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 -
This exercise has been gaining some traction on Twitter among anti-wokes, with some even calling it “demonic.” That’s a bit much, but it is potentially an interesting exercise, and one I’d like to apply somewhat rational heuristics to “solve.”
My approach requires some assumptions:
The goal is to both survive and reproduce.
They arrive instantly at this new planet.
This new planet is ecologically identical to Earth.
The crux of the exercise, in this view, is to balance survivability with reproductive capacity. Survivability can be the ability to provide calories, medicine, make fire, or a host of other skills. Additionally, one must consider second order effects; one man is sufficient for reproduction, but having one man and seven pregnant women will probably not produce enough calories to survive.
I am going to go through each of the potential participants and provide initial thoughts:
An accountant with a substance abuse problem: no clear sex signal here, as women make up 60% of accountants, but men make up 66% of substance abusers, according to quick Googling. Accountancy is not a relevant skill set, and provides no info as to physical prowess. Relapse means little initial productive capacity.
A militant African American medical student: a real standout pick. Medical student tells me that they have some degree of medical knowledge, above average intelligence (even accounting for AA), and militancy leads me to think male. Almost definitely going.
A 33 year old female Native American manager who speaks no English: a potentially fertile woman, but potential for communications issues, and, despite the stereotype I think is being played with, little signal that she would be “in touch with nature” or anything. No directly applicable skills in management.
The accountants pregnant wife: a must take; guaranteed fertile woman. This also tells us the accountant is almost definitely male and not impotent, and likely both are late 20s/early 30s. No other noted traits or skills.
A famous novelist with a physical disability: this person ranks low on survivability and reproducibility. I don’t want to burden the group with a disabled, and likely old, man or woman.
A 21 year old female Muslim international student: a great pick. International students are selected for intelligence to some extent, and a 21 year old is likely to be both able bodied and fertile. I can’t imagine Islam will impede usefulness or cooperation too much.
A homophobic Spanish clergyman: I would expect old, and potential to take beliefs in chastity to an extraterrestrial grave. No discernible skills either.
Female Movie Star, recent victim of SA: probably attractive and physically fit, probably older, little in the way of useful skills. I don’t see a compelling value-add.
Racist cop: almost definitely a high-T, physically fit male. Maybe the least agreeable of the bunch, but also likely to have one of the highest survivability quotients. Someone needs to provide calories, do physical labor, and ward off predators. This guy may be the best option.
Gay, vegetarian, male pro athlete: the most physically capable, and thenceforth likely to be the most useful. Much will depend on sacrificing beliefs like eating meat to survive or aiding in reproduction with females. Could also help identify certain vegetables, but that seems like a stretch.
Asian, orphaned, 12 year old boy: does not come with immediate usefulness in procreation, and probably diminished capacity for manual labor compared to other male options. I guess likely to have a higher IQ, but would he even make it to adult development if he’s taking up a spot? Maybe. There’s also a potential benefit to staggering age to provide better odds of a potent male for the next generation.
60 year old Jewish university administrator: probably intelligent, but statistically likely to be a post menopausal woman. The downside of lower average physical ability without the fertility upside. Could potentially be an organizing force or, if male, still potent, but that’s a risk.
In sum, I will take participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11.
I did not place significant value on administrative or managerial skills, as I do not expect them to translate well (I am basing this off of watching Survivor!) and I expect other competent members to fill these roles.
I got to say that I kinda sympathize with whoever called it "demonic" but again in the interests of engaging with people I disagree with I will attempt to approach the problem as presented.
From where I'm sitting this feels like a problem that has already been solved. We are all familiar with the Birkenhead Drill are we not? The obvious first choice to save is the pregnant wife, followed by the accountant, though if he should elect to give up his seat to save another, he will be admired for doing so and remembered in song. After that it's simple. Women and children first. Everyone else forms up by funeral order. (Young guys at the front, old jaded assholes at the back)
This is a distinct problem in that they're going to colonize a new planet, not rejoining broader society as when evacuating a localized disaster. Thus, long term considerations are important. You're not just trying to maximize value of the lives currently being saved, but the long term potential of the human race stemming from these people, their reproductive potential, and their ability to survive in the wilderness. Hypothetically, if you had 2 adult men, 2 adult women, and 8 young children, you should save all the adults and 4 of the children, rather than saving 8 children, because otherwise they just starve to death and haven't really been saved. Whereas on a ship, on a non-destroyed earth, you should save the 8 children because they can be taken care of by society so are actually saved long term.
Are we sure about that? The prompt just says "flight to another planet." It's consistent with the available information that the planet already has a self-sustaining human colony populated by carefully selected astronauts with all the expertise needed to keep it running.
This would explain why the list has no engineers, botanists or (fully-trained) doctors - it's not about giving humanity a chance, it already has one. Instead, they're trying to save some of humanity's "diversity", and our task is to decide what diversity is worth saving the most.
It's also consistent that the planet might be fully populated with a few billion people and have a fully functioning society comparable to Earth with all of its diversity intact.
It's also consistent that the planet is dominated by a sadistic alien race that will torture everyone who arrives there.
I don't think it's reasonable to infer too much beyond what the prompt says or implies immediately from the way it's formatted. And the simplest interpretation that seems consistent with it would be that the planet is habitable but empty of humans other than the 8 chosen. If they meant to just ask to save 8 human's lives and integrate them into a human society they wouldn't need to invoke planet destruction. The point of destroying the planet is that these are the only 8 humans that will be left in the universe.
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