site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 28, 2025

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That is a fun fact!!!! It should be EVEN MORE ILLEGAL THOUGH! Nah joking, but not surprised.

It is surprising to me that cloning has been more legislated than trait based embryo selection. I suppose the wedge was IVF and selecting against major health issues like sickle-cell anemia, and now that wedge is being used to just push things open to full blown selecting for IQ, height, hair color, etc.

It is surprising to me that cloning has been more legislated than trait based embryo selection.

One of primarily fears of human cloning is that clones would be used as a source of organs, which selection can't deliver in principle. The other is that it's possible to instantly clone 160 IQ people (whose clones might be lower than 160 but still closer to 160 than 100) instead of throwing dice between -3 and +3 points.

How much do you think the average prospective parents care about hair color, and coarsely, height? I assume for the latter it isn't "Will be 74 inches tall", and most parents aren't looking to start an NBA team accidentally. I see how it could happen, and why that's concerning, but it seems IMO likely that at least one of (1) nurture matters more than straight genetics here, (2) most parents only have strong preferences against major genetic ailments, and even (3) IQ-linked genes may have negative externalities when all selected for at once (many such debates around).

I think this also assumes ubiquitous IVF, as opposed to the "conceived in the Riviera" approach considered in Gattaca.