4 ms·

There is an argument to be made for natural selection letting this work itself out. Some people might not be suited for an environment of low-cost unlimited ca

There is an argument to be made for natural selection letting this work itself out. Some people might not be suited for an environment of low-cost unlimited calories floating around them.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> an argument to be made for natural selection letting this work itself out This is like, after discovering vitamins exist, arguing that anyone who didn’t luckily eat a balanced diet has useless genes. > people might not be suited for an environment of low-cost unlimited calories floating around them Nobody is genetically suited for modern society. We’re barely suited for an agrarian one.
acdha 3y ago
Like other eugenics claims, this is both insulting and ignorant. Natural selection is a slow process for most organisms, especially for anything living as long as humans do, and it’s primarily driven by the likelihood of successful reproduction. Diseases caused by being overweight which mostly affect people by the time they could be grandparents seems unlikely to ever see a significant effect. What’s really bad about this is the assumption that there’s only one axis for measuring fitness when in reality there are many, and ignoring environmental factors as well. Callously saying “let the fat people die off” is implicitly saying that none of them will have a net positive impact on society, and it’s refusing to consider whether some or the blame lies in our culture: for example, we have redesigned life to minimize exercise, heavily subsidize the least healthy foods and lifestyles, and the poor people who are disproportionately affected by this also have the worst access to healthcare. There’s nothing natural about the resulting selection pressure.
trehalose 3y ago
Would you say that approach has been working as you desire over the past several decades?
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  I’m noting one argument among many for why the government shouldn’t spend an extra half million over a lifetime for this treatment, not that I desire anything one way or the other (beyond wishing people were more active). If one were to point to the far lower fertility rate associated with obesity, then the answer might be maybe.
Jerrrry 3y ago
[dead]

There is an argument to be made for natural selection letting this work itself out. Some people might not be suited for an environment of low-cost unlimited calories floating around them.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> an argument to be made for natural selection letting this work itself out This is like, after discovering vitamins exist, arguing that anyone who didn’t luckily eat a balanced diet has useless genes. > people might not be suited for an environment of low-cost unlimited calories floating around them Nobody is genetically suited for modern society. We’re barely suited for an agrarian one.

acdha 3y ago

Like other eugenics claims, this is both insulting and ignorant. Natural selection is a slow process for most organisms, especially for anything living as long as humans do, and it’s primarily driven by the likelihood of successful reproduction. Diseases caused by being overweight which mostly affect people by the time they could be grandparents seems unlikely to ever see a significant effect. What’s really bad about this is the assumption that there’s only one axis for measuring fitness when in reality there are many, and ignoring environmental factors as well. Callously saying “let the fat people die off” is implicitly saying that none of them will have a net positive impact on society, and it’s refusing to consider whether some or the blame lies in our culture: for example, we have redesigned life to minimize exercise, heavily subsidize the least healthy foods and lifestyles, and the poor people who are disproportionately affected by this also have the worst access to healthcare. There’s nothing natural about the resulting selection pressure.

trehalose 3y ago

Would you say that approach has been working as you desire over the past several decades?

mensetmanusman 3y ago
I’m noting one argument among many for why the government shouldn’t spend an extra half million over a lifetime for this treatment, not that I desire anything one way or the other (beyond wishing people were more active). If one were to point to the far lower fertility rate associated with obesity, then the answer might be maybe.

Jerrrry 3y ago

[dead]