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 -
"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.
Would do you think of the ability to bring back to life basically people who overdose? I forget the name of the drug but it starts with an N if memory serves. Maybe Narcan or something like that.
You're correct, though Narcan is a brand name.
What about it? I mean, I feel like most people have no objection to its existence, and consider it a very good thing to have around. You might have a few junkies start whaling on you because you ruined a perfectly good high as far they were concerned (they don't care about the fact that they stopped breathing).
You talked about making junkies internalize their costs whilst narcan seems to be the opposite.
I'm not a zealot, you won't see me holding a copy of Atlas Shrugged while putting a padlock on a public park.
In the UK, I've never seen Narcan dispensers in public. I presume only paramedics would carry them.
In the US? I've heard of them being in half the stores, people carrying them just in case, and so on.
If someone feels morally obliged to whip it out when they see an addict ODing, why on earth would I condemn the kindness of strangers? If they weren't carrying anything, and didn't do more than call 911 and walk away, I won't condemn them either.
Don't get me wrong. I think the opioid epidemic in the US needs addressing. I'm all for rounding up junkies and making them take their meds and go through a rehab program, but because they're criminals, a public nuisance and causing social chaos, not because they're drug-users.
I also think that in countries with publicly funded healthcare, states should have the right to deny coverage to those who refuse to address behaviors that impose exorbitant costs. You might be saved and treated free of charge the first time, but if you don't comply with further advice, then I don't object to the public washing their hands of you as a lost cause.
Some diseases are unavoidable, it's not like anyone asks to develop Type 1 diabetes or schizophrenia. I'm far more sympathetic to such cases, but not sane people who know the risks of addiction and show no signs of stopping, while expecting the rest of us to pick up after them.
Because their kindness results in more unkindness directed at others by the addicts they save.
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