3 ms·

Why stop at genetic defects? Just abolish the whole modern medicine: let the sick people die, so only the strongest, most immune survive. Do we really want to l

by 988747 4y ago

Why stop at genetic defects? Just abolish the whole modern medicine: let the sick people die, so only the strongest, most immune survive. Do we really want to live in the world like that?

kilgnad 4y ago
That's the logical conclusion is it not? A society of the strongest selected by none other then nature herself. It's our biases that prevent is from acting this way. It's easy to stray off topic here. My point is that we can never fully disconnect ourselves from our biases. The fact that it's so hard to think about eugenics from a neutral perspective without getting confused proves my point. Even you aren't addressing my original point right? You got so caught up in the ethics of eugenics that you're trying to rationalize why eugenics is wrong... which isn't even the main point. A truly unbiased person, who likely doesn't fully exist, would be able to say that eugenics is the most correct solution, but he would say that he wouldn't act out on it because he's an illogical creature with morals.
- davidgay 4y ago
  > A truly unbiased person, who likely doesn't fully exist, would be able to say that eugenics is the most correct solution, There's a disastrous fallacy in this argument: that you can define a total order on societies (or, if you prefer, the world in a particular state) and objectively claim "this one is better than that one". And even if you could define such an order, it would be based on moral considerations... And of course, you have not even the vaguest hope of objectively measuring this order either.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    That's again being too pedantic. No point at all in technological process if that were true. Clearly we take actions in getting better because we predict it will be better based off of common sense metrics. If I eliminate genetic defects from society, society will be better. If I cure cancer, society will be better. If I cure smallpox, society will be better. Or should I use philosophical pedantism to question the smallpox vaccine? Again you're using very broad, extremely pedantic logic in attempt to keep your logical scaffold of the world consistent with morality. That is human bias 101. Why are you using this line of thought for small pox and not for eugenics. It's obvious why. Becuase eugenics has a sacrifice of lesser cost then the cost of inaction. But our morality isn't evolved enough to deal with cost benefit analysis. We go with only zero cost solutions only because our moral instincts are simplistic. But this is also not the main point. The main point is basically how hard it was for you to separate the analysis from the morality. You couldn't. You had to target eugenics specifically with overly pedantic logic in order to keep your logic consistent with your morals.
    - davidgay 4y ago
      Sorry, but I intrinsically dispute your hypothesis that you can approach the world's problems with pure logic. I don't believe that, so I don't need to be "pedantic" - I don't look to (or believe you can) apply pure logic to societal or personal problems. [If you really think eugenics is "the logical conclusion", and want one of several possible, reasoned arguments against it: consider what the actions required for eugenics do to the structure of society and its values]
      - kilgnad 4y ago
        You can't approach it with pure logic. You have to factor in your morality. The issue at hand here is bias. Meaning were you aware that your morality was factored into your logic? That your thinking wasn't logical at all but highly highly biased. >[If you really think eugenics is "the logical conclusion", and want one of several possible, reasoned arguments against it: consider what the actions required for eugenics do to the structure of society and its values] We do it for the pets and the livestock we raise, no problems there. We have a healthy community of happy dog pets in the US created from eugenics, genocide, castration and neutering. However, Dogs are mostly unaware of the overarching horror of their existence so this is one way to make the "logic" work with human societies. Make them unaware. Again not the point here. The point is bias. How can you think Eugenics is so wrong, but then be perfectly ok with it when it comes to dogs? Your mind casts blind spots and illusions throughout your decision making framework so you are unaware of how inconsistent and biased it is. We have no choice but to follow it though. No amount of logic will make you curl in disgust at dog eugenics as it does with human eugenics.

by 988747 4y ago

Why stop at genetic defects? Just abolish the whole modern medicine: let the sick people die, so only the strongest, most immune survive. Do we really want to live in the world like that?

kilgnad 4y ago

That's the logical conclusion is it not? A society of the strongest selected by none other then nature herself. It's our biases that prevent is from acting this way. It's easy to stray off topic here. My point is that we can never fully disconnect ourselves from our biases. The fact that it's so hard to think about eugenics from a neutral perspective without getting confused proves my point. Even you aren't addressing my original point right? You got so caught up in the ethics of eugenics that you're trying to rationalize why eugenics is wrong... which isn't even the main point. A truly unbiased person, who likely doesn't fully exist, would be able to say that eugenics is the most correct solution, but he would say that he wouldn't act out on it because he's an illogical creature with morals.

davidgay 4y ago
> A truly unbiased person, who likely doesn't fully exist, would be able to say that eugenics is the most correct solution, There's a disastrous fallacy in this argument: that you can define a total order on societies (or, if you prefer, the world in a particular state) and objectively claim "this one is better than that one". And even if you could define such an order, it would be based on moral considerations... And of course, you have not even the vaguest hope of objectively measuring this order either.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  That's again being too pedantic. No point at all in technological process if that were true. Clearly we take actions in getting better because we predict it will be better based off of common sense metrics. If I eliminate genetic defects from society, society will be better. If I cure cancer, society will be better. If I cure smallpox, society will be better. Or should I use philosophical pedantism to question the smallpox vaccine? Again you're using very broad, extremely pedantic logic in attempt to keep your logical scaffold of the world consistent with morality. That is human bias 101. Why are you using this line of thought for small pox and not for eugenics. It's obvious why. Becuase eugenics has a sacrifice of lesser cost then the cost of inaction. But our morality isn't evolved enough to deal with cost benefit analysis. We go with only zero cost solutions only because our moral instincts are simplistic. But this is also not the main point. The main point is basically how hard it was for you to separate the analysis from the morality. You couldn't. You had to target eugenics specifically with overly pedantic logic in order to keep your logic consistent with your morals.
  - davidgay 4y ago
    Sorry, but I intrinsically dispute your hypothesis that you can approach the world's problems with pure logic. I don't believe that, so I don't need to be "pedantic" - I don't look to (or believe you can) apply pure logic to societal or personal problems. [If you really think eugenics is "the logical conclusion", and want one of several possible, reasoned arguments against it: consider what the actions required for eugenics do to the structure of society and its values]
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      You can't approach it with pure logic. You have to factor in your morality. The issue at hand here is bias. Meaning were you aware that your morality was factored into your logic? That your thinking wasn't logical at all but highly highly biased. >[If you really think eugenics is "the logical conclusion", and want one of several possible, reasoned arguments against it: consider what the actions required for eugenics do to the structure of society and its values] We do it for the pets and the livestock we raise, no problems there. We have a healthy community of happy dog pets in the US created from eugenics, genocide, castration and neutering. However, Dogs are mostly unaware of the overarching horror of their existence so this is one way to make the "logic" work with human societies. Make them unaware. Again not the point here. The point is bias. How can you think Eugenics is so wrong, but then be perfectly ok with it when it comes to dogs? Your mind casts blind spots and illusions throughout your decision making framework so you are unaware of how inconsistent and biased it is. We have no choice but to follow it though. No amount of logic will make you curl in disgust at dog eugenics as it does with human eugenics.