3 ms·

> Do we want to live in a world where you have less opportunity because of characteristics you were born with Yes. I do not want to live in a world where genet

> Do we want to live in a world where you have less opportunity because of characteristics you were born with Yes. I do not want to live in a world where genetic editing is used to give everyone equal opportunity. I am ok with not having the genetics to play in the NBA while others do. Diversity should not be the end goal. A healthy society that provides basic needs for all should be. If that means we have mostly people that share X characteristics in Y field that’s fine as long as they’re the best people for the job.

croes 4y ago
That's not what parent said. Do you want to live in a world where you could be the best basketball player in the world but you are don't get drafted because your eyes are blue? Some people don't get opportunities because of their skin color, their name or their religion. It's about becoming a NBA player if you can't play basketball
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  I would generally agree that any instance of discrimination by characteristics orthogonal to the performance of a given task is undesirable (if we're striving to optimize total societal benefit / output / productivity). Attractiveness is another axis of discrimination which is frequently orthogonal to job performance (unless we're talking about jobs as a model, etc).
- vlod 4y ago
  I never understand this argument. Wouldn't market forces, i.e. capitalism, gekko's greed-is-good argument fix this? If there were a group of basketball players with blue eyes (that were the best in the world), wouldn't someone see the huge money potential and create a team full of blue-eyes and win the title/cup/trophy?
  - beej71 4y ago
    Maybe in many decades after the anti-blue-eye bias had been successfully mitigated such a team would be formed. But until then, money and winning is not enough. Bias is stronger than capitalism. Some people willingly give up money to not serve gay people, for example.
    - croes 4y ago
      Exactly, people don't act always rationally, they sometimes even act against their own interests. Homo oeconomicus is a myth.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - vlod 4y ago
      Sure, if a minority is a small percentage and it wont hurt you financially (much), plus you can milk it to get press (and most likely increase your profit), then I can understand that. (I think you're referring to the cake shop if I remember correctly). However setting up shop and not serving cakes to a vast majority of your customers who are a minority is just asking for bankruptcy. I also find it really hard to believe that there isn't one greedy capitalist that will take advantage of this situation. e.g. Huge talent shortage of tech workers. Assume that there is a cohort minority who are probably price themselves cheaper (becz they are having it harder to find a job), then there's not one person who will seize this opportunity in America?

croes 4y ago

That's not what parent said. Do you want to live in a world where you could be the best basketball player in the world but you are don't get drafted because your eyes are blue? Some people don't get opportunities because of their skin color, their name or their religion. It's about becoming a NBA player if you can't play basketball

medvezhenok 4y ago
I would generally agree that any instance of discrimination by characteristics orthogonal to the performance of a given task is undesirable (if we're striving to optimize total societal benefit / output / productivity). Attractiveness is another axis of discrimination which is frequently orthogonal to job performance (unless we're talking about jobs as a model, etc).
vlod 4y ago
I never understand this argument. Wouldn't market forces, i.e. capitalism, gekko's greed-is-good argument fix this? If there were a group of basketball players with blue eyes (that were the best in the world), wouldn't someone see the huge money potential and create a team full of blue-eyes and win the title/cup/trophy?
- beej71 4y ago
  Maybe in many decades after the anti-blue-eye bias had been successfully mitigated such a team would be formed. But until then, money and winning is not enough. Bias is stronger than capitalism. Some people willingly give up money to not serve gay people, for example.
  - croes 4y ago
    Exactly, people don't act always rationally, they sometimes even act against their own interests. Homo oeconomicus is a myth.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vlod 4y ago
    Sure, if a minority is a small percentage and it wont hurt you financially (much), plus you can milk it to get press (and most likely increase your profit), then I can understand that. (I think you're referring to the cake shop if I remember correctly). However setting up shop and not serving cakes to a vast majority of your customers who are a minority is just asking for bankruptcy. I also find it really hard to believe that there isn't one greedy capitalist that will take advantage of this situation. e.g. Huge talent shortage of tech workers. Assume that there is a cohort minority who are probably price themselves cheaper (becz they are having it harder to find a job), then there's not one person who will seize this opportunity in America?