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 -
Your statement, as I understood it, was that intelligence is not an unalloyed good because intelligence enables agents to do more damage. You sought to back this statement up by a list of claims about bad things humans do but animals (as an extreme example of something much dumber) don't.
In response to this, I claimed:
(1) animals still do bad things (that was my first response);
(2) the bad things that animals do are not actually better than the bad things humans do (this was my second response), and hence I disagree with your argument against intelligence being an unalloyed good.
Specifically, I argued (2) by saying that a calculus of badness that says that the bad things that animals do are less bad than the bad things that humans do may have implications that I certainly don't agree with, and I would be surprised if you agree with them either. Is a lion that roars at a weaker lion to chase it away and then steal its prey "better" than a human that robs a bank? If yes, why? If you say this is because the bank is worth much more than the dead antelope, is a marauding band of soldiers in the 17th century that burns down a wooden farmhouse with no plumbing or electricity (worth maybe $50k on the modern market) also better than someone who robs a bank today for $1m?
I think you're reading way too much into my statement. I was making a very simple, [what I'd have thought was a] very uncontroversial point. Intelligent people gave us climate change. Intelligent people gave us World War 2. Intelligent people gave us atomic weapons. Intelligent people gave us Planned Parenthood. Intelligence may 'not' be among the best mother nature has to offer her creatures, since animals live in relative peace of a kind that vastly outstrips the destruction humanity has wrought on itself throughout history. And your first point addresses something I never said, so that's not relevant.
Incidentally, looking back, I don't think it's a good idea to go around trying to stretch and stuff every sentence with $2 words pulled from a thesaurus, because that's what your statements read like to me, and it's very difficult to read them thinking they're meant to be seriously taken, without eye rolls.
The point is not uncontroversial, because if you're going to blame all those atrocities on intelligent people, you can't get away with being selective about it. Intelligent people gave us the semiconductor, the refrigerator, the printing press - although whether the printing press was ruinous for humanity is a matter for debate in some circles.
There's also a very good argument to be made that you can attribute the atrocities you listed to a lack of intelligence.
Animals live short, nasty, brutish lives, and I think their inability to outcompete, outproduce and exterminate everything else within reach is a matter of capability rather than need. The historical record of nature tells us that they frequently hunt, feed, and reproduce to excess, and when biomes change over time go extinct or ferociously exterminate and outcompete those occupying similar ecological niches. As far as I know, humankind is no different, we're just better at it.
Your last paragraph is typical-minding and an attempt to establish consensus. Please check your consensus at the door. There are people who take these arguments seriously, including yours, and if I took your argument seriously I'd seek the mass extermination of the human race within my own means.
Or, you know, I'd just go around trying to lower the intelligence of the human race by introducing heavy metals into the water supply.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know what I did to deserve the flippant attitude you've been displaying since the start, but two can play that game, so I'll try to use simpler words just for you.
You don't think "animals don't do bad things" is a fair reading of a list of "I've never seen [animal] do [bad thing]" that you clearly didn't pick for being true and where calling out something in the list for being wrong just made you answer with that "missing the forest for the trees" comment? Please tell me what the actual intended meaning of that post was in terms of what it said (retconning something poetic about what mother nature gave her creatures doesn't count, since none of that was actually in the original post).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link