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 -
Hello, everyone! I was unable to post for a while due to connection issues, but now I can. Here's something I meant to post months ago:
I think people who are worried about genetic engineering tend to be worried about all the wrong things. Often, someone says that in the future it might be possible to increase IQ or athletic ability and everyone else is worried about "playing god." But neither of those is particularly worrisome. I in fact agree with Scott Alexander that making hundred clones of Von Neumann to combat global warming might be a great idea. Dunno if it would work, but worth a try. What we should be worried about instead are attempts to alter human personality.
We know that personality is to a worryingly large part genetic. Also, I am getting the sense that pretty much no "side" that exists today is satisfied with people as they are. Nearly everyone will have interest in replacing vanilla humans with something more pliable.
Woke west will be interested in altering men to remove "toxic masculinity." Islamic countries might want to make women more submissive and thus prevent any possible future feminist rebellion (i wrote this before disturbances in Iran, so i guess I predicted something). Chinese might want to make everyone more obedient to the State.
In the west, there probably won't be any laws mandating genetic modifications of humans, but there won't be much need to be. Western helicopter parents are already looking for every advantage they can possibly get. They will pay for whatever genetic improvements necessary. And when improvements in IQ get maxed out, they will look for ways to make personality more competitive. Reducing libido is a no-brainer, not only will it make him pay more attention in school, it will also make him less likely to get in trouble with HR.
And in authoritarian countries, it will be even more simple.
This will likely be disastrous long-term. Progress happens because people are dissatisfied with the way things are and put in an effort change things. But once governments can simply replace discontent people with content ones, we'll likely see less progress. In fact, I have seen theories that proliferation of psychiatric medications is basically a weaker version of this. Some psychiatric medications are necessary, but the role of other seems to be to placate people as it costs the fraction of what an actual solutions would. Much cheaper to alter people's brain chemistry to be satisfied with depressing wagie environments than to change their depressing wagie environments. And generic engineering is potentially even more powerful.
I would say you're being insufficiently transhumanist. I doubt that in the 10-30 year period it would take for such genetic engineering to become commonplace, we wouldn't have cybernetic implants to perform arbitrary modification of the human mind.
Not to mention that schools and the like would be obsolete, assuming that education as we know it even has any purpose when transhumans/AGI can do everything faster and better, let alone with the sort of intellectual bandwidth mature BCIs can provide.
(And if I'm really putting on my techno-utopian hat, I envision such a society to not have much need for, spit, HR. Or men who can't find a better outlet for their libido than ogling breasts in the office.
Not that I wear that hat all that often, I'm personally resigned to dying ignominiously within 20 years, but if we don't Great Filter our own asses with AGI, then my kids are going to get the full package with whatever tech is available.)
I think that the AGI is far less probable than genetic engineering, even fairly advanced genetic engineering. Of course, both might happen, but genetic engineering will happen hella sooner.
Oh man, I'd love to bet against you on this, assuming you aren't just talking about polygenic embryo selection which already exists. AGI is almost here, probably less than a decade to go; I'd even give >50% odds of <5 years. Even if we had comprehensive genetic engineering available tomorrow, it'll take at least 15-20 years before it could start to affect the fabric of society.
(I'm not actually going to bet for various logistical reasons, but I'd love to.)
But I appreciate and agree with your concern about the prospect of personality adjustment conditioned on the availability of genetic engineering technology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link