3 ms·
Although primogeniture has been discriminatory for basically the entire time it's existed, the discrimination isn't inherent. It's an implementation detail. Mod
by sillysaurusx 6mo ago
Although primogeniture has been discriminatory for basically the entire time it's existed, the discrimination isn't inherent. It's an implementation detail. Modern British Royal succession now uses absolute, gender-neutral primogeniture since 2013.
In fact, there are few things less discriminatory than a random birth order. You may as well be assigned a random number at birth, and the lower your number, the more you're paid. In such a system, there's nothing to discriminate against; the ordering is absolute and immutable, and everyone is treated equally.
I agree that it's a bleak idea, but Animats wasn't talking about subjugating women.
- marxisttemp 6mo agoPrimogeniture in any form is discriminatory precisely since birth order is an immutable, permanent, unchosen characteristic assigned randomly at birth, just like race or sex.
- hackable_sand 6mo ago[flagged]
- nhod 6mo agoGender is mutable. Sex is determined by genetics, though in a handful of creatures, sex could be considered mutable.
- margalabargala 6mo agoYou're right, but there was an article on here in the last week about genetic therapy correcting Down Syndrome. I wonder how long before sex does actually become mutable.
- hackable_sand 6mo agoYou can change sex And people can be born intersex Your data is wrong
- Saline9515 6mo agoThe fact that some people can be born with 6 fingers doesn't mean that saying "a human hand has 5 fingers" is generally false.
- duskdozer 6mo agoIt also means you can't use the generalization "a human hand has 5 fingers" to then say that "therefore because your hands have 6 fingers, you are not a human"
- Saline9515 6mo agoI the sense of what OP did say, it would be more "grafting a sixth finger doesn't mean that you are not human anymore". Just like taking meat from your arm to create new genitals doesn't make you a man, biologically (psychologically it may be different).
- Saline9515 6mo agoPrimogeniture makes sense in a world where odds that you arrive at the adult age are rather low, due to the high risk of death from illness and injuries. The oldest child is the most likely to survive. It is a rational and fair rule in such context.
- marxisttemp 6mo agoMany discriminatory policies could be considered rational. It is rational for jobs to discriminate against handicapped people who require extra affordances to be able to do the same job (for example, wheelchair ramps). “Fair” is a much trickier beast! My favorite approach to conceptualizing fairness is Rawls’ veil of ignorance: if you were going to be placed as a random member of society, rather than your current position, and you would still support a policy given this change, then the policy is fair. Knowing that, beyond the veil of ignorance, I may be a paraplegic, would I still support dismantling the ADA’s wheelchair accessibility requirements?
- Saline9515 6mo agoThings like inclusion and other theories such as the one you describe are only possible in rich and technology-advanced societies. And are vulnerable to groups chosing to play against the whole society. When you have to struggle for life, discriminating against some categories, such as disabled people is necessary for the whole group to survive. Animals do it, and humans in antiquity did it too, out of necessity. It's actually how evolution happens. Humans still do it to some extent when they choose how to mate : they discriminate.
- biztos 6mo agoIs the oldest child the most likely to survive, or is the winner simply the oldest surviving child?
- leereeves 6mo agoRather than being distracted by whether primogeniture specifically is/was discriminatory, we should remember that "what was valued" in the societies Animats discussed very much included being male.