Politics Thread 6

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

Who will you vote for at the next General Election?

Conservative
16
10%
Labour
64
41%
Liberal Democrat
28
18%
Green
22
14%
SNP
16
10%
Brexit Party
4
3%
UKIP
2
1%
Plaid Cymru
3
2%
DUP
1
1%
Sinn Fein
2
1%
The Independent Group for Change
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 158
User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Meep » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:53 pm

I kind of exaggerated for comic effect bu the basic point was that animals evolve through refinement over the course of millions of years and human understanding of genome and proteome is limited. By selecting for one desired trait we usually end up promoting other negative ones that were previously kept in check.

So the idea that you could produce a superior human through selective breeding is far from certain. You might promote one thing and end up opening a Pandora's box of other problems that would be kept at bay by a more diverse gene pool.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:55 pm

twitter.com/joannechocolat/status/1228972685956386817


User avatar
Cuttooth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Cuttooth » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:35 pm

twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1229143173584375808



Can’t wait for the balanced debates to start on whether white people are just naturally superior. :roll:

Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator for those who don’t know.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:53 pm

Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1229143173584375808



Can’t wait for the balanced debates to start on whether white people are just naturally superior. :roll:

Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator for those who don’t know.


Am I being stupid in thinking that Dawkins doesn't think eugenics is a good idea merely that you could breed humans like we already do to animals?

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Squinty » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:55 pm

Most of the news/views I'm reading these days is alarming.

Last edited by Squinty on Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Knoyleo » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:55 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1229143173584375808



Can’t wait for the balanced debates to start on whether white people are just naturally superior. :roll:

Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator for those who don’t know.


Am I being stupid in thinking that Dawkins doesn't think eugenics is a good idea merely that you could breed humans like we already do to animals?

That is what he's saying, but it's still a weird flex

twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229083369641824266


pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:07 pm

It’s one thing to deplore a Holocaust on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It worked for dodos, passenger pigeons, Tasmanian tigers, Great Auks & Silphium. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:09 pm

Knoyleo wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1229143173584375808



Can’t wait for the balanced debates to start on whether white people are just naturally superior. :roll:

Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator for those who don’t know.


Am I being stupid in thinking that Dawkins doesn't think eugenics is a good idea merely that you could breed humans like we already do to animals?

That is what he's saying, but it's still a weird flex

twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229083369641824266



He basically said all this in the Greatest Show On Earth.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Knoyleo » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:10 pm

Lex-Man wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1229143173584375808



Can’t wait for the balanced debates to start on whether white people are just naturally superior. :roll:

Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator for those who don’t know.


Am I being stupid in thinking that Dawkins doesn't think eugenics is a good idea merely that you could breed humans like we already do to animals?

That is what he's saying, but it's still a weird flex

twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229083369641824266



He basically said all this in the Greatest Show On Earth.

I don't remember him being in The Wire.

pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:11 pm

Knoyleo wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1229143173584375808



Can’t wait for the balanced debates to start on whether white people are just naturally superior. :roll:

Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator for those who don’t know.


Am I being stupid in thinking that Dawkins doesn't think eugenics is a good idea merely that you could breed humans like we already do to animals?

That is what he's saying, but it's still a weird flex

twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229083369641824266



He basically said all this in the Greatest Show On Earth.

I don't remember him being in The Wire.


Lol, it was his book on Evolution but I should really get round to watching the rest of the wire.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Oblomov Boblomov » Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:09 am

Don't really get the issue here. He's stating that something is possible, based on evidence. Do we really need to go post-truth on this?

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:18 am

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Don't really get the issue here. He's stating that something is possible, based on evidence. Do we really need to go post-truth on this?


Why state it’s possible? All that’s doing is adding fuel to those who would like to see it return.

It’s possible to do all sorts of horrible things, we don’t need reminding.

He also fails to answer what the something is. Can eugenics remove disease? Not really. Can it make humanity more intelligent? Not really. Can it end up with the sterilisation of non-white/“low” intelligence people? Absolutely.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
Community Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by OrangeRKN » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:08 am

Yes to all three

It's a silly argument to be having though. Moral arguments and technical arguments shouldn't be conflated. It's pretty much the old GM is a tool debate. We should always strive for accuracy and the promotion of fact in debate.

Genetic diversity is a good thing, it increases resilience. There is the potential for great benefit from genetic modification and augmentation, but our scientific understanding is pretty basic and incapable of delivering on such things, certainly without great risk or unforeseen side effects. People pushing for such use are much more likely doing so from a malicious and prejudice perspective.

I look forward to the day we are all post-human energy beings but even the intermediary robo stage (official terminology) is a long way off

Image
Image
orkn.uk - Top 5 Games of 2023 - SW-6533-2461-3235
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:15 am

OrangeRKN wrote:Yes to all three

It's a silly argument to be having though. Moral arguments and technical arguments shouldn't be conflated. It's pretty much the old GM is a tool debate. We should always strive for accuracy and the promotion of fact in debate.

Genetic diversity is a good thing, it increases resilience. There is the potential for great benefit from genetic modification and augmentation, but our scientific understanding is pretty basic and incapable of delivering on such things, certainly without great risk or unforeseen side effects. People pushing for such use are much more likely doing so from a malicious and prejudice perspective.

I look forward to the day we are all post-human energy beings but even the intermediary robo stage (official terminology) is a long way off


Eugenics will not solve humanities problems. If we are striving for accuracy then we need to be more accurate with terms. Eugenics does not improve the collective intelligence of humanity, it doesn’t remove the risk of disease.

Science maybe able to solve those problems but it will not be through the pseudoscience of eugenics.

User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Knoyleo » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:33 am

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Don't really get the issue here. He's stating that something is possible, based on evidence. Do we really need to go post-truth on this?

Whether eugenics "works" is a pretty subjective point, as well.

pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
User avatar
OrangeRKN
Community Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by OrangeRKN » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:43 am

That depends on how narrow or wide a definition of eugenics you're working with. There are absolutely inherited genetic disorders that can currently be, and are, screened for, and often the pregnancy is terminated - e.g. Huntington's disease, spina bifida. A stat I just found is that "about 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated". Whether this is morally acceptable is a different argument to whether it is possible - it is, and it is currently happening. I listened to this relatively recently which was an interesting discussion on the subject in part.

Image
Image
orkn.uk - Top 5 Games of 2023 - SW-6533-2461-3235
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:58 am

OrangeRKN wrote:That depends on how narrow or wide a definition of eugenics you're working with. There are absolutely inherited genetic disorders that can currently be, and are, screened for, and often the pregnancy is terminated - e.g. Huntington's disease, spina bifida. A stat I just found is that "about 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated". Whether this is morally acceptable is a different argument to whether it is possible - it is, and it is currently happening. I listened to this relatively recently which was an interesting discussion on the subject in part.


Genetic testing is not the same as eugenics, unless we are really stretching the definition of eugenics.

Screening and selecting embryos for disease carrying genes is not the same as forbidding “inferior” people from breeding.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
Community Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by OrangeRKN » Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 am

Positive eugenics is the encouragement of selecting for "positive" traits. Negative eugenics is the encouragement of not selecting for "negative" traits. State enforcement is an extreme method of encouragement in either case, and not a mandatory trait of eugenics.

I don't think it's a stretch to argue that state provided genetic screening for certain genetic disorders is a form of encouragement used against parents to reduce occurrence of the perceived negative disorders - the primary state benefit being a reduction in cost of health care. Many of the same moral arguments apply, regardless of the strength of such encouragement.

Arguing over definitions is mostly pointless, but accepting that definitions of eugenics wider than your own exist helps prevent arguing cross-purposes. It's obvious that genetic screening and embryo selection forms part of the same wider discussion.

Image
Image
orkn.uk - Top 5 Games of 2023 - SW-6533-2461-3235
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:31 am

2020 and here we are arguing over eugenics.

If you want to expand the definition into genetic screening then you’re missing the entire point of what eugenics was.

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Jenuall
Location: 40 light-years outside of the Exeter nebula
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Jenuall » Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:48 am

Dawkins is often on the wrong side of debates he wades into that are simply not his specialism. Vast swathes of the scientists working in the field of genetics have strongly argued the case that, regardless of the moral/ideological aspects of the debate, the science simply does not backup this position that it "would work".


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Garth, Grumpy David, PuppetBoy, Robbo-92, Vermilion and 397 guests