4 ms·

How are you going to enforce your eugenics program when a sizeable chunk of the population resists it?

jamesrcole 8y ago
Who said anything about a program enforced on people?? Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal. And, regarding "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program" (emphasis added), grow up.
- snerbles 8y ago
  Changing how people fundamentally think and reason about things is a big deal. Probably the biggest deal out of your suggestions from a societal perspective. Such transformative things will be met with pushback, and if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history. And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Own it.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person Humans are, for example, very poor at making risk assessments. Evolution has "programmed" our brains to focus too much on certain things and not enough on others. These heuristics might have made sense in ancestral environments bit are quite harmful in today's world. Evolution has already "made us think a certain way". Why would it be so horrific to, for example, lessen certain of those tendencies, if they are harmful? The examples I gave are hardly of "Changing how people fundamentally think and reason". > Such transformative things will be met with pushback It certainly could be. There's also what I said in my last comment, about why that's not necessarily so. Which you have ignored. > if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. That is such a ridiculous argument to make in response to what I have said. That is to assume that 1) the governments feel so strongly about it and 2) feel that they need to go to extreme lengths to make their will accepted. There is no reason to think that either of those conditions would be true in the case of DNA modifications like I have talked about. You certainly haven't attempted to argue for it. Your argument could be used against any suggestion. "If such a program of combatting global warming through enforced tax on carbon is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide." See how ridiculous that sounds? > And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Grow up. You said "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program". Show me where I said anything that even implied some sort of 'program' that is 'enforced' upon people, or that I had some sort of plan to do so? Don't try to make it out as if you were saying something else.
- wgjordan 8y ago
  Forcing all humans to think one specific 'rational' way, eliminating all 'cognitive biases' to the contrary is definitely something people resist. Not everyone shares your world-view, value system, etc. And "eugenics" is 'a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population' [1], which is exactly what you're talking about here. There's a reason the term has fallen out of favor since WWII. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    Who said anything about forcing people!?! I literally said "Who said anything about a program enforced on people??" in my previous comment, and yet you seemingly are going out of your way to misrepresent what I'm saying. Who said anything about "Forcing all humans to think one specific 'rational' way, eliminating all 'cognitive biases'", either! Show me anything I wrote that even suggests this. > And "eugenics" is 'a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population' [1], which is exactly what you're talking about here. Show me where I said it wasn't "eugenics". (but there's a big difference between forcing people into it and it being voluntary. There's also a big difference between various alternatives for what the genetic changes are, and I've been very clear about what sorts of things I'm talking about). I'm amazed at the disconnect in this subthread between what I have actually said and what people are claiming I said!

Who said anything about a program enforced on people?? Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal. And, regarding "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program" (emphasis added), grow up.

snerbles 8y ago
Changing how people fundamentally think and reason about things is a big deal. Probably the biggest deal out of your suggestions from a societal perspective. Such transformative things will be met with pushback, and if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history. And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Own it.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person Humans are, for example, very poor at making risk assessments. Evolution has "programmed" our brains to focus too much on certain things and not enough on others. These heuristics might have made sense in ancestral environments bit are quite harmful in today's world. Evolution has already "made us think a certain way". Why would it be so horrific to, for example, lessen certain of those tendencies, if they are harmful? The examples I gave are hardly of "Changing how people fundamentally think and reason". > Such transformative things will be met with pushback It certainly could be. There's also what I said in my last comment, about why that's not necessarily so. Which you have ignored. > if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. That is such a ridiculous argument to make in response to what I have said. That is to assume that 1) the governments feel so strongly about it and 2) feel that they need to go to extreme lengths to make their will accepted. There is no reason to think that either of those conditions would be true in the case of DNA modifications like I have talked about. You certainly haven't attempted to argue for it. Your argument could be used against any suggestion. "If such a program of combatting global warming through enforced tax on carbon is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide." See how ridiculous that sounds? > And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Grow up. You said "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program". Show me where I said anything that even implied some sort of 'program' that is 'enforced' upon people, or that I had some sort of plan to do so? Don't try to make it out as if you were saying something else.
wgjordan 8y ago
Forcing all humans to think one specific 'rational' way, eliminating all 'cognitive biases' to the contrary is definitely something people resist. Not everyone shares your world-view, value system, etc. And "eugenics" is 'a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population' [1], which is exactly what you're talking about here. There's a reason the term has fallen out of favor since WWII. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  Who said anything about forcing people!?! I literally said "Who said anything about a program enforced on people??" in my previous comment, and yet you seemingly are going out of your way to misrepresent what I'm saying. Who said anything about "Forcing all humans to think one specific 'rational' way, eliminating all 'cognitive biases'", either! Show me anything I wrote that even suggests this. > And "eugenics" is 'a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population' [1], which is exactly what you're talking about here. Show me where I said it wasn't "eugenics". (but there's a big difference between forcing people into it and it being voluntary. There's also a big difference between various alternatives for what the genetic changes are, and I've been very clear about what sorts of things I'm talking about). I'm amazed at the disconnect in this subthread between what I have actually said and what people are claiming I said!