4 ms·

Here's the thing. The logic for eugenics is actually MORE humane then letting it go. Do you have generations of people suffering from genetic defects or do you

Here's the thing. The logic for eugenics is actually MORE humane then letting it go. Do you have generations of people suffering from genetic defects or do you do one execution and save thousands from suffering? We choose the former not because of logic, but because our moral instincts are evolved to be reactionary rather then analytical. We only feel it's wrong, but in actuality it is not consistent. It's the same biases that cause us to view Thanos as the villain in Avengers. Without getting too pedantic, in a way, he's actually right.

bena 4y ago
It's not entirely that you have to execute people. It's that you have to restrict the rights of people to have sex with who they want. And you have to force others to give up their genetic material to produce offspring they may not want to. There's also the issue of the definition of "suffering". Once you control for the traits people mostly agree are detrimental, where do we stop? Do we control for height? Intelligence? Decreased propensity for certain behaviors? Where's the line? And no, Thanos was not right. Thanos was written by a fucking moron. It took Earth about 50 years to go from 4 billion people to 8 billion. So, in the most generous interpretation of his action, he gave the universe 50 more years. Next, it's kind of implied that it was all life, including animals. You know, livestock. And then you also have the matter of plant life. If that was or was not affected. Regardless, cutting out half of all life also cuts roughly half of your resources as well. It also ignores that at 4 billion people, we were doing a fucking bang up job of thrashing the environment still. And it ignores the fact that there's just a better answer, make more stuff. Or change reality so that far fewer resources are consumed through certain actions. Make energy free. Make it so people don't need to eat. Everything is on the fucking table. The Infinity Stones are essentially limitless. His justification in the films just do not hold up. Both in reasoning and execution. At least in the comic he was doing it to get laid. As base as that is, it's a reason with no issues.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  See. Rationalization. Bias. Whether it's right or it's wrong. You spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to twist the logic to fit your definition of morality. You aren't trying to put together a conclusion from facts. You're trying to put together the facts to fit your conclusion. Don't you find it convenient that everything tends to have a clear moral solution? In the universe described by the movie, Thanos is right, the heros fought him Despite them knowing he's right. The pedantic details of Thanos being right in reality is not what I'm referring to here, I'm referring to Hollywood Movie logic and how both the audience and the characters went along with it. >There's also the issue of the definition of "suffering". Once you control for the traits people mostly agree are detrimental, where do we stop? Do we control for height? Intelligence? Decreased propensity for certain behaviors? Where's the line?' That is off topic. The point is eugenics for diseases with clear detriment to humanity. It's like I asked you "Should I eat a hot dog." and you're like "What about a pizza, what about 2 hot dogs? What about scarfing down your throat all the food in the entire restaurant? Where is the line??"
  - gilleain 4y ago
    No, there are (at least) two explanations for Thanos' solution to the problem of resource constraints and overcrowding. In-universe, I understand (from the youtube videos 'Comics Explained :) ) that Thanos is in love with Mistress Death, so naturally he favours a solution that kills a lot of organisms. Out-of-universe the writers needed a villain. So they had Thanos do something evil. As the other poster pointed out, it was also a fairly dumb solution, given exponential growth. Either way, he has a glove with the literal power of the universe and he chooses a comically evil way to fix it. Obviously as it is a comic book. The important point is that thinking the Thanos 'solution' is somehow rational is based on an arbitrary choice of what is important - life, freedom, nature, order, etc.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      Mistress death does not exist in the MCU. That is the universe I'm referring to. >Out-of-universe the writers needed a villain. So they had Thanos do something evil. As the other poster pointed out, it was also a fairly dumb solution, given exponential growth. Audiences are more sophisticated nowadays. A generic evil villain wouldn't fly. They made Thanos a villain that was acting, from his perspective, in the universes best interest. But of course audiences nowadays are so sophisticated that even Thanos is still considered generic. >The important point is that thinking the Thanos 'solution' is somehow rational is based on an arbitrary choice of what is important - life, freedom, nature, order, etc. I don't think so. Thanos justified his actions with an explanation. The heroes didn't counter his argument. Why? Because the writers were playing off of our moral instincts. The heros don't need to justify shit because the audience automatically writes off genocide as wrong even if it means ultimately saving the universe from civilization eating itself. The writers relied on biases within the audience, which is my point. The writers wouldn't be able to do this if the audience wasn't biased. A truly unbiased audience member would be like, "WELL wait a minute, thanos sort of has a point, however flawed, why isn't iron man giving a counter argument?" The audience just accepts Thanos's explanation as evil without thinking and that's that. As a side note: It would've been really good if the next phase of the MCU after end game was humanity dealing with a resource constrained universe. Thanos ends up being right and the moral enigma and consequence of the avengers actions makes them question their place in the universe. Was Thanos the villain or the tragic hero? Audiences are THAT sophisticated nowadays. The multiverse thing is clever but the movie arcs are still good guys vs. bad guys. We need more sophisticated plots that have audiences question classic tropes of good and evil. The Dark knight was so good in this regard, but strangely no other movie after that was able to copy the way they had joker play with morality.

bena 4y ago

It's not entirely that you have to execute people. It's that you have to restrict the rights of people to have sex with who they want. And you have to force others to give up their genetic material to produce offspring they may not want to. There's also the issue of the definition of "suffering". Once you control for the traits people mostly agree are detrimental, where do we stop? Do we control for height? Intelligence? Decreased propensity for certain behaviors? Where's the line? And no, Thanos was not right. Thanos was written by a fucking moron. It took Earth about 50 years to go from 4 billion people to 8 billion. So, in the most generous interpretation of his action, he gave the universe 50 more years. Next, it's kind of implied that it was all life, including animals. You know, livestock. And then you also have the matter of plant life. If that was or was not affected. Regardless, cutting out half of all life also cuts roughly half of your resources as well. It also ignores that at 4 billion people, we were doing a fucking bang up job of thrashing the environment still. And it ignores the fact that there's just a better answer, make more stuff. Or change reality so that far fewer resources are consumed through certain actions. Make energy free. Make it so people don't need to eat. Everything is on the fucking table. The Infinity Stones are essentially limitless. His justification in the films just do not hold up. Both in reasoning and execution. At least in the comic he was doing it to get laid. As base as that is, it's a reason with no issues.

kilgnad 4y ago
See. Rationalization. Bias. Whether it's right or it's wrong. You spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to twist the logic to fit your definition of morality. You aren't trying to put together a conclusion from facts. You're trying to put together the facts to fit your conclusion. Don't you find it convenient that everything tends to have a clear moral solution? In the universe described by the movie, Thanos is right, the heros fought him Despite them knowing he's right. The pedantic details of Thanos being right in reality is not what I'm referring to here, I'm referring to Hollywood Movie logic and how both the audience and the characters went along with it. >There's also the issue of the definition of "suffering". Once you control for the traits people mostly agree are detrimental, where do we stop? Do we control for height? Intelligence? Decreased propensity for certain behaviors? Where's the line?' That is off topic. The point is eugenics for diseases with clear detriment to humanity. It's like I asked you "Should I eat a hot dog." and you're like "What about a pizza, what about 2 hot dogs? What about scarfing down your throat all the food in the entire restaurant? Where is the line??"
- gilleain 4y ago
  No, there are (at least) two explanations for Thanos' solution to the problem of resource constraints and overcrowding. In-universe, I understand (from the youtube videos 'Comics Explained :) ) that Thanos is in love with Mistress Death, so naturally he favours a solution that kills a lot of organisms. Out-of-universe the writers needed a villain. So they had Thanos do something evil. As the other poster pointed out, it was also a fairly dumb solution, given exponential growth. Either way, he has a glove with the literal power of the universe and he chooses a comically evil way to fix it. Obviously as it is a comic book. The important point is that thinking the Thanos 'solution' is somehow rational is based on an arbitrary choice of what is important - life, freedom, nature, order, etc.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    Mistress death does not exist in the MCU. That is the universe I'm referring to. >Out-of-universe the writers needed a villain. So they had Thanos do something evil. As the other poster pointed out, it was also a fairly dumb solution, given exponential growth. Audiences are more sophisticated nowadays. A generic evil villain wouldn't fly. They made Thanos a villain that was acting, from his perspective, in the universes best interest. But of course audiences nowadays are so sophisticated that even Thanos is still considered generic. >The important point is that thinking the Thanos 'solution' is somehow rational is based on an arbitrary choice of what is important - life, freedom, nature, order, etc. I don't think so. Thanos justified his actions with an explanation. The heroes didn't counter his argument. Why? Because the writers were playing off of our moral instincts. The heros don't need to justify shit because the audience automatically writes off genocide as wrong even if it means ultimately saving the universe from civilization eating itself. The writers relied on biases within the audience, which is my point. The writers wouldn't be able to do this if the audience wasn't biased. A truly unbiased audience member would be like, "WELL wait a minute, thanos sort of has a point, however flawed, why isn't iron man giving a counter argument?" The audience just accepts Thanos's explanation as evil without thinking and that's that. As a side note: It would've been really good if the next phase of the MCU after end game was humanity dealing with a resource constrained universe. Thanos ends up being right and the moral enigma and consequence of the avengers actions makes them question their place in the universe. Was Thanos the villain or the tragic hero? Audiences are THAT sophisticated nowadays. The multiverse thing is clever but the movie arcs are still good guys vs. bad guys. We need more sophisticated plots that have audiences question classic tropes of good and evil. The Dark knight was so good in this regard, but strangely no other movie after that was able to copy the way they had joker play with morality.