4 ms·

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.

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.

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.