because as Mitt Romney says, everyone is "The right height" is asinine.
It's also why phrasing the question that way doesn't work. A better question is "Why is equality better?"
If reality is peach deficient we should produce more peaches. Maybe we can't all have the same number of peaches or a lot of peaches, but everyone should get at least one.
I'm not sure about that.
I get that our ideal is for everyone to have a peach, since we can imagine a world with adequate peaches.
However, it might be keen to get our norms from reality. In reality, not everyone can have a peach. So, maybe that's good.
We're conditioned to imagine things being other than what they are, and finding "goodness" in that realm of imagination.
It's interesting to flip that, sometimes, and try to conceive of what is the case as being good.
Maybe it's good that some people don't get peaches.
This is an interesting statement. Do you just mean that since the world has scarce resources, it may be better to take those resources and parcel them out in such a way that everyone has what they value? We can imagine a world where everyone starts with one of everything, and then people trade among themselves until Pareto optimally is reached. This may well be a world where some people don't have peaches, because they didn't value them as much as apples or snakes or paper shredders.
I think this example shows one of the key problems with the veil of ignorance. If we strip out our preferences, then we may create a world where people are equal, but could be much happier, since it is a world designed for people without preferences, and those don't exist.
Generally, persons think "equality = good" and "inequality = bad". Equality is good because...well...equality is good.
Given that reality is not equal, we need to articulate why "equality = good" is a sensible position. We're arguing for things to be other than how they are, and generally those sorts of arguments require reasons.
I can point to the world right now as one in which not everyone has a peach.
When someone maintains that situation to be "bad", they need an argument for why it is bad.
We don't need to argue for things to stay the same. We need arguments for why things ought to change.
So, the idea is for persons to think about why reality's fundamental status of inequality is bad, given that it's the fundamental way things be.
Why is equality good?
Awesome! Now I'm not the only person on the boards taking this position
I think that there are a number of arguments for why equality is good. The declining marginal utility of money means that we get more value out of money by giving money to the poor than the rich, and this means we eventually reach a state of greater equality just from maximizing our resource of money to distribute. I also think equality is worth striving for because a society where some people reap all the benefits of our society and other barely do ultimately weakens the fabric of society, since the people who are constrained by the rules but not benefiting from them will have fewer reasons to follow them, and the net result of this behavior is a drop in overall utility since we need to spend more time and resources defending ourselves and our property from rule breakers.
You seem to be saying that we need things to be more equal (not "actually equal", but "more equal") in order to quash poor people's desire to steal our peaches.
Posts
There are large numbers of people of different races that are strongly against marrying outside their race. This phenomenon is not exclusive to a small portion of white people.
Also, it really doesn't matter what regular people do in this regard that much. The opportunity holders, the ones that get to choose whether or not to discriminate based on race are going to be the employers. So if the employers in large numbers either like a certain race or are of a certain race then we will still have the same problem.
I've worked at businesses that don't have an official policy, but they have preferred races and nationalities for jobs. For example, if your Russian you are more likely to get hired for a white collar job at one of the firm's I've worked for. Why? Because the manager believes that Russians are harder working than other groups of white people, and get this, the manager is not Russian!
Large disparities in wealth and income are each associated with a lot of social ills including crime, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, infectious diseases, and drug addiction.
Extreme income disparity is also a cyclical cause of poor economic performance.
I'm pretty sure I've talked about this on here recently. I have links I can dig up and post if you want citations.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Part of it is also marginal utility.
"More equal" tends to mean making things slightly better for the downtrodden. If you lack food and shelter, giving you food and shelter is a huge increase in quality of life. If you have caviar and need to downgrade to very good steak there's not a fuck of a lot of change.
I'm not utilitarian in many instances, but it isn't hard to see how making the worst-off better off makes your society more likely to create good outcomes, even if the very best of the best outcomes are slightly less wonderful.
Also frankly, large income disparities just mean things get shittier for everyone. Like, sure if you're a billionaire you can buy most anything, but like... say you enjoy music or watercolors or games or poetry or something. You can't be a patron to "all the arts". It's a hell of a lot simpler to make sure that people aren't condemned to death if they don't hustle 24/7, and get the benefit of a more cosmopolitan society as a side effect.
I am intrigued with your ideas and wish to subscribe to your journal.
2000 years ago, "civilised" Romans were engaged in Cripps vs Bloods style gang warfare over who supported which fucking chariot team in the Hippodrome.
It's a problem because you're defining those being discriminated against as the problem, rather than the urge to discriminate. The logical endpoint of your argument is to have the entire population of humanity to share a single identically expressed genome. I hope you'll forgive my hopeless idealism when I say that I'd prefer a slightly more interesting future.
Yes, it would.
Don't undersell it: those fans' riots brought down emperors.
That's actually my point. You can eliminate race and people will still have battles over issues that are arbitrary. So getting rid of race obviously is not the answer. Though, I would like to get rid of race as a concept, it's quite an arbitrary social construct.
The real answer is education, it won't fix everything magically overnight, but it's the best, most practical solution to the problems we have.
Additionally we need a revival of the community. Americans are extremely disconnected from their neighbors (both literally, and figuratively), which makes it really easy for us to be ignorant about problems that "other" groups of people face.
I don't know either of my neighbors' names, but I'm happy to discuss political philosophy with you, my brother, even though you live several thousand miles away.
So, you think that because we can have a conversation over thousands of miles away (even though for all you know I might be your next door neighbor), we do not have a need for geographical communities that fill the social needs of the people that live in them?
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it's really hard to tell what your trying to say.
If we have the power in the future to choose the best genes from two parents or even to create a genome whole sale, why wouldn't we always choose the "best" genes that we could. Is diversity of intelligence, health, eye color or skin color of any inherent value? Shouldnt we want everyone to start out with every physical advantage we give them? If not, then why?
Because this was disproven around the timee Nazi's were still a world threat. If something being bullshit for 70 years isn't enough to convince you, it's not worth the argument.
I would say that the lesson of history is that diversity (and the consequent flexibility) is a strong survival characteristic. Churchill called the English "A mongrel race"; I am happy with that description, as should you be content to be part of the melting pot. Societies that strive for homogeneity and conformity have generally proved to be brittle and fragile in the end.
Again, the question resolves to: do we see diversity as the problem, or do we see coping with diversity as the problem. Your proposal cuts the Gordian Knot, but doesn't provide the final solution to a tangled issue.
To be more specific, it was found out that genes don't do one thing. They do a lot of things and each gene affects a wide variety of other genes and how they interact with each other. Also, a lot of genes play a different role depending on environmental triggers. Like, some genes will only become active and do the things that they do if certain environmental circumstances are met. There is so much variability within genetics that people in the field do not believe there can be one best set of genes. There may be a set of genes that seems really good for a particular environment or way of living, but then when you realize that environments tend to change over time, you start to realize that the idea of "best genes" is highly context dependent.
For the win.
Cantelope, good points all, but this is what I was getting at with V1m earlier. It's like if someone asked "Why is Communism is such a bad idea?" If that fact that it's killed tens of millions of people and has never been implemented successfully isn't enough of an answer for someone, getting into the nitty gritty of details (such as by not rewarding creators it deincentivzes further advancements) is just wasting your time.
If the idea that "You're promoting bullshit the Nazis thought was smart" isn't enough, it's not worth your time as a human being arguing against it anymore.
You can't negate an idea by saying "bad people also had a similiar idea."
I have a concrete example of a "best gene" scenario. Eliminating Trisomy 21. There is no argument I am aware of that we are better off having some people have it, and so it would be a big increase for equality and utility if we used future genetic science to eliminate it. Actually, all genetic abnormalities fall into this category. There is no reason to have people with 3 or 1 copies of any gene, and if we could prevent this, we would definetly be increasing societal equality. There are also genetic diseases unrelated to chromosome numbers like Tay Sachs or Huntingtons which we could eliminate. Clearly, genes which do not cause you to have a terrible, life ruining disease or put you at an intelligence disadvantage for life are better.
I'm not, and bad show at claiming I was.
It amusing you pick and choose arguments to support your view and yet claim you're intellectually honest. LMAO.
Saying that we should try to use genetics to ensure that no one is born or has to live with a debilitation disorder is completely different from saying that everyone should be born with a set of genes that makes them similar and is considered ideal.
I agree that it makes sense to discern what inequalities we care about. However, I think we also need to keep in mind that reality is fundamentally unequal. When we try to construct systems of equality, we are striving against reality, itself.
Hobbes thought that all persons were equal insofar as they could all smash each other's skulls with rocks in their sleep. However, that isn't actually the case. Even if we reduce down to "We can all kill each other" there are still varying levels of skull smashing prowess.
I think it's nice to imagine a world of financial equality, of social equality, a world wherein everyone can have what they need, and sometimes get what they want.
Unfortunately, we do not live in that world. There are a finite number of peaches. Not everyone can have a peach every day. So we have peach inequality, steak inequality, yacht inequality, height inequality, athletic inequality, etc. We compete. In some sense, equality is an absences of competition.
Which, again, is not how reality functions.
I understand that persons like notion of equality. However, I think persons need to keep in mind that our notions of equality fundamentally conflict with the reality in which we live.
The conversation about equality can easily be reduced down to a conversation about desires, hopes, and ideals. It's a discussion over the tension between what we want and what we have.
TL;DR
Inequality isn't a problem we introduced, a dilemma of our own creation.
Rather, equality is the social construct. Justice and fairness are the notions we fabricated; that's the shit we made up.
It behooves us to keep that in mind.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. My contention is that we should use advances in technology to promote equality in the most efficient way possible, and that if we can manipulate genes to improve people's starting points that this would be desirable. This is very different from what the Nazi's were doing, but even if it was not, the context is completely different. I think everyone would concede that there is at least a degree of genetic manipulation which would be desirable (eliminating defects). Is this wrong because of Nazi eugenics programs?
Well, similiar would just be to the extent that we were able to somehow determine with future science that there is a better combination. If we determined that there was a combination of DNA fragments which reliably resulting in people having high IQs and which did nothing else (or in the alternative, if we developed some pill that could demonstrably boost intelligence) why would we ever choose not to give every person this advantage?
I'm not sure about that.
I get that our ideal is for everyone to have a peach, since we can imagine a world with adequate peaches.
However, it might be keen to get our norms from reality. In reality, not everyone can have a peach. So, maybe that's good.
We're conditioned to imagine things being other than what they are, and finding "goodness" in that realm of imagination.
It's interesting to flip that, sometimes, and try to conceive of what is the case as being good.
Maybe it's good that some people don't get peaches.
This is an interesting statement. Do you just mean that since the world has scarce resources, it may be better to take those resources and parcel them out in such a way that everyone has what they value? We can imagine a world where everyone starts with one of everything, and then people trade among themselves until Pareto optimally is reached. This may well be a world where some people don't have peaches, because they didn't value them as much as apples or snakes or paper shredders.
I think this example shows one of the key problems with the veil of ignorance. If we strip out our preferences, then we may create a world where people are equal, but could be much happier, since it is a world designed for people without preferences, and those don't exist.
You don't understand that I'm showing how you're picking and choosing quotes of mine to paint me in the worst possible light? Really? If you you don't understand that maybe you need to go back to dining at the kiddie table.
Generally, persons think "equality = good" and "inequality = bad". Equality is good because...well...equality is good.
Given that reality is not equal, we need to articulate why "equality = good" is a sensible position. We're arguing for things to be other than how they are, and generally those sorts of arguments require reasons.
I can point to the world right now as one in which not everyone has a peach.
When someone maintains that situation to be "bad", they need an argument for why it is bad.
We don't need to argue for things to stay the same. We need arguments for why things ought to change.
So, the idea is for persons to think about why reality's fundamental status of inequality is bad, given that it's the fundamental way things be.
Why is equality good?
Example:
Inequality is bad because inequality results in suffering.
Well, that means that the problem is not "inequality" so much as the problem is "suffering". If this is the case, then we can discern whether or not an inequality of peaches actually causes suffering. If so, it makes sense to care. If not, then it doesn't seem like a problem.
An inequality of yachts doesn't cause much suffering, so etc.
The formation of intelligence is a kinda complicated thting. It is a bunch of different trait which are kinda related but distinct. If you find a genetic code sequence that causes one area that cause scores on IQ tests to improve that is going to make everyone good at one particular mode of, thought. It is very hard to tell what that is replacing. Diversity is good.
I mean, do you think humanity would be served by a genetic cure for dyslexia? Or autism? Or schizophrenia?
It is very hard to say there is a right way to go about forming a mind, when it is the exception ones that contribute so much to art, science and technology.
I would look down a hypothetical smart pill for the same reasons, but if you want to look at this stuff from the nurture side of things, we can do something similar. If we make sure kids are well fed and raised in nurturing, stimulating environments and educated in schools that meet their individual needs, well, we get generally smarter people who are more able to contribute to society. The great thing about that is it's the sort of equity we can work towards now.
Awesome! Now I'm not the only person on the boards taking this position
I think that there are a number of arguments for why equality is good. The declining marginal utility of money means that we get more value out of money by giving money to the poor than the rich, and this means we eventually reach a state of greater equality just from maximizing our resource of money to distribute. I also think equality is worth striving for because a society where some people reap all the benefits of our society and other barely do ultimately weakens the fabric of society, since the people who are constrained by the rules but not benefiting from them will have fewer reasons to follow them, and the net result of this behavior is a drop in overall utility since we need to spend more time and resources defending ourselves and our property from rule breakers.
This is why the argument becoming one of genetics in favor of a world where we have no more jockeys or basketball players because as Mitt Romney says, everyone is "The right height" is asinine.
It's also why phrasing the question that way doesn't work. A better question is "Why is equality better?"
I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction here without some elaboration.
You seem to be saying that we need things to be more equal (not "actually equal", but "more equal") in order to quash poor people's desire to steal our peaches.
Is this correct?