This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sam Altman and his husband had a kid.
Let me say outright I wish him, him, and the child well. Certainly growing up in a wealthy family affords a child many benefits that would not be had without that wealth, so good for the kid. Let me also say I am, as a person tangentially involved in medicine and medical science, not adamantly opposed to IVF, personally, though admittedly I have not spent a lot of time poring over the moral aspects of it. It seems like one of those things that generally contributes toward the good, inasmuch as it is creative, in the most literal sense of the word, and not destructive. My mind might be changed by a persuasive argument.
What irks me though, is that in the linked article there is no mention whatsoever of the mother of this child, the woman who carried the child in her womb, from whose egg the child generated (whether you view this as the mother or not is of course up to you.) It is as if the two men just somehow had a child, as if that is the most natural thing in the world, and there should be no questioning of it by anyone for to do so would be, I don't know, wrong or backward-ass.
Yet here I am, wondering. Should there not be at least a rhetorical nod toward the woman, a phrase in some sentence saying that the child was brought into the world via gestational surrogacy--a good way to introduce the term into people's vocabulary, the regular working men and women among us who may have never thought of the term. Yet there is nothing. Nada y pues nada. Can anyone steelman this beyond the assertion that it is a required newspeak in our Brave New World?
If I were to be dramatic, I'd say a woman has been literally erased here-- a maternal unpersoning. I know at least one woman (white, American) who "had" a child via gestational surrogacy--she is now both divorced and living about 4,800 miles (7,725 km) apart from her daughter. Life's a bitch. I never outright asked her about the woman who carried the child to term, though I know that this was a so-called "commercial surrogacy" and the woman who did carry the child was from India, probably without much financial means, and the whole affair was generally unpalatable to me. But I loved the (egg) mother as a sister, though she is unrelated to me, and still do, though she is a little nuts.
But Altman and Mulherin are both men, and thus the egg came from neither of them. I don't know, I just wish the goddam media would throw me a bone sometimes.
"Surrogacy" is a classic bioethics problem for a reason.
The question of the 21st century, and (hopefully!) beyond, is what role humans will play in the future. We are accustomed to using the word "dehumanizing" as a pejorative, as we treat pretty much everything else in the world worse than we treat one another (which is often saying something...)--so to be not human is by definition to be less than human. But "dehumanize" can be a purely descriptive term.
(This is also a big part of AI anxiety, I think--if there's something higher than us on the intellectual food chain, doesn't that make us food? See e.g. The Matrix as an early example of taking this somewhat literally...)
For hundreds of thousands of years at least, maternal affection has been a matter of life and death for our species. There is basically nothing more fundamentally human, except perhaps the act of heterosexual coupling that creates infants in the first place. And (perhaps contra some other commenters) I think there are fully human roads to practices like adoption (women have often shared the task of breastfeeding with other women, e.g.).
But artificial reproductive technologies--even as basic as your IUI "turkey baster" techniques"--head down a slippery slope. By applying technological progress to ourselves, we objectify humanity itself. We step outside our species, however slightly, and subject ourselves to egregorian evolution (usually, Moloch).
So my own perspective on this is that the problem isn't the womb rental (so to speak) per se. It's the fact that we don't approach it with a clear and widespread understanding that it is in fact transhumanist to do. That the resulting relationships are transhuman relationships. That the mother of this child has been used, for a time, as (spoilers for Dune):an axlotl tank (e.g.--mildly NSFW)
Is it wrong, to "rent out" the human body? Is it wrong, to deprive a human child of a mother? I'm open to the possibility, and doing such things has historically been closely associated with monumental evil, in the details even if not in the act itself. But I think the problem in the case of surrogacy for same-sex couples is precisely that we insist on pretending that there's "nothing to it," rather than observing that this is transhumanism in action, the activity of reducing our bodies to the level of chattel--to the level of moveable property, of mere technology. Philosophers have long observed that the body is mechanical in nature!
I consider myself fairly pro-transhumanism. I would like us to be more than we are, and I would like us to approach that in a careful and thoughtful way. But we don't actually have the technology to make that happen, yet, and if we ever do I think it will be an extinction-class event for our species. People who do transhumanesque things now--employ surrogacy for same sex "reproduction," have their sex organs removed to fulfill a personal aesthetic, etc.--are like small children "playing house" in alarmingly sexual ways, doing grown-up things without adult supervision or a mature understanding of what they do. It is a form of arrested development; unable or unwilling to accept the reality of the world they live in, gay men buy children so they can play house. But matters are not so simple, and the resulting child will be raised without some historically central human experiences. It is not nice to say that makes them "less than human," but in the fully transhuman sense, it clearly makes them less human. I hasten to add--there are many experiences we may all have, in this sense, that make us "less human!" But even so, it seems like a terrible thing to deliberately inflict such things on biological humans who have not chosen transhumanism for themselves.
I really don't see this as a compelling concern.
The 'Human Experience' is incredibly diverse, to say the least. Is an orphan, someone raised in an institution and lacking any parents, less human because of it?
I find that impossible to entertain.
Orphans do poorly mostly because of selection effects, especially if we consider extend our consideration to those who were abandoned by less than scrupulous birth parents but had the misfortune of still inheriting their genes (the only thing they got out of that bum deal).
Another illustrative case is that comparative studies show that most of the harms of not being raised with a father in the household arise from deadbeat dads, those who lost their fathers to sickness or accidents come out as normal as anyone else.
I have great contempt for most so-called ethicists, and as far as I'm concerned, mutually positive sum transactions between consenting individuals should be accepted, if not celebrated. Humans are finicky things, and the idea of surrogacy doesn't mean that the woman who bore the child escapes the hormonal and emotional consequences despite knowing on an intellectual level that the baby growing in their wombs isn't genetically related to them. But if they signed a contract accepting this, then that's that. I understand surrendering the baby might be immensely painful, and is an entirely legitimate feeling. After all, nobody is particularly surprised by adoptive parents being fond of their adopted children.
If this woman agreed to birth the child, even if it was her eggs that were used in the process, then I do not see any room for her to complain about handing the baby to Altman and his husband. Not that there's any evidence of this, I'm not aware of someone weeping and wailing on television, bemoaning that a cruel near-billionaire has snatched a waif away from her breast. She might not even want any publicity.
I fail to see much reason to care if future humans are gestated in the 'ol biological 3D printer, or in an external replica of such. At the very least, it's a technology with massive positive potential in a world with declining birth rates, and anything that makes the process of reproduction less of a hassle has its merits. I don't see the downsides as being worth much airtime in this case.
Would you say the same about the sale of heroin between a dealer and a buyer?
If your answer is anything but yes, doesn't that suggest there are at least some cases where making the option of something available is a net negative to at least one of the individuals in question, even when they are able to consent?
Yes. I'd legalize the sale of heroin from a buyer to the seller. I'd be okay with heavy taxes on it, and would absolutely be for imposing strict penalties on all the negative externalities it would cause.
If someone buys heroin and does it in their home without hassling anyone else, that's their business. If they become addicted and commit crime, then they should face punishment. If they lose their jobs and need to be bailed out, that should be conditional on a good faith attempt at seeking medical treatment and adhering to the treatment regime prescribed.
You won't catch me going on the street protesting for it to be legalized, because I have better things to do, but I wouldn't stand in the way.
After all, I am in the business of occasionally needing to prescribe fentanyl and morphine, and given that the patient pays for it directly, or indirectly through taxes or insurance, that counts as selling it. Doctors are, among other things, fent dealers. If that can be done without causing society to collapse in flames, other alternative arrangements might well work.
Both doctors and society in general has a duty of care that extends in not providing people heroin. Now there is a balance to this that means that fredom tm and other considerations might matter with certain less harmful substances enough, but there is a line.
I think we had a discussion about this before, but that you don't care about the line doesn't mean that you aren't breaking clear good ethical norms here that a doctor especially shouldn't break. Doctors are especially the kind of people who ought to think about what is their patient's best interest and not what their patient might be requesting at the moment.
It is in fact immoral and parasitic to profit from selling what is harmful to others. There can be a debate about some more grey areas, but there is a line above which it becomes pretty clear that you have activity that is just harming people.
But aren't addicts morally culpable on a significant level? Of course. Although there might be some more sympathetic stories. But so are people selling heroin and to a lesser extend those allowing them to do so. You discourage and condemn all three to get a society without the malaise of significant drug addiction and death due to it. While you allow, encourage, and side with all three to get the society with these problems. It is a choice that will end with the different outcomes with a clear right and wrong side.
I'd like to point that there's a distinction between a random person selling someone else heroin, and me doing the same thing. I would, of course, hold myself to a higher standard and not disburse it if it wasn't a necessity. That's what I would do if ever had to prescribe diamorphine, the term used not to scare the hoes.
Even in a setting where the usual legal and ethical constraints I'm obliged to follow (if I wish to keep my license) were waived, if someone came up to asking heroin, and it wasn't in the context of overwhelming pain in a hospital, I'd politely tell them I'm not comfortable doing that, and that they should look elsewhere.
I am okay with letting other people do things that might harm them, especially if they know what they're getting into, that doesn't mean I want to make things worse myself.
Sure. I'm happy to concede that. I don't think that changes my overall stance that blanket illegality shouldn't be the means of regulating this.
If I'm allowed to daydream, everyone old enough to vote takes a Rational Adult exam, potentially one that's subdivided into multiple ascending tiers of difficulty. The more you pass, the more you are allowed to do, because the presumption is that you've proven yourself intelligent enough to be responsible for yourself. For an existence proof, look at driving tests.
Maybe have people pay for bonds. Maybe allow insurance companies to charge them more for risky behavior. Tax negative external ties and strongly punish anything that spills out of personal bounds.
I don't really care about moral culpability, at best I consider it an occasionally useful fiction. You get a pass if you've got a brain tumor or something, that's the way people look at things.
I don't condone giving heroin away to school children. I am willing to look away when an adult buys it off another adult with no coercion involved. If it's a situation where coercion is the default assumption, have them sign a legal contract first. I see liberty that extends only to doing things that society deems are Good For You a pale imitation of the real deal, and I accept the consequences.
Surely the same duty that applies to you, applies to others. Doctors are probably going to be a source of the drugs.
It isn't just something that you simply aren't comfortable of doing but a moral obligation that extends to other doctors and people in general. It is a duty not to do it and such an important duty that they ought to be restricted from selling what is essentially addictive poison.
It is not a fiction however but central to morality. Someone who is selling heroin to others is a terrible person who engages in what is correctly treated as a criminal activity.
In this case, it isn't about what society deems to be good for you but what is genuinely good for you.
Which heroin definitely is not. The freedom to take and sell heroin is not a worthy one. It also hardly the case that liberty is enshrined here when the end result is someone who becomes an addict. There is a higher liberty that is satisfied by not selling and not buying heroin, morally condemning the practice, and restricting it as well.
It is also about what kind of society you want and will get. Your hiding a refusal to do the pro social duty behind liberty.
Another analogous case would be making it illegal to put poison in food even if there is a willing buyer who is unaware.
Allowing selling your self or one's dependents to slavery, or selling your eyes, would also be the kind of thing that reduces liberty, and doesn't enshrine it. I don't see liberty but slavery when looking at drug addicts.
I would agree however that any moral obligation and any paternalism towards addicts and others who make poor decisions should be limited or else it becomes pathological altruism and parasitical at expense of more productive citizens.
Noblese oblige and paternalism only so far but it does include having a society that tries not to take advantage of these kind of people.
What you are proposing would be a betrayal to the principle of no regulation = liberty.
Plus smart people even though less than others, do stupid self destructive things too. Having a country that restricts heroin and has policies that lead to less drug abuse would result in a country that some of the people who were to become addicts would have lead successful lives. Avoiding having places that are notoriously filled with "zombies".
Maybe this makes sense for something like crypto but makes less sense for heroin. Your proposal would surely lead to more restrictions than just banning the worst things.
It does make sense for some industries to limit them in some capacity when it comes to gambling, porn ,etc. Still, the fact that you are willing to support something much more restrictive does undermine the claim that liberty to sell and buy heroin is an important principle. It is not. The duty of caring about the end result of heroin being sold and bought is a much more important consideration.
Why? If we're restricting ourselves to what seems to be a rather minarchist AnCap Utopia, why is it that only doctors would be licensed to sell it?
Once again, my own views, and not representative of current reality:
Anyone can get a license to prescribe anything. They go to a government body that makes them pay a recurring sum that is a fair estimate of expected negative externalities, or what would have come out of the public purse. For highly addictive drugs, this would certainly be an enormous sum. It might even be legally required to buy insurance on the free market. Think of this as a more generalized form of malpractice insurance as paid by doctors, if you don't show proof of funds then too bad for you.
It might be framed as a bond, due to be returned with interest after X years, but any violations would be deducted from it. If they sold to someone with an Adult Card, then they'd be cleared of much of the liability.
Good luck on getting people to come to a true consensus on what is "good for you". A stable equilibrium is allowing people to choose for themselves, as long as they don't abuse the privilege by hurting others.
As far as I'm concerned, the State should not be in the business of being a nanny, and if it insists, then people should be allowed to opt out or form enclaves of like-minded people.
I re-iterate that I'm not a monomaniacal zealot. This counts as a concession, a mild step back from Absolute Freedom (or outright anarchy). I think your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
I am willing to trade away a non-zero amount of freedom for other terminal values I have. I just value freedom more than most.
I disagree. We currently do something maybe sorta kinda like what I propose, but in a half-baked manner without underlying guiding thought more than the whims of the Current Year.
That is your opinion. I express my love and sense of duty towards my "fellow man" by hoping I can treat them like intelligent adults who can decide for themselves, and ask the same in turn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link