5 ms·

You only talk about the effect of the aborted. For 2, it's worth mentioning that people who raise children at young ages often stop attending school/university/

You only talk about the effect of the aborted. For 2, it's worth mentioning that people who raise children at young ages often stop attending school/university/whatever, meaning that sometimes not having an abortion will "abort" your modern Einstein. Talking about the universe is odd, considering that the issues around abortion mostly affect society, and at a push humanity. On the universe scale, there is no more information destroyed/created by having an abortion than by raising the child. The universe does not know the difference between a human's life and the absence of a human's life. 1C) assumes that the abortee will have more children overall if the child is not aborted than if they are not. This is hardly something that can be assumed, given how people's lives can be massively affected by a child. It also takes a very micro scale view of evolution; I do not think many people believe that adopting a policy of encouraging very large families is something that is good for the planet, and unfortunately for us, what is bad for the planet is usually bad for us (in the long run). However, when you make an argument that appeals to evolution, the long run is the only run that matters. 2's point on historical greatness coming from unexpected circumstances is most likely the product of massive selection bias. I would be very interested to see a study showing significant difference between the distribution of the backgrounds of "great people" and "normal people". 2A equates the destruction in abortion to the destruction in the Second World War. 2B references a society with no Hitlerbabies, which doesn't seem to really be what anyone is discussing here. I think it's fair to assume that there is a near to uniform distribution of potential across aborted children, meaning that there isn't a clear reason why there should suddenly be no Hitlerbabies/no entrepreneurs. But seriously, how do you write a comment about the affects of abortion on society without talking about the woman who is having the abortion.

marknadal 14y ago
Yes, a child that stops continuing their education is subsequently reducing the amount of knowledge in their mind - and thus the amount of new conclusions they could derive (if they bothered to maximize this information). It is unfortunate. Discussing things in terms of the "universe" is simply with respect to an alternate universe. "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than the second. True, my first argument is not making much of a statement about society or morality - just information. 1C) Correct, but it should be noted that there is a difference between the /gain and loss/ of information in a system, versus merely the /total/ information in a system. So here are the differences: "+1 +2 = +3", "+1 -1 +2 = +2", "+2 = +2". While a family might eventually have 2 children after they aborted 1, that is not necessarily mutually exclusive from them having had 3. I unfortunately have to play the http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ card. While I understand that vast majority of people are frightened about and do not encourage people having "large families", it is all based on an irrational fear originating in Malthus' wrong mathematics. He forgot to calculate for technology. Technology, interestingly enough, is a direct result of available information within a system, and the collaboration of multiple minds. This really is where the (seemingly obscure?) comments on "universe and information" become consequential to human behavior and development. 2. True -- history is a massive selective bias. And this is my point, great people come from horrible as well as fantastic backgrounds. 2A. No no, I was actually saying that abortion could have killed Hitler in the same way it could have killed Da`Vinci. I was being realistic. 2B. Yes! There is a uniform distribution of a variety of potential personalities (from opposite extremes of Hitler and Churchill, and everywhere inbetween) in the continual development of a human from zygote to adult. You will get diversity. Abortion, instead, shrinks this diversity. Which is bad, because then you don't get the extremes that push humanity forward (as well as the ones that push it back). But a plus-sum gain is always better than a zero-sum gain. Abortion, by its virtue of destroying information, is a reduction. Because I am interested in the /origins/ of the woman that was or was not aborted. If she was not born, how can I talk about her?
- aneth4 14y ago
  > "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than the second. This is the basis of your entire position and it is both false and reduces to absurdity. Having more babies does increase the genetic diversity of humans. Genetic diversity however is not the only or even primary determining factor in just about any measure of human success, including generating Churchills. Absurdity: This creates an imperative to reproduce as rapidly as possible and maximize genetic diversity, without regard to the resources or environment available. Why is a fertilized egg more valuable than all the unfertilized eggs that could be fertilized - in this framework, they it is equally imperative to bring both to life? Even if "overpopulation is a myth," that does not mean maximum population is a virtue.
  - marknadal 14y ago
    I want to first thank you for being nicer! Could you explain why the explosion of human population in the last several thousand years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg) is possible, and why it does not imply success? Particularly with the limited resources we've overcome with the advent of crop rotation, agriculture and farming, technology, etc. - and the limited resources today we are still solving for and continually will do so? It looks like we need a criterion for "success" and "evolution" and "progress"! I would love to hear your input.
    - aneth4 14y ago
      The explosion of humanity is possible because of the development of technologies, most importantly agriculture. Population is certainly a measure of success for a species, however it is not a particularly good one in my opinion. China's population boom occurred during one of its least successful times in history. China's current success comes at a time of minimal population growth. What's more "successful"? A prosperous society with a static population, or a starving one with a rapidly growing population? Was China of 1970 more successful than Europe of 1450? It had more people...

marknadal 14y ago

Yes, a child that stops continuing their education is subsequently reducing the amount of knowledge in their mind - and thus the amount of new conclusions they could derive (if they bothered to maximize this information). It is unfortunate. Discussing things in terms of the "universe" is simply with respect to an alternate universe. "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than the second. True, my first argument is not making much of a statement about society or morality - just information. 1C) Correct, but it should be noted that there is a difference between the /gain and loss/ of information in a system, versus merely the /total/ information in a system. So here are the differences: "+1 +2 = +3", "+1 -1 +2 = +2", "+2 = +2". While a family might eventually have 2 children after they aborted 1, that is not necessarily mutually exclusive from them having had 3. I unfortunately have to play the http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ card. While I understand that vast majority of people are frightened about and do not encourage people having "large families", it is all based on an irrational fear originating in Malthus' wrong mathematics. He forgot to calculate for technology. Technology, interestingly enough, is a direct result of available information within a system, and the collaboration of multiple minds. This really is where the (seemingly obscure?) comments on "universe and information" become consequential to human behavior and development. 2. True -- history is a massive selective bias. And this is my point, great people come from horrible as well as fantastic backgrounds. 2A. No no, I was actually saying that abortion could have killed Hitler in the same way it could have killed Da`Vinci. I was being realistic. 2B. Yes! There is a uniform distribution of a variety of potential personalities (from opposite extremes of Hitler and Churchill, and everywhere inbetween) in the continual development of a human from zygote to adult. You will get diversity. Abortion, instead, shrinks this diversity. Which is bad, because then you don't get the extremes that push humanity forward (as well as the ones that push it back). But a plus-sum gain is always better than a zero-sum gain. Abortion, by its virtue of destroying information, is a reduction. Because I am interested in the /origins/ of the woman that was or was not aborted. If she was not born, how can I talk about her?

aneth4 14y ago
> "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than the second. This is the basis of your entire position and it is both false and reduces to absurdity. Having more babies does increase the genetic diversity of humans. Genetic diversity however is not the only or even primary determining factor in just about any measure of human success, including generating Churchills. Absurdity: This creates an imperative to reproduce as rapidly as possible and maximize genetic diversity, without regard to the resources or environment available. Why is a fertilized egg more valuable than all the unfertilized eggs that could be fertilized - in this framework, they it is equally imperative to bring both to life? Even if "overpopulation is a myth," that does not mean maximum population is a virtue.
- marknadal 14y ago
  I want to first thank you for being nicer! Could you explain why the explosion of human population in the last several thousand years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg) is possible, and why it does not imply success? Particularly with the limited resources we've overcome with the advent of crop rotation, agriculture and farming, technology, etc. - and the limited resources today we are still solving for and continually will do so? It looks like we need a criterion for "success" and "evolution" and "progress"! I would love to hear your input.
  - aneth4 14y ago
    The explosion of humanity is possible because of the development of technologies, most importantly agriculture. Population is certainly a measure of success for a species, however it is not a particularly good one in my opinion. China's population boom occurred during one of its least successful times in history. China's current success comes at a time of minimal population growth. What's more "successful"? A prosperous society with a static population, or a starving one with a rapidly growing population? Was China of 1970 more successful than Europe of 1450? It had more people...