I’m less personally offended that other comments, but please keep this off LessWrong. It doesn’t further the pursuit of rationality, and it’s far too politically charged for non-gated discussion.
For the record, I don’t think there’s any authority that can be trusted with guided eugenics—they’re all so damned corrupt, or will become so, that it’s only ever usable for evil. But that’s NOT my reason for hating to have it here—I really don’t want people to have this as their first impression of LessWrong, and I don’t want to attract people who want to debate this on the object level.
Eugenics would absolutely further rationality. The hard truth that most people can’t accept is that the ability to be rational and intelligent is not equally distributed among humans. Intelligence and IQ are both estimated to be ~80% heritable. Humans won’t become more rational or intelligent in the long run without eugenics. As I’ve explained on my website, reproduction licenses are the only viable way to accomplish this and prevent overpopulation. Reproduction licenses will kill many birds with just one stone. Reproduction licenses will protect human rights, not harm them.
The most important problems of our time are the ones that we can’t discuss. A truly rational forum has to be able and willing to talk about controversial topics. Humanity cannot afford to stop talking about these topics just because they offend people and trigger emotions.
I don’t think there’s any authority that can be trusted with guided eugenics.
I could make the same argument about anything that a government does.
“I don’t think anybody can be trusted to control the police.”
“I don’t think anybody can be trusted to run the military.”
“I don’t think anybody can be trusted to collect taxes.”
Et Cetera.
Anybody who oppose eugenics on the belief that “nobody can be trusted” might as well embrace anarchism, which is doomed to fail. It’s clearly not a rational argument against eugenics.
I’m less personally offended that other comments, but please keep this off LessWrong. It doesn’t further the pursuit of rationality, and it’s far too politically charged for non-gated discussion.
For the record, I don’t think there’s any authority that can be trusted with guided eugenics—they’re all so damned corrupt, or will become so, that it’s only ever usable for evil. But that’s NOT my reason for hating to have it here—I really don’t want people to have this as their first impression of LessWrong, and I don’t want to attract people who want to debate this on the object level.
Eugenics would absolutely further rationality. The hard truth that most people can’t accept is that the ability to be rational and intelligent is not equally distributed among humans. Intelligence and IQ are both estimated to be ~80% heritable. Humans won’t become more rational or intelligent in the long run without eugenics. As I’ve explained on my website, reproduction licenses are the only viable way to accomplish this and prevent overpopulation. Reproduction licenses will kill many birds with just one stone. Reproduction licenses will protect human rights, not harm them.
The most important problems of our time are the ones that we can’t discuss. A truly rational forum has to be able and willing to talk about controversial topics. Humanity cannot afford to stop talking about these topics just because they offend people and trigger emotions.
I could make the same argument about anything that a government does.
“I don’t think anybody can be trusted to control the police.”
“I don’t think anybody can be trusted to run the military.”
“I don’t think anybody can be trusted to collect taxes.”
Et Cetera.
Anybody who oppose eugenics on the belief that “nobody can be trusted” might as well embrace anarchism, which is doomed to fail. It’s clearly not a rational argument against eugenics.
“Evil” is not a coherent concept. Morality is an illusion.