3 ms·
I share your sentiment in the regard that it highlights an obvious difference between how we think about humans and animals. I think you probably know why apply
by moritzwarhier 6y ago
I share your sentiment in the regard that it highlights an obvious difference between how we think about humans and animals.
I think you probably know why applying darwinisim to human society is "extremely controversial".
On a side note, what constitutes "good genes" nowadays?
The ability to exploit finite natural resources (including human health and lives) in a maximally efficient way?
Accumulating as much money as possible?
Would you prefer to reduce human population to a wealthy, healthy remainder and purge all people who cannot sustain themselves?
What does sustaining yourself mean in terms of "benefit to society"?
Is making money by burning fossil fuel - or facilitating and developing systems that (unnecessarily) burn more fossil fuel - a contribution to a "better human gene pool"?
Can sustaining yourself make life worse for others?
Would you approve eugenics, if yes, to what degree?
These are ethical questions as old as humanity.
Overcoming naive social darwinism is arguably one of the reasons that todays "civilized" society can even exist.
I appreciate your comment as a start for a discussion, but I also dislike the implications that I read into it.
People who earn obscene amounts of money and deplete natural resources hardly contribute to an improvement of the human gene pool.
And to me it seems that most people with physical or psychological handicaps that deem them "unfit" already are poor, die young and often don't procreate.
- merpnderp 6y agoWhat exactly do you believe the link is between someone's profession and their genes? Because your comment reads like you believe there are genes for things you consider moral and immoral.
- moritzwarhier 6y agoI was aiming at the fact that money is today a prime signifier of "evolutionary fitness", if that makes any sense. In my tangent about natural resources and fossil fuel I wanted to suggest that making money (especially big money) is strongly correlated with consumption of natural resources. (see tragedy of the commons) Mostly indirectly, even in professions that to not directly "burn fuel". Sell more goods, buy more property, consume energy. Which of course is also a necessary part of modern life. The problem is scale. We are not getting more efficient in depleting natural resources (as in using less for more), we are maximizing monetary gain. That being said, I have no problem if you discard my answer as incoherent rambling. On the other hand, I don't understand why I was implying "immoral genes" or anything like that.
- sneak 6y agoI think power (specifically geopolitical) is significantly more of an indicator than money. There are people substantially less wealthy than, say, Zuckerberg, who are far more likely to survive in a civilizational collapse/population bottleneck type evolutionary scenario. In that sort of circumstance I'd rather be a Dr Strangelove (or high ranking military official, or an Air Force 1 crew member) than a Warren Buffet.