3 ms·

The problem with this theory is that it's lazy. It's quite probably true to some extent that some of the negative outcomes disproportionately experienced by poo

by dTal 7y ago

The problem with this theory is that it's lazy. It's quite probably true to some extent that some of the negative outcomes disproportionately experienced by poor people are not a direct consequence of poverty, but due to common intrinsic factors that make them poor in the first place. Some of these may even be heritable. Great, now what? Short of eugenics, there's nothing you can do about that. But, and here's the thing, such common intrinsic factors cannot account for all of the negative outcomes we see. There has to be some element of poor circumstance, some lever we can push - we surely can influence outcomes positively one way or another. This whole discussion is about exploring those ways. So why on Earth would you bring up the stuff we can't change, except to shut down that discussion?

dcolkitt 7y ago
Let me draw an analogy with baldness. We can agree that baldness is a problem for humanity. Maybe not the biggest problem, but every year many people go bald and are unhappy about it. So, if we could eliminate involuntary baldness that'd be great. Now, let's say our philanthropic anti-baldness initiative notices that men go bald at significantly higher rates than women. So, we come to the conclusion that we have to figure out the sociological factors that make men bald. Maybe video games contributes to baldness, or maybe it's the stress of having looser ties to family, or maybe its the rate of military service? As we both know, baldness, including the higher rate of male baldness, is driven by genetic-biological factors. If we refused to even consider this hypothesis it would lead to some pretty absurd conclusions and policies. But knowing that the problem has a biological basis lets us direct our humanitarian efforts at the root cause. We know that to treat baldness we need to target biology, with things like Rogaine and hair transplants, not sociology.
- chownie 7y ago
  Social factors require social responses. Your analogy doesn't follow.

by dTal 7y ago

dcolkitt 7y ago

Let me draw an analogy with baldness. We can agree that baldness is a problem for humanity. Maybe not the biggest problem, but every year many people go bald and are unhappy about it. So, if we could eliminate involuntary baldness that'd be great. Now, let's say our philanthropic anti-baldness initiative notices that men go bald at significantly higher rates than women. So, we come to the conclusion that we have to figure out the sociological factors that make men bald. Maybe video games contributes to baldness, or maybe it's the stress of having looser ties to family, or maybe its the rate of military service? As we both know, baldness, including the higher rate of male baldness, is driven by genetic-biological factors. If we refused to even consider this hypothesis it would lead to some pretty absurd conclusions and policies. But knowing that the problem has a biological basis lets us direct our humanitarian efforts at the root cause. We know that to treat baldness we need to target biology, with things like Rogaine and hair transplants, not sociology.

chownie 7y ago
Social factors require social responses. Your analogy doesn't follow.