[Madness]

Link.

[BeardFisher-King]

First sentence:

"The waging of a 'war on science' by right-wing know-nothings....."

Thanks for the link, Madness.

[Madness]

Fortunately for me I don't have to condone an author's use of rhetoric to read something.

[BeardFisher-King]

More from/on Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25

[H]

The irony being that an article that boils down to the essential truth of human bias is, of course, slathered with bias.

[Madness]

The irony being that an article that boils down to the essential truth of human bias is, of course, slathered with bias.

More from Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25

You mean, more from Kelly?

[BeardFisher-King]

More from Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25

You mean, more from Kelly?

Kelly includes direct quotes from Pinker, but point taken....how about this formulation:

"Here's a perspective on Pinker's views."

[TLEILAXU]

More from Stephen Pinker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25

You mean, more from Kelly?

Kelly includes direct quotes from Pinker, but point taken....how about this formulation:

"Here's a perspective on Pinker's views."

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

[H]

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

That sure is a hot take that requires a great deal of operationalizing definitions to even begin to possibly be deconstructed.

Hard to imagine such a thing being so cut and dry.

[Wilshire]

Some interesting theories about the ascendancy of mankind being attributed to early humans with social handicaps - OCD, Asperger, anxiety, etc. The idea being that those who were making fire, tools, traps, early science, were the marginalized antisocials who couldn't stand the idiot chiefs dancing around the fire. Even today, and throughout history, there are lots of examples of imperfect individuals making the highest contributions to science at large.

There's also a lot of danger trying to weed out seemingly useless genetic combinations from the gene pool. A more obvious example being someone heterozygous for sickle cell is rendered immune to malaria, while homozygous has deadly sickle cell anemia.

It is, unfortunately, rather difficult to predict what genes serve no purpose.

Though we'd probably need a populations of a several million and entire planets to do it on, studying the effects of completely removing specific things from the genetic pool and watching how it turns out over a few dozens generations would probably yield truly fascinating results.

Maybe until that's possible, a subclass of 'not humans' can be kept around with all of evolution's genetic baggage in case of emergency, and the rest of 'true humanity' can be freed from the bondage of nature. 

[TLEILAXU]

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

That sure is a hot take that requires a great deal of operationalizing definitions to even begin to possibly be deconstructed.

Hard to imagine such a thing being so cut and dry.

I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

A more obvious example being someone heterozygous for sickle cell is rendered immune to malaria, while homozygous has deadly sickle cell anemia.

They tend to die before they grow up.

[Madness]

Frustrating when article content is only available free for a limited period of time.

Kelly includes direct quotes from Pinker, but point taken....how about this formulation:

"Here's a perspective on Pinker's views."

Sure. I found both articles (and I was going to reread both but sadly the original link is now unavailable) to be excessively hyperbolic.

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

That sure is a hot take that requires a great deal of operationalizing definitions to even begin to possibly be deconstructed.

Hard to imagine such a thing being so cut and dry.

It would be nice to see some argumentative support for tleilaxu's claim.

And I'd probably amend any argument to include that tleilaxu, as the person arguing for such extremity, be the one to euthanize them.

...

It is, unfortunately, rather difficult to predict what genes serve no purpose.

Mutations with some advantage in their "birth ecology" survive to reproduce.

I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

As I said, sure, so long as you kill them. It would take a whole another thread to discuss abortion, methinks.

[BeardFisher-King]

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

I've gotta say, if there were ever a post that needed to be moved to the "Building Better Communities" thread, this is it.

I mean, that's what eugenics and the elimination of defectives is all about, right? Building Better Communities?

[H]

I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

First you have to define the definition of children.  At what point are they no longer a child?

Second, since you now brought in the issue of conscious, we need to tightly define it and be able to measure it.

Third, there are people, like, Steven Hawking, who are wheelchair bound and do a fair amount of drooling (not only, of course) but are highly useful to society.  How do we know when someone isn't (won't be)?  See the second point here also.

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

I've gotta say, if there were ever a post that needed to be moved to the "Building Better Communities" thread, this is it.

I mean, that's what eugenics and the elimination of defectives is all about, right? Building Better Communities?

I think we are doing ok.  Was his response gruff?  Possibly.  Uncouth?  Also, possibly.  Uncivil?  No, I don't think that is the case.

[EDIT Madness: Fixed quote tag.]

[Wilshire]

BFK, you cry foul more than any kid on the playground. If you can't participate, please don't. I grow tired of babysitting you.