boot: "you are in emergency mode"
jsomae @ jsomae @lemmy.ml Posts 14Comments 1,389Joined 1 yr. ago
jsomae @ jsomae @lemmy.ml
Posts
14
Comments
1,389
Joined
1 yr. ago
We actually completely agree about everything, including the typical definition of eugenics. Here's the problem though: when an actually good thing comes along which is technically eugenics (such as the aforementioned IVF programs), it can be called "eugenics" by opponents without much recourse. What's the solution? Is there a defence along the lines of, "it's not eugenics, it's actually
<some other word>
," or is the better move to say "not all eugenics is bad" (but more tactfully than that).The trouble with the former move is that whatever word is chosen will be co-opted by lunatics like Beattie, and then using the word is just going to look like a dog-whistle or something. So unfortunately I'm stuck waving my hands trying to find the least-appalling way to say "#notalleugenics."
Please, your input is greatly desired as to what to say here. Because I do actually believe in the (DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT) power of good eugenics. You say that I should be discussing the ableist, racist, and other problematic aspects associated with eugenics -- I feel like me and my target audience are all aware of these aspects, so you're essentially saying I should include some form of wrapping to make a pill that can be swallowed more easily to get across my actual point. I don't necessarily agree with this as it seems manipulative, like a Trojan horse, but I'm open to hearing what you have to say.
(Regarding sickle-cell -- people who have it generally say it's a horrible illness. It causes immense pain and suffering, and could be resolved with easier access to IVF. I could have chosen another genetic illness, it's just the first one that came to mind because I watched The Pitt recently. I'll admit that choosing an African-associated genetic illness is not a good look for me lol.)
Eugenics also includes in-vitro sterilization and selecting against horrible illnesses like sickle-cell anemia. Nazism, and what Beattie is proposing, is the dark side of eugenics, but eugenics is not inherently bad. Please try to look past the propaganda.
But idea of offering feral populations financial incentives for voluntary sterilization is completely taboo.
What the hell does 'feral' mean? Does he think there are actually feral people in the USA in any double-digit quantity in this day and age? Seems insane.
Anyway, Project Prevention already exists to pay meth addicts to voluntarily sterilize themselves (reversably). That's actually a good cause, because the children of meth addicts have serious disabilities that cost taxpayers millions of dollars and cause a painful and unpleasant life -- much better that that child be born to somebody else. We don't need this lunatic saying insane shit about feral children and mass sterilization.
Are you just trolling at this point? Do you even understand what you're saying about causality? Are we debating semantics?
Edit: this is like saying you have zero ethical qualms with somebody hiring an assassin to kill somebody. Yeah, the assassin ultimately does the deed, but you're still paying for it. If you had not hired the assassin, the person would not have died -- looks like cause and effect to me.
Similarly, you should understand that if you choose to eat meat, that benefits the meat industry and more animals will die as a result. Put aside your definition of "cause" for a moment -- you must agree with me that this is true right?
For the really powerful ones, but for instance I think spider man is better defined by what he CAN do, which is actually a pretty small list.
Obviously not. Eating meat increases the size of the meat industry. If twice as many people ate meat, that'd be twice as good for the meat industry -- I think. At least some constant factor times better. I would have to double-check my old textbook to see what classical economics predicts, there might be diminishing returns.
Not until you finally get it right, and at that point you look like a total freak to everyone else. But at least you're satisfied.
Then you're just a normal alien. The idea behind the kryptonite is that it weighs you down your whole life living on planet krypton -- when you finally are free of it, you're superpowered. Without kryptonite, there's no superman.
...somebody somewhere experiences pain
It's one of those awful apple TV remote controls. When your hand gets the slightest bit sweaty, you seek all over the place with no precision.
But unfortunately it has "Z" pronounced wrong. (zee/zed.) There is no escape.
Yeah, due to increased demand. Let's be clear here, I'm not talking about "how much difference can just one person make?" -- if you eat meat, you eat one person's worth of meat. That one person's worth of meat is due to you. If you did not eat meat, there would be one less person eating meat, and the meat industry would be that much smaller; a couple fewer animals might be slaughtered as a result over the course of your lifetime (I have no idea how many animals the typical person eats tbh).
I'm not claiming that one person becoming vegetarian will bring a halt to the meat industry.
Regardless of whether the meat industry itself is a problem, you surely must admit that consuming meat from the industry only feeds the meat industry.
they become responsible for their own actions when quitting the industry would reduce the harm done to animals.
it must be there for a reason
This is why I can't take "The purpose of a system is what it does" seriously
I understand where you're coming from, but there's a problem with your philosophy.
it's well-understood by economists that the market behaves according to mathematical rules. The exact rules in question may be debated, but regardless it's clear from observation that markets are very effective in some scenarios at deriving optimal response to their environments (at least in some scenarios). Remove one meat producer from the market, it will inevitably be replaced by another one that's just as good, or so the theory goes. As a result, it's rather useless to say that meat producers are responsible for their own actions and that no one else causes them -- because in fact, the actions are caused by the market's environment. You can say it, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that you, the consumer, exercise control over the market.
If the production of meat is immoral, and the producers don't meaningfully affect the quantity of meat produced, then it is actually the fault of the consumer (who will not be replaced simply because they stop eating meat) that the meat is produced.
(IMO, most political ideologues who are steeped in theory agree that markets behave like this, but disagree on how or whether to stop them.)
ITT: people listing the hills they'd die on. Hardly anyone is giving support for their claims.
A simple test of causality, X => Y: go back in time and change X to ¬X. If ¬Y as a result, it would appear X => Y can be inferred.
You can say your eating meat is your free will, but if the meat were counterfactually not produced, you would not eat it. Similarly, your eating meat causes other people to produce more meat. They may have free will, if you believe in that -- but you can't deny that if you hadn't done X, they wouldn't have done Y.
20 years ago linux didn't run on laptops at all. In the interim, it was very unstable. I reckon that linux still doesn't run on many laptops -- I don't know, I was scared straight so I get a lenovo everytime; never fails to run linux.