3 ms·

I can think of a number of ways in which "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives" could cause enormous harm that we cannot fully appreciate o

I can think of a number of ways in which "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives" could cause enormous harm that we cannot fully appreciate or anticipate. Modern history is littered with examples of eugenics going wrong; perhaps the high failure rate of historical instantiations of your idea is why new forms of eugenics are so heavily stigmatized? Perhaps the reflexive reaction is the result of a distilled but latent wisdom? It's amazing that an article of this length fails to imagine the myriad of reasonable objections, and then has the audacity to conclude with a jab at skeptics for being "reflexive" (and an additional implicit indict of being "reflexive"). This piece is exhausting in the same way that rationalist literature is exhausting -- there's an almost humorous lack of intellectual humility and a sort of implicit assumption that skeptics of utilitarian consequentialism just aren't smart enough or just don't think deeply enough. I'm not surprised that a article with this tone would conclude that it's barely worth mentioning the ridiculously and absolutely hilariously massive unknown risks associated with using genetic sequencing to programmatically incentivize certain reproductive choices. You really can't imagine how this could go horrendously wrong in any number of impossible-to-predict ways, ranging from the sociological to the biological?

kelnos 4y ago
I feel like you're falling into a trap the article discusses: cherry-picking one particular thing you don't like, and then shutting down all discussion with an "OMG that's eugenics"-type response. After reading through, I think most of the "positive" practices discussed -- many of which we've already been doing for decades or more -- are just fine. If we can agree that those things fall under the umbrella of eugenics, then we need to stop demonizing the term and instead take things on a case-by-case basis, and decide what we think has merit and promotes positive outcomes, and what is discriminatory or could violate people's rights. I'm tired of the "I'm scared that we might screw it up so we shouldn't even talk about it" attitude. Making topics taboo and refusing to even discuss things is a big reason why we have negative experiences and outcomes.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  LOL, no. My reaction isn't "omg eugenics". My reaction is "the author's specific proposal is dumb and the article is designed to avoid critical inquiry into the specific proposal by using a rhetorical trick and flipping presumption". The "one thing I cherry picked" is from the final paragraph. I did not cherry pick. I listed the only actual proposal in the article. The rest of the article is just rhetoric. Placing the actual proposal at the end of the article was intentional. Your comment is exactly the trap the article sets. The intention is for the reader to agree that not all eugenics is bad, and that, therefore, we should default to skepticism of anti-eugenics. But "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives" would have obvious and potentially massive disadvantages. Intelligent and wise people are right to almost reflexively say "lol sounds like a bad idea buddy". Also, the article doesn't actually articulate any reason that we should give the benefit of the doubt to new eugenics programs. Even though modern history provides a decent set of anecdotes that provide good evidence for at least approaching such proposals with some amount of skepticism. The article is mostly just a kind of maddening rhetorical trick that allows the author to side-step making a thorough argument for "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives". The article's whole intent is to flip the burden of proof: "I will propose wacky genetic ideas, and you must prove why we shouldn't do them or you're just acting reflexively and causing tons of harm!" But it works. There definitely isn't even a half decent argument for "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives" anywhere in this article, and giving the presumption of doubt to a government incentive for genetic discrimination is a hilariously ridiculous position, but for whatever reason you're jumping to its defense. > I'm tired of the "I'm scared that we might screw it up so we shouldn't even talk about it" attitude. Making topics taboo and refusing to even discuss things is a big reason why we have negative experiences and outcomes. Who said not to talk about it? Just don't do it in the kind of insufferable way this article does it. State up front what policies you want and provide a serious defense, instead of squabbling about presumption of evidence and launching stupid implicit ad homs for pages upon pages. And if you're going to appeal to a sort of consequentialist utilitarian ethic, state some actual mathematically analyzable utility function. Otherwise it's just a pretend to rigor.

kelnos 4y ago

I feel like you're falling into a trap the article discusses: cherry-picking one particular thing you don't like, and then shutting down all discussion with an "OMG that's eugenics"-type response. After reading through, I think most of the "positive" practices discussed -- many of which we've already been doing for decades or more -- are just fine. If we can agree that those things fall under the umbrella of eugenics, then we need to stop demonizing the term and instead take things on a case-by-case basis, and decide what we think has merit and promotes positive outcomes, and what is discriminatory or could violate people's rights. I'm tired of the "I'm scared that we might screw it up so we shouldn't even talk about it" attitude. Making topics taboo and refusing to even discuss things is a big reason why we have negative experiences and outcomes.

thwayunion 4y ago
LOL, no. My reaction isn't "omg eugenics". My reaction is "the author's specific proposal is dumb and the article is designed to avoid critical inquiry into the specific proposal by using a rhetorical trick and flipping presumption". The "one thing I cherry picked" is from the final paragraph. I did not cherry pick. I listed the only actual proposal in the article. The rest of the article is just rhetoric. Placing the actual proposal at the end of the article was intentional. Your comment is exactly the trap the article sets. The intention is for the reader to agree that not all eugenics is bad, and that, therefore, we should default to skepticism of anti-eugenics. But "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives" would have obvious and potentially massive disadvantages. Intelligent and wise people are right to almost reflexively say "lol sounds like a bad idea buddy". Also, the article doesn't actually articulate any reason that we should give the benefit of the doubt to new eugenics programs. Even though modern history provides a decent set of anecdotes that provide good evidence for at least approaching such proposals with some amount of skepticism. The article is mostly just a kind of maddening rhetorical trick that allows the author to side-step making a thorough argument for "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives". The article's whole intent is to flip the burden of proof: "I will propose wacky genetic ideas, and you must prove why we shouldn't do them or you're just acting reflexively and causing tons of harm!" But it works. There definitely isn't even a half decent argument for "genetically informed dating apps or government incentives" anywhere in this article, and giving the presumption of doubt to a government incentive for genetic discrimination is a hilariously ridiculous position, but for whatever reason you're jumping to its defense. > I'm tired of the "I'm scared that we might screw it up so we shouldn't even talk about it" attitude. Making topics taboo and refusing to even discuss things is a big reason why we have negative experiences and outcomes. Who said not to talk about it? Just don't do it in the kind of insufferable way this article does it. State up front what policies you want and provide a serious defense, instead of squabbling about presumption of evidence and launching stupid implicit ad homs for pages upon pages. And if you're going to appeal to a sort of consequentialist utilitarian ethic, state some actual mathematically analyzable utility function. Otherwise it's just a pretend to rigor.