|
When you have a history of getting called out for things that can easily be interpreted as racist, maybe don't touch eugenics
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:i've noticed that modern eugenics advocates often fetishize the genetic component of intelligence And we even have machines to do that! I mean, unless you want to start breeding mentats...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The more important question to me is, even if you overlook the ethical issues, why would we even bother to try to breed humans to be harder/better/faster/stronger when we have machines to do that? Like I don't need to be able to run 60 mph when I can just hop in a car and do that. Biological evolution stopped being a concern when our ape ancestors started using stone tools. As someone whos eyes started getting bad in elementary school i am 100% behind genetic manipulation that fixes issues like that and food allergies and other genetic deficiencies. Just get in that dna and start playing with poo poo. Make it so every person can see uv or ir or 20/10 becomes the low end of human vision or somehow green hair is genetically passed down idgaf. Just as long as there isnt some bureau of reproductive affairs choosing who screws who im not concerned
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Ironically, people like Dawkins are a great example of how intelligence is kind of a bullshit concept, at least in terms of it being a linear scale like IQ. There are lots of different kinds of intelligence. Dawkins clearly a smart dude when it comes to science, but he's completely incapable of reading the room and not saying stupid poo poo like this all the time, which I'd call low social intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The more important question to me is, even if you overlook the ethical issues, why would we even bother to try to breed humans to be harder/better/faster/stronger when we have machines to do that? Like I don't need to be able to run 60 mph when I can just hop in a car and do that. Biological evolution stopped being a concern when our ape ancestors started using stone tools. because it has nothing to do with harder/better/faster/stronger; it's about breeding out "undesirable" traits, like a genetic paper bag test, in order to eliminate those populations of people. which of course is why no group of humans should be trusted to have that kind of power. it's one of the most extreme cases of hubris to think that we, as a society, can handle making those kinds of decisions and factor in all the potential generational impacts down the line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
a good twitter thread that i learned things from:ultrafilter posted:https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1228991240345137158
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Youtube person Shaun has a long but good video on the subject of intelligence tests, which in part is key to understanding why those that say "why is eugenics bad? we're just trying to increase ~intelligence~!" are full of poo poo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Those poors won't be so impoverished once we eliminate the poor gene
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:Those poors won't be so impoverished once we eliminate the poor gene Won't somebody think of the poor Genes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
I'm a microbiologist professor / PhD lifelong academic. Dawkins is rear end. I've long hoped he would just stroke out at this point.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Dick Dorkins posted:Dear Muslima,
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Ironically, people like Dawkins are a great example of how intelligence is kind of a bullshit concept, at least in terms of it being a linear scale like IQ. There are lots of different kinds of intelligence. Dawkins clearly a smart dude when it comes to science, but he's completely incapable of reading the room and not saying stupid poo poo like this all the time, which I'd call low social intelligence. Being smart about one thing means you're smart all the time about everything. Now come on Fox and tell people why climate change is fake. After all, you're an engineer!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
my time working with physicians has convinced me that the circle of "people with advanced degrees" lies entirely within the circle of "people who think they know literally everything"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Stravag posted:As someone whos eyes started getting bad in elementary school i am 100% behind genetic manipulation that fixes issues like that and food allergies and other genetic deficiencies. Just get in that dna and start playing with poo poo. Make it so every person can see uv or ir or 20/10 becomes the low end of human vision or somehow green hair is genetically passed down idgaf. Just as long as there isnt some bureau of reproductive affairs choosing who screws who im not concerned This is the one upside and is as much in the grey area of eugenics as it is in just basic genetic manipulation. Problem one is that only wealthy people will ever have access to it. Problem two through a million is that people will use it to be racist, sexist, every sort of -ist possible because they are poo poo. There also isn't a good way to enforce a law that says you can't choose to change your test tube babies appearance or other normal human traits. Likely the best we can hope for in TYOL 2200 is that terminal illness like blindness, deafness, and turbo cancer are auto-screened and corrected with no human intervention or bias. But  it will totally be "automatic skin whitening and breast enlargement" because humans are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:a good twitter thread that i learned things from: https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1228991252106039302 This is not accurate. Maybe if you're talking about a movement within academia it would be, but popular eugenics laws and discussion was definitely also about selection for subjectively desirable traits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:This is the one upside and is as much in the grey area of eugenics as it is in just basic genetic manipulation. Problem one is that only wealthy people will ever have access to it. Problem two through a million is that people will use it to be racist, sexist, every sort of -ist possible because they are poo poo. blindness deafness terminal 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Ok fine replace terminal with permanent as required. If I knew my kid was going to be blind or deaf at birth I would fix it in a heartbeat. E; My diopter is -7.25 so something close to 20/1000 equivalent and I don't think reasonable adult consent is something you need to warrant fixing that as a fetus. M_Gargantua fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Feb 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
Vasudus posted:It's the same thing with the physicists that made the bomb. They were there for the science of it. I use the bomb example when I explain to my students the limitations of science. "Science tells you how to build a bomb, it can't tell you if you should use it."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I use the bomb example when I explain to my students the limitations of science. "Science tells you how to build a bomb, it can't tell you if you should use it." My science, technology and society classes at university were pretty good at teaching me that there is no such thing as neutrality in technology. The act of telling someone how to build a bomb carries all the moral weight of building that bomb yourself. A different society in a different situation might have focused on using nuclear energy some other way than for creating a weapon of mass destruction. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Feb 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
What about if you buy your bomb? Plenty of ways to set off tannerite, and plenty of ways to figure out how to make more fun, bigger booming poo poo from something you can buy at an outdoors store.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
When ze rockets go up, who cares where ze come down? Zat's not my department
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Fallom posted:My science, technology and society classes at university were pretty good at teaching me that there is no such thing as neutrality in technology. The act of telling someone how to build a bomb carries all the moral weight of building that bomb yourself. A different society in a different situation might have focused on using nuclear energy some other way than for creating a weapon of mass destruction. Yeah, I couple it with when I tell them that even though I'm a science teacher, I value the humanities and ethics as fields of study higher than science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Fallom posted:My science, technology and society classes at university were pretty good at teaching me that there is no such thing as neutrality in technology. The act of telling someone how to build a bomb carries all the moral weight of building that bomb yourself. A different society in a different situation might have focused on using nuclear energy some other way than for creating a weapon of mass destruction. I disagree. Knowledge- and the sharing thereof- doesn't mean that you are morally responsible for their actions. Obviously there are circumstances where you would be, but the knowledge and skills are neutral until acted on by an individual. A bomb can be used for good and bad, but the knowledge carries no moral burden on it's own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
February 2020 Current Events: Your Trump-Touching Parents Should Have Eugenics-ed You
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I use the bomb example when I explain to my students the limitations of science. "Science tells you how to build a bomb, it can't tell you if you should use it." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
Here's something I forgot about : https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1228914319825481728?s=19 Say what you will about Warren being a Republican until the '90s, Bloomberg endorsing and fundraising for a Republican Senator within the past decade should be completely disqualifying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Current event: I just cooked another engine
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Lake of Methane posted:February 2020 Current Events: Your Trump-Touching Parents Should Have Eugenics-ed You There are some lovely dick pills they are selling on bad tv commercials called Nugenix but goddamn do the wife and I hear eugenics every time and do a double take over the fuckin tennis playing boomers suggesting eugenics makes their dick hard again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Current event: I just cooked another engine Engenics inaction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:There are some lovely dick pills they are selling on bad tv commercials called Nugenix but goddamn do the wife and I hear eugenics every time and do a double take over the fuckin tennis playing boomers suggesting eugenics makes their dick hard again. Nutgenetix
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Socially conservative mom says racy halftime entertainment drove distraught 13-year-old son to his bedroom
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Socially conservative mom says racy halftime entertainment drove distraught 13-year-old son to his bedroom Yeah. Certainly distraught I'm sure. Def had to take a timeout for like an hour or two. Maybe even three. Strive for greatness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
Kids in his room praying
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
Radical 90s Wizard posted:Kids in his room praying To Aphrodite, sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:I disagree. Knowledge- and the sharing thereof- doesn't mean that you are morally responsible for their actions. Obviously there are circumstances where you would be, but the knowledge and skills are neutral until acted on by an individual. A bomb can be used for good and bad, but the knowledge carries no moral burden on it's own. This thinking sets you up for situations like Silicon Era tech bros creating algorithms that end up implementing the modern-day version of redlining while claiming that mathematics can never be racist, or people like Elon Musk coming up with ideas for underground single-car tunnels that would only emphasize the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. These things weren't meant to have those outcomes, but because of what they are and what the designers did or didn't consider while making them their existence reinforces some damaging parts of our society. The creation of nuclear weapons reinforced the idea of the threat of massed civilian deaths as a means for making governments compliant, and the creators absolutely have part of that burden whether they thought their weapons would be used or not. It's not necessarily about being good or bad. Solar and wind power are technologies that lend themselves well to decentralized societies, because they're inefficient when centrally located and managed but show their strengths in what they allow individuals or small populations to accomplish on their own. A nuclear or coal power plant carries with it the aspects of the centralized and hierarchical society that would be needed to supply it and operate it, and regulate it. I think it's interesting to think about how technology reflects or contains aspects of the society that created it, and how the adoption of certain technologies drives specific forms of society. Think about it the next time you hear someone say that suburban living seems like a very American idea. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Feb 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1228833455955464192?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
This timeline fuckin sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
I like the way Mr. Snrub thinks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Socially conservative mom says racy halftime entertainment drove distraught 13-year-old son to his bedroom The halftime show last year was so bad my wife ended up taking a 30 minute shower just to wash the filth from her eyes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Next from Richard Dawkins: "you may have moral objections to it, but there's no biological reason why a person can't get all their nutritional needs from eating babies."
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 01:03
|
|
