4 ms·

I think we need more studies and evidence to create meaningful predictions. Now, I’m going to remove any moral or emotional thoughts for a moment. Sure there

I think we need more studies and evidence to create meaningful predictions. Now, I’m going to remove any moral or emotional thoughts for a moment. Sure there may be a correlation between wealth and future success, but hasn’t that always been the case - it’s a fact of nature. The most successful genes are able to procreate leading to success. What we did is say “all humans need to have the same vindication’s” and ensure infant mortality was near zero. As a consequence even the least able to produce can (a) survive but importantly (b) reproduce. If you want maximal improvement to society, reduce the points subsidies. Quickly, only those helping society will procreate. All of our poor, all of them. Are a creation of our society. Historically, the weak and unfit didn’t survive. Those hardy enough to survive the system procreated and made a stronger society over time. today, we have the weak and unfit leading more weak and unfit. Eventually, this system will collapse.

vharuck 5y ago
Appeals to "survival of the fittest" piss me off, because they necessarily give up on the idea of improving society. I don't want to replace my ethics and hopes for the world with a barbaric version of pre-history. As a person who wouldn't be alive without corrective glasses and modern medicine, who also considers himself fairly productive, I'm might be a bit biased. Besides, if you really want the end result of human nature, you'd just get what we have today. Humans are, overall, compassionate for fellow humans. It's why we tend to the sick. Hell, our compassionate nature is so strong we sympathize with sick or disabled animals.
- Geee 5y ago
  That's not what it means. Corrective glasses and modern medicine are exactly the kind of improvement that results from universal darwinism, when incentives are correctly aligned. Darwinism also applies to groups of people and ideas, not just individuals and genes.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vharuck 5y ago

Appeals to "survival of the fittest" piss me off, because they necessarily give up on the idea of improving society. I don't want to replace my ethics and hopes for the world with a barbaric version of pre-history. As a person who wouldn't be alive without corrective glasses and modern medicine, who also considers himself fairly productive, I'm might be a bit biased. Besides, if you really want the end result of human nature, you'd just get what we have today. Humans are, overall, compassionate for fellow humans. It's why we tend to the sick. Hell, our compassionate nature is so strong we sympathize with sick or disabled animals.

Geee 5y ago
That's not what it means. Corrective glasses and modern medicine are exactly the kind of improvement that results from universal darwinism, when incentives are correctly aligned. Darwinism also applies to groups of people and ideas, not just individuals and genes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]