The Need of the Left: Democratic reform?

[MineMineMine]

As I remember elementary school, there were actually some who weren't especially fond of math, you know basic calculation like 1+4=5. Should we say those kids are not interested in math so we don't force them to learn it?
Same goes with reading.
If someone refuses to learn basic skills as a child then leave him be? Don't enforce anyone anymore to go to school really?

As a society you have to (sadly) force some people to learn stuff. And you have to draw some arbitrary line in the sand when you stop enforcing it.

I quiet like Bertrand Russel's 'defense of laziness' (you can it find it for free on the internetz i think). Only the minority of a the population has to work to sustain the majority so in an idealistic way i'd say it's perfectly fine to let people slack of in their education. And if a 70 year old grandma figures she wants to start learn reading, hell give her elementary school lessons for free!
I don't want to strife for the most advanced society (probably japan nowadays*) but for the most happy one (probably sweden*)


As for genetic birth defect eradication. I'm on Yfelsung's side here. I actually find it rather pathetic, if a mother drinks alcohol or smokes during pregnancy most people will hand wave it as something that could be harmful but not that harmful. But if you suggest to improve that will be life by a pre natal procedure the same people will yell and scream.

Oh and forcing a pregnant woman to do genetic modification on her baby seems a bit..... unrealistic and cruel in an emotional way. one should rather aim to make such a thing acceptable rather than force it.







*i didn't google this, so i might be horribly wrong.

 

[borrofburi]

As for the forced genetic modifications, let the parents decide. I think all legal precedent would be behind that decision. If at some point in the future it leads to some kind of massive war between the normals and the suspiciously Ricardo Montalban looking supermen, pft, whatever, deal with that eventuality when it comes. I've never liked the argument to not do something good just because it's unfair and honestly, if poor people can't afford to have their children's genetic defaults fixed, that'll just serve to encourage them to get richer. You don't tell rich people they can't have a sports car because it's unfair to the poor people who can't afford them. That's a load of bull, same thing with genetic engineering.

I think the worry is a positive feedback loop: the rich get smarter so they get better able to be rich and keep their riches... The poor were never rich in the first place, so they can't manage to get rich, especially since all the rich people are 10 times as smart as them now...

Sports cars don't make you or your children more likely to be rich.

 

[Unwardil]

Sports cars don't, but big houses and big savings accounts do cause exactly the same kind of positive feedback loop and they're not illegal either.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

As for the forced genetic modifications, let the parents decide. I think all legal precedent would be behind that decision. If at some point in the future it leads to some kind of massive war between the normals and the suspiciously Ricardo Montalban looking supermen, pft, whatever, deal with that eventuality when it comes. I've never liked the argument to not do something good just because it's unfair and honestly, if poor people can't afford to have their children's genetic defaults fixed, that'll just serve to encourage them to get richer. You don't tell rich people they can't have a sports car because it's unfair to the poor people who can't afford them. That's a load of bull, same thing with genetic engineering.

I think the worry is a positive feedback loop: the rich get smarter so they get better able to be rich and keep their riches... The poor were never rich in the first place, so they can't manage to get rich, especially since all the rich people are 10 times as smart as them now...

Sports cars don't make you or your children more likely to be rich.

In a nutshell, the rich will probably remain rich and will keep getting richer and richer, unless something is done about it. We must revolt

Until financial social equality has gotten closer to a reality this will keep happening.

 

[Andiferous]

I find genetic engineering repulsive as well. That said, where is it written that desire for compassion, social awareness and cultural equity isn't a trait for which to be genetically engineered as some kind of superior creature (considering the alternative). Arguing genetic engineering is a bit weird, because no one can even agree on which traits deserve selection.

There will never be a voluntary and pure political ideology without sacrificing that which it represents (ie; in the case of pure marxism, choice). That said, we all have political and ethnocentric bias' as to our general condition. Obviously I guess, since I argue.

I do think anything is possible surpassing those.

 

[borrofburi]

Sports cars don't, but big houses and big savings accounts do cause exactly the same kind of positive feedback loop and they're not illegal either.

Yes. And this bothers me... I see why monetary equality from birth is impossible and impractical and unfair... But I also see how being a billionaire from birth is different from being in debt from birth and how that's unfair and has undesirable consequences...

 

[Unwardil]

Well quite.

But think how people can go from rags to riches already. Just because we could, theoretically engineer a race of uber-menches doesn't mean that the super smart people in question are going to automatically want to take over the world. There's plenty of not especially intelligent/athletic/rich people in the world who do quite well for themselves simply because they're tenacious and refuse to be kicked down and there's plenty of gifted people who just kind of coast through life never really trying or putting their talents to any kind of effect. Having a brain that has a theoretical higher limit of calculations per nano second is no guarantee that you'll actually use it for your own self interest.

The point is, people are already born with unequal opportunities. It would be malicious to ban any procedure which could help save people from living with a preventable disability simply because it would be impossible to provide the service to everyone. It would be akin to taking people's houses away on the basis that it's unfair to all those people who have to live in trailers.