3 ms·

Thank you for the considered response. My GC comparison was meant to show how optimized systems remove unproductive consumers of resources. Here 'unproductive'

Thank you for the considered response. My GC comparison was meant to show how optimized systems remove unproductive consumers of resources. Here 'unproductive' can simply mean consuming more net production than you generate (largely through tax and program subsidy). The poor are, generally, unproductive. The uneducated are, generally, unproductive. The young are, generally, unproductive. I had meant to illustrate that if elections had necessarily been created intentionally to perform a similar action, we would see elements in society that sought to perform a sort of socially Darwinian 'GC'. But we don't, we see the opposite where these groups are somewhat provided for despite their inefficiency and we have active programs that prevent (or attempt to prevent) them falling victim to the human equivalent of 'GC'. I am meaning to use this as evidence that electoral democracies have evident features that developed over time counter to what majoritarian ruthlessness would suggest. Then I threw a jab in at the end suggesting that this altruism can itself be a weakness if it is maintained in an increasingly resource-scarce environment (harder to develop/sustain complexity). I generally agree with your political assesment. Humans are fundamentally seperate individuals, and thus have incentive for selfish strategies, but there are a lot of us and we compete in team because that too is a dominant strategy. Riding the line between group size, group cohesion, resource to power conversion efficiency, and individual vs collective interest is seemingly an eternal task.

dredmorbius 3y ago
I appreciate the kind words. Even (or especially) small HN discussions can be amongst the most interesting. On your GC analogy: the principle objection I have is that the barriers Runciman describes don't remove the poor / uneducated / old, they disenfranchise them. What you're describing sounds far more like eugenics, which has proved quite problematic. In the context here, one additional problem is that removing the young eventually removes the population, as they're where old people come from (eventually). I'll also push back on the poor being unproductive. Often the poor are productive but have limited compensation negotiating power, and as contrasted with, say, the wealthy inheritor class living off rentier income and/or trust funds, probably compare quite favourably in actual economic productivity. Those lacking formal education may also be quite productive or capable (another podcast I'm listening to just mentioned Michael Faraday, whose formal education ended early; he was apprenticed to a bookbindary by age 14), and the young are typically at the early end of both their productivity and wage-bargaining curve. So a few of your premises may require revisiting. Again, what Runciman is describing isn't a culling of portions of the population, but of deciding whose voices are heard and/or influential politically. I'm also thinking of the long history of the spread of the electoral franchise over time, in multiple countries. Typically from propertied males (often restricted by ethnic or cultural origin) which dates back to the original democracy in Athens, then typically more inclusive classes of cultural-majority males, women, and finally various ethnic / cultural minorities. Even in what's generally considered an advanced democracy, the United States, there are current attempts to exclude specific groups from the franchise, either by law (e.g., convicted felons, even after their sentence has been served), or through other restrictions (limited polling places and times, restictions on vote-by-mail or other remote / early voting options, registration limitations and requirements, etc., etc.).
- RelativeDelta 3y ago
  I'm not a particularly political person, so I'll try to limit myself here to my fields of knowledge (namely biology). I first want to clarify that I'm not advocating for social Darwinism. I'm using it as a foil to show how our society is NOT darwinist, as we have well established institutions who's entire purpose is to prevent death as a result of fitness failure. My point with the poor(referring to the welfare class, not the working poor)/young/uneducated being unproductive is to point out merely that they are. WHY they are is for a much larger discussion. That said, I wouldn't be overly concerned about people being temporarily disenfranchised. As you mentioned, the overall trend is for it to expand regardless of obstacle. A trend not to be taken for granted, but one which can be comfortably taken as faith. Population and demographics matter far more over time. They represent the upper and lower bounds of the groups that can be enfranchised at all. In short, even if some elections are bent by some actors to make victory more likely for their side, if they aren't cementing that victory in the form of future generations of whatever they define as their ingroup (biological, cultural, creedal, etc.) then their gains are temporary and will erode with time as they are simply replaced and new group interests take over. And yes, if humans engaged in the social equivalent of memory garbage collection that would look an awful lot like eugenics. The tricky thing is that eugenics, when applied to actually heritable traits as opposed to merely associated traits (think Crohn's disease or sickle cell anemia vs something like income), does 'work' in that it reduces the % composition of whatever negative factor is being targeted. People are upset about the word 'eugenics' because it was so closely associated with racism. That made it morally repugnant, but unlike, say, phrenology before it eugenics is far more 'correct' in that it's predictions are accurate over time. The real heart of the remaining valid controversy over it is what traits are targeted for expansion or removal and how/if that is enforced in practice. For example, in almost all developed countries, pregnant women have samples taken to do genetic screening on their children early on in pregnancy. These can detect things like aneuploidy, NTDs, heritable conditions (like sickle cell), and even facial features if you check for them. While facial feature results are uncommon, it is very common for women to be recommend a termination if their child will have some major genetic condition. This is eugenics, yet we have found it more help than not.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago

dredmorbius 3y ago

I appreciate the kind words. Even (or especially) small HN discussions can be amongst the most interesting. On your GC analogy: the principle objection I have is that the barriers Runciman describes don't remove the poor / uneducated / old, they disenfranchise them. What you're describing sounds far more like eugenics, which has proved quite problematic. In the context here, one additional problem is that removing the young eventually removes the population, as they're where old people come from (eventually). I'll also push back on the poor being unproductive. Often the poor are productive but have limited compensation negotiating power, and as contrasted with, say, the wealthy inheritor class living off rentier income and/or trust funds, probably compare quite favourably in actual economic productivity. Those lacking formal education may also be quite productive or capable (another podcast I'm listening to just mentioned Michael Faraday, whose formal education ended early; he was apprenticed to a bookbindary by age 14), and the young are typically at the early end of both their productivity and wage-bargaining curve. So a few of your premises may require revisiting. Again, what Runciman is describing isn't a culling of portions of the population, but of deciding whose voices are heard and/or influential politically. I'm also thinking of the long history of the spread of the electoral franchise over time, in multiple countries. Typically from propertied males (often restricted by ethnic or cultural origin) which dates back to the original democracy in Athens, then typically more inclusive classes of cultural-majority males, women, and finally various ethnic / cultural minorities. Even in what's generally considered an advanced democracy, the United States, there are current attempts to exclude specific groups from the franchise, either by law (e.g., convicted felons, even after their sentence has been served), or through other restrictions (limited polling places and times, restictions on vote-by-mail or other remote / early voting options, registration limitations and requirements, etc., etc.).

RelativeDelta 3y ago
I'm not a particularly political person, so I'll try to limit myself here to my fields of knowledge (namely biology). I first want to clarify that I'm not advocating for social Darwinism. I'm using it as a foil to show how our society is NOT darwinist, as we have well established institutions who's entire purpose is to prevent death as a result of fitness failure. My point with the poor(referring to the welfare class, not the working poor)/young/uneducated being unproductive is to point out merely that they are. WHY they are is for a much larger discussion. That said, I wouldn't be overly concerned about people being temporarily disenfranchised. As you mentioned, the overall trend is for it to expand regardless of obstacle. A trend not to be taken for granted, but one which can be comfortably taken as faith. Population and demographics matter far more over time. They represent the upper and lower bounds of the groups that can be enfranchised at all. In short, even if some elections are bent by some actors to make victory more likely for their side, if they aren't cementing that victory in the form of future generations of whatever they define as their ingroup (biological, cultural, creedal, etc.) then their gains are temporary and will erode with time as they are simply replaced and new group interests take over. And yes, if humans engaged in the social equivalent of memory garbage collection that would look an awful lot like eugenics. The tricky thing is that eugenics, when applied to actually heritable traits as opposed to merely associated traits (think Crohn's disease or sickle cell anemia vs something like income), does 'work' in that it reduces the % composition of whatever negative factor is being targeted. People are upset about the word 'eugenics' because it was so closely associated with racism. That made it morally repugnant, but unlike, say, phrenology before it eugenics is far more 'correct' in that it's predictions are accurate over time. The real heart of the remaining valid controversy over it is what traits are targeted for expansion or removal and how/if that is enforced in practice. For example, in almost all developed countries, pregnant women have samples taken to do genetic screening on their children early on in pregnancy. These can detect things like aneuploidy, NTDs, heritable conditions (like sickle cell), and even facial features if you check for them. While facial feature results are uncommon, it is very common for women to be recommend a termination if their child will have some major genetic condition. This is eugenics, yet we have found it more help than not.
- dredmorbius 3y ago