3 ms·

Sure, there isn't a gene that makes you run faster, but no matter how hard you train, you'll have a hard time beating Michal Phelps unless you're also naturally

by hnbad 5y ago

Sure, there isn't a gene that makes you run faster, but no matter how hard you train, you'll have a hard time beating Michal Phelps unless you're also naturally built like Michael Phelps: https://www.biography.com/news/michael-phelp-perfect-body-swimming https://www.biography.com/news/michael-phelp-perfect-body-sw... The point isn't that there is a "best" set of genes. The point is that there can be genetic advantages or disadvantages. Physical reality has an impact on experiential reality. Where it gets dangerous is when people start using this as an argument for eugenics or an "ought" rather than "is" (i.e. constructing hierarchies out of physical attributes).

Noos 5y ago
Yeah, considering the actual day to day life of all people, Michael Phelps's genetic advantages are pointless. They confer advantage only in a specifically designed field that society has created and that is really a tremendous waste of time all things considered; it's just a performance. But the aim of all this genetic stuff is not saying "well, Kenyans can make better marathon runners if we stick them into a sports contest." It's usually a lot more pernicious than that, and involves intelligence. And ordering society in some manner around genetic expressions in a way a lot more dangerous than recognizing some people are better at public performance than others.
inter_netuser 5y ago
The US military routinely tests recruits for IQ and assigns roles appropriate to that level. They even outright reject some people for being too stupid. Nobody seems to be up in arms about it, why? We also already do all sorts of soft eugenics in our own lives, from assortative mating to academic scores and schools one attends, social circles that one enters because of their achievements and so on. At some point it will become a lot more quantitive, to reduce the currently large factor of luck. Societies that refuse to take advantage of optimizations this could bring will eventually lose out, for better or worse, this is entirely inevitable. The progress of technology is not always progressive. There is a reason most of sci-fi reads downright dystopian.

by hnbad 5y ago

Noos 5y ago

Yeah, considering the actual day to day life of all people, Michael Phelps's genetic advantages are pointless. They confer advantage only in a specifically designed field that society has created and that is really a tremendous waste of time all things considered; it's just a performance. But the aim of all this genetic stuff is not saying "well, Kenyans can make better marathon runners if we stick them into a sports contest." It's usually a lot more pernicious than that, and involves intelligence. And ordering society in some manner around genetic expressions in a way a lot more dangerous than recognizing some people are better at public performance than others.

inter_netuser 5y ago

The US military routinely tests recruits for IQ and assigns roles appropriate to that level. They even outright reject some people for being too stupid. Nobody seems to be up in arms about it, why? We also already do all sorts of soft eugenics in our own lives, from assortative mating to academic scores and schools one attends, social circles that one enters because of their achievements and so on. At some point it will become a lot more quantitive, to reduce the currently large factor of luck. Societies that refuse to take advantage of optimizations this could bring will eventually lose out, for better or worse, this is entirely inevitable. The progress of technology is not always progressive. There is a reason most of sci-fi reads downright dystopian.