Human and nature

[John K]

What would the other problems be?

One example I can think of - it would make abortion much more complex ethically. It seems to me that the controversy about it hinges on when human life begins. I don’t think many people would agree to killing a person and most people who accept abortion believe they are not doing that. It would complicate this if a fetus can survive outside the womb from conception.

I think it's possible. Maybe if gene modification was a success tho it'd solve it, but to take a genome into our hands is an uncomfortable idea. And would the picture of "best fitted for modern society" change?

I’m not comfortable with us using gene manipulation to solve the problem. There is the law of unintended consequences in all complex situations. And there is the likelihood that at least some will use it to attempt to create a master race - probably ending up with a more subtle version of the Frankenstein story. But you never know - it might be a way out if we can do it well.

I suspect our world is far too unstable and changing for natural selection to keep up. Perhaps it would be really good once (if!) we have cracked the problem of how to live well in balance with nature if things went into a more stable sort of society and economy for a few thousand years?

 

[Cinnamonmints]

One example I can think of - it would make abortion much more complex ethically. It seems to me that the controversy about it hinges on when human life begins. I don’t think many people would agree to killing a person and most people who accept abortion believe they are not doing that. It would complicate this if a fetus can survive outside the womb from conception.

Oh that's true! Yeah I think that's the main disagreement. It'd force people to face facts and perhaps become more responsible. or more stressed.

I suspect our world is far too unstable and changing for natural selection to keep up. Perhaps it would be really good once (if!) we have cracked the problem of how to live well in balance with nature if things went into a more stable sort of society and economy for a few thousand years?

Oof, a few thousand of years of stability, that's a goal.

 

[philostam]

A bit of a different angle on this topic, but I think countries will have huge problems with the biggest generation retiring (boomers).

The pension systems/social security is basically a ponzi scheme. It relies on more now contributors (workers) to fund the existing members who are now retired. And we know that demographic distribution in most of the developed world doesn't look good. And when you attempt keeping the workers in the ponzi scheme longer by extending the retirement age, look what you get in France.

Some things really make you think. Maybe a new deadly virus could do the trick...Or mass euthanasia like they're doing in Canada.

 

[Anemoia]

I tend to find arguments in favour of eugenics and 'concerns' pointing in that direction rather unsubtle and biased by reasoning that lies on very unstable ground.

I think it's worth pointing out that group selection operates on a scale and in a way that people often fail to perceive. Societies that practice eugenics tend to lose in contests with those that do not practice it.

The Allies defeat the Nazis. Authoritarian states in general are bad at war, as we are seeing with Russia today and have seen in the Middle East for a long time.

Why is this? Human beings have been caring for the sick, disabled and elderly for literally hundreds of thousands of years - even in crude utilitarian terms we can never know what kind of adaptive value such people bring in spite of their apparent ailments, but there are other things going on.

Take 'morale' and 'buy in'. We have seen the extremely high morale of democracies in war, for example, because a 'good' society is worth saving. Because its soldiers have bought into the ethic of the system and know that they themselves, or their beloved x, y, z, will not be culled by some arbitrary authority when they have exceeded their 'utility'. By contrast, soldiers driven by coercion tend to have much lower morale.

'Morality' is real and it is adaptive - it is part of the reason why human beings have been so extraordinarily successful. I think the eugenics arguments tend to ignore this in favour of a certain fetishism for symbols of 'strength' that nature does not recognise. E.g. Being tall and heavily muscled is really calorically expensive - useful in a few circumstances, maladaptive in others. Imagine the logistical disadvantage of trying to feed an army (or tribe) of supersoldiers like this. Better to maintain just a few such people in the gene pool - which we see in reality.

Real 'strength' that nature recognises is rarely what people imagine by the word, and real adaptive advantage does not proceed from the purported 'quality' of individuals, but the eusocial qualities of groups.

 

[Cinnamonmints]

A bit of a different angle on this topic, but I think countries will have huge problems with the biggest generation retiring (boomers).

The pension systems/social security is basically a ponzi scheme. It relies on more now contributors (workers) to fund the existing members who are now retired. And we know that demographic distribution in most of the developed world doesn't look good. And when you attempt keeping the workers in the ponzi scheme longer by extending the retirement age, look what you get in France.

Some things really make you think. Maybe a new deadly virus could do the trick...Or mass euthanasia like they're doing in Canada.

Oh what a twist. we have no problems if we have no people. What's going on in Canada?

 

[Cinnamonmints]

I tend to find arguments in favour of eugenics and 'concerns' pointing in that direction rather unsubtle and biased by reasoning that lies on very unstable ground.

Wasn't really talking about eugenics, not in a radical way at least, so not sure why you bring this up?

The Allies defeat the Nazis.

I'm not sure if they lost precisely because they practiced eugenics. Did they?

Human beings have been caring for the sick, disabled and elderly for literally hundreds of thousands of years

I'll take your word that they had, but there were fewer of them than there is now.

 

[philostam]

Oh what a twist. we have no problems if we have no people. What's going on in Canada?

Probably an exaggeration on my part, but I remember some examples where they actively proposed euthanasia as a solution for mentally ill, poor and the like.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...da-promotes-euthanasia-Slammed-dystopian.html

 

[aeon]

I’ve made mention of the demographic inversion before.

Combine a larger elderly cohort with economics which dissuade the young from having children, and set the timer.

Tick tock, and boom, utter fucking chaos to come. As if it isn’t already here, ffs. China will be a real horrorshow.

Cheers,
Ian