[HN Gopher] The elite couples breeding to save mankind
___________________________________________________________________
The elite couples breeding to save mankind
Author : Anon84
Score : 12 points
Date : 2023-04-18 20:42 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.telegraph.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.telegraph.co.uk)
| stormfather wrote:
| Despite a tremendous amount of social programming to the
| contrary, for me it's a huge relief to see that people care about
| this problem and don't want to go extinct.
| hooverd wrote:
| The couple profiled in the article is not beating the "extremely
| goofy" allegations.
|
| > https://twitter.com/SimoneHCollins/status/164002825079661772...
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Too many hot takes to quote them all:
|
| > Some see the idealized conservative wife as something like a
| stay-at-home pet. I am grateful my husband does not see or
| treat me that way. I aspire to be his sword, the perfect tool
| to exert his will upon reality.
|
| or
|
| > Extreme life extension only seems benign because no one has
| tried it yet. Today's life extensionists are analogous to
| communists of the early 1900s. Life extensionists of the future
| will be seen as transparently evil and self interested as
| today's communists.
| throwaway5947 wrote:
| The upper classes are drawn to these theories like flies to shit.
| The biggest lesson from history is that we never learn from it.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| The problem with "elites" breeding to "save the world" are as
| follows:
|
| 1) Who defines elite? Referencing the article, is "working at a
| think tank" really an indicator of being elite in any sense? I
| certainly don't see getting a job at a think tank to be a
| particular indicator of skill nor do I find the outputs of think
| tanks to be very enlightening.
|
| 2) The problem isn't that child-rearing is a cool fun thing that
| people choose not to do because they're lazy, it's that we as a
| society make being a parent _suck._. Daytime childcare alone is
| expensive and complicated enough to turn many people off
| parenthood.
|
| Well off people having children _and then never shutting up about
| it_ does not solve any problems.
| useragent10 wrote:
| [dead]
| tomcam wrote:
| [flagged]
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| There are so few elite that their actions can't matter due to
| math.
|
| Birth control may be the great filter, as it breaks evolutionary
| assumptions.
| timcobb wrote:
| https://archive.is/SblzP
| twalla wrote:
| I imagine if you willingly self identify yourself as elite,
| you're anything but. These folks sound (and look) absolutely
| insufferable.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| meh. the telegraph. my favourite commentary on the telegraph is
| this bit from yes, prime minister:
|
| https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M?t=57
| elzbardico wrote:
| The title is a bit of bait, as well as the carefully chosen goofy
| photos. From what I read in the article, they are just rich
| people that think people should have more kids and are doing that
| themselves.
|
| That being said, if the elite think that everyone should have
| more kids, they should stop getting so much of the economic pie
| for themselves and sharing a bit more (pay higher wages? pay
| their taxes? don't go laying off people any time the economy does
| a burp?)
|
| A lot of the people who have only one kid would love to have
| more, but they are afraid of doing so because of economic
| reasons.
| yesbut wrote:
| But they went through all of this trouble to justify their sex
| drives. Certainly that's worth a life of luxury, right?
| notch898c wrote:
| In the US lower incomes are associated with higher fertility
| rates. This may suggest the elites, to 'solve' this problem,
| should bankrupt the population further and then give them lots
| of time unemployed to spur "free" activity taken during the
| boredom.
| henriquez wrote:
| Ah, good old eugenics.
| dnissley wrote:
| Is assortative mating eugenics?
| Johanx64 wrote:
| Can you name what's wrong with eugenics exactly?
| mjklin wrote:
| It is simply misguided:
|
| "No such program of eugenics could work: there is no lasting
| agreement about desirable mental or physical qualities; an
| individual's worth depends on other, incalculable
| ingredients. Environmental conditions mingle with inherited
| characteristics to make us the way we are." - Out of Our
| Minds, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto
|
| Like "human rights" and "education", it is much easier to be
| for "desirable qualities" than to say what they are.
| terminal_logic wrote:
| [dead]
| notch898c wrote:
| Thus it is misguided to pick a mate based on desirable
| qualities? Or it is OK for the individual but not
| individuals at scale?
| biohax2015 wrote:
| > Or it is OK for the individual but not individuals at
| scale?
|
| Yes, that is precisely the case.
| notch898c wrote:
| Of course what follows then is the implication the
| individual is not misguided in selecting for desirable
| traits.
|
| You're basically arguing perhaps for something like
| decentralized eugenics rather than authoritarian
| eugenics.
| biohax2015 wrote:
| Have groups of individuals been any less misguided?
|
| Eugenics is one of those ideas that might sound good in
| theory, but a world in which the government has absolute
| control over one of your most basic human instincts is a
| horrible world.
| Teever wrote:
| Sure, I can. Both the people in the article have glasses.
|
| They are inferior and should not be producing 7 children.
|
| Can you see the problem? I bet they can't.
| hooverd wrote:
| I don't think eugenics is worth debating because it's a
| pointless broad term. The implementations have not been great
| though. Usually there are some vaguely good intentions and
| then deciding it's easier to get rid of the bad traits than
| to encourage the good traits.
| jag3421 wrote:
| If we can create stronger horses through selective mating,
| why do you believe that would not carry over to
| intelligence if applied to humans? Why would it not be
| worth having stronger, healther, and more intelligent
| humans?
| biohax2015 wrote:
| The issue is: who decides who is fit for breeding? You?
|
| Maybe you do a good job, but this sort of power will
| inevitably become corrupted by a failed art student
| sooner or later.
| jag3421 wrote:
| The tribe. It could be enforced at the local level,
| and/or elevated to a higher level. Also that artist was
| correct, it's just taboo to admit it.
| jag3421 wrote:
| This is not a good forum to discuss such topics, as your
| account will be shadowbanned, post(s) removed, or simply
| banned. Hackernews and its moderators are not interested in
| truth, but agendas, and are willing to disregard
| science/evolution to persist in their beliefs.
| teachrdan wrote:
| By advocating for selective breeding and genetic engineering,
| eugenics promotes the idea that some individuals are
| inherently superior to others based on their genetics, which
| is a dangerous and discriminatory notion.
|
| Furthermore, eugenics often relies on subjective criteria to
| determine which traits are desirable or undesirable. This can
| lead to the marginalization and discrimination of certain
| groups based on factors such as race, ethnicity, or
| disability. Eugenics has a long history of being used to
| justify discriminatory policies, such as forced
| sterilization, segregation, and genocide, which have caused
| immense harm and suffering to countless individuals and
| communities.
|
| Finally, eugenics assumes that genetic factors are the
| primary determinants of an individual's traits and abilities,
| ignoring the complex interplay between genetics and
| environment. This reductionist view of human biology is not
| only scientifically flawed but also ignores the importance of
| environmental factors such as education, social support, and
| access to resources in shaping an individual's life outcomes.
| jag3421 wrote:
| Your argument is riddled with strawmen. Eugenics is clearly
| helpful if you have a strategy selected (breeding for
| intelligence, strength, etc) and is witnessed in horse
| breeding, dog breeding, etc, and why top dollar is paid for
| the offspring of prize winning horses when they are studded
| out. You should instead attempt to make a compelling
| argument how it does not apply to humans. That would be
| worth reading, instead of strawman arguments.
| notch898c wrote:
| I'm sure my account will be banned soon, so let me just
| leave one pondering here:
|
| Does many generations of slavery and the associated
| genetic selection for winning survival strategies impose
| shifting genetic attributes to the surviving population?
| robopsychology wrote:
| It's my understanding during slavery, assuming we're
| thinking American Black slavery here and not something
| else like Egyptian slavery etc, slaves were allowed to
| have their own families which they picked and were not
| selected for some sort of "superior" trait in children.
| The death rates for slaves was 1.8% and for whites was
| 1.2%, so I don't think that would have been a factor
| either.
|
| I wonder if any previous human civilization did actually
| select slaves that were stronger to try birth stronger
| slaves... horrifying to think about really, but that
| doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
| bell-cot wrote:
| A micro-sized number of "elite" couples, talking their baby-
| making activities up as if that was some OMG Incredibly Awesome
| New Thing.
|
| The article's featured couple has 3 kids, and aspires to have 7
| kids.
|
| Meanwhile - my lower-middle class grandmother, whose parents were
| very ordinary rural farmers, had 11 younger siblings.
| kerblang wrote:
| On a farm, kids are free labor, you already have land to build
| as big a house as you want, and you've got lots of extra food
| to feed 'em.
| barelysapient wrote:
| Children are simply too expensive. My first child cost me over
| $15,000 in co-pays. School for six hours a day is $1100 a
| month. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates it'll cost
| over $230,000 to raise a child to 18. That's before college.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > Children are simply too expensive ... School for six hours
| a day is $1100 a month.
|
| What? Public school is free and taxpayer-funded in the US.
| notch898c wrote:
| Depends. If someone seduces a doctor (see the trial of Conrad
| Murray who was Michael Jackson's propofil fixer who was in
| deep shit to multiple strippers for one night stand child
| support) for 20% you could take away 40k tax free and move to
| a quaint midwest town and come out quite ahead. Also if
| you're poor as dirt and just feed the kids rice and lentils
| and rely on (now increased) benefits and public institutions
| for everything else you can come ahead too. Whether this has
| anything to do with high fertility rates at the low income
| bands is up for interpretation.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Operative word: grandmother, i.e. not contemporaneous with the
| actual crisis that's happening.
|
| It's obviously not a _new_ thing, it's the old thing. But the
| new thing (not having kids) is a big, big problem for most
| modern civilizations at this point.
| Bjorkbat wrote:
| Depending on how much you believe autism is hereditary you could
| argue that these couples are going to really cause problems for
| humanity's gene pool.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-18 23:02 UTC)