= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Vote Qualifications, Not Issues - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (185)
Coercive eugenics was very popular in intellectual circles until WWII.
It was actually pretty popular in non-intellectual circles as well, but yes that example seem to still be a decent one.
(Incidentally, I'm not actually sure what is wrong with coercive eugenics in the general sense. If for example we have the technology to ensure that some very bad alleles are not passed on (such as those for Huntington's disease), I'm not convinced that we shouldn't require screening or mandatory in vitro for people with the alleles. This may be one reason this example didn't occur to me. However, I suspect that discussion of this issue in any detail could be potentially quite mind-killing given unfortunate historical connections and related issues.)
The historical meaning of the term is problematic partly because it wasn't based on actual gene testing - I doubt they even tried to sort out whether someone's low IQ was inheritable or caused by, say, poor nutrition - and partly because it was, and still in some cases would be, very subjective in terms of what traits are considered undesirable. How many of us wouldn't be here if there'd been genetic tests for autism/aspergers or ADD or other neurodifferences developed before we were born?
It gets much harder when you start talking about autism or deafness or any of a whole range of conditions that are abnormal but aren't strictly disadvantageous.
Are there people who, having a deaf newborn child, would refuse to cure the condition based on argument that deafness is not strictly disadvantageous?
Yes, and there's been a fair bit of controversy in the "deaf community" over whether they should engage in selection for deaf children. See for example this article.
I've heard from more than one source that deaf parents of deaf children often take that stance - and that some deaf parents intentionally choose to have deaf children, even to the point of getting a sperm donor involved if the genetics require it.
I rather sympathize - if I ever get serious about procreating, stacking the deck in favor of having an autistic offspring will be something of a priority. (And, as I think about it, it's for pretty much the same reason: Being deaf or autistic isn't necessarily disadvantageous, but having parents that one has difficulty in communicating with is - and deaf people and autistic people both tend to find it easier to communicate with people who are similar.)
What do you mean by necessarily disadvantageous, then? I disagree that a difficulty in communication with parents is a more necessary disadvantage than deafness, but maybe we interpret the words differently. (I have no precise definition yet.)
Being deaf or autistic (or for that matter gay or left-handed or female or male or tall or short) is a disadvantage in some situations, but not all, and it's possible for someone with any of the above traits to arrange their life in such a way that the trait is an advantage rather than a disadvantage, if other aspects of their life are amenable to such rearranging. (In the case of being deaf, a significant portion of the advantage seems to come from being able to be a member of the deaf community, and even then I have a little bit of trouble seeing it, but I'm inclined to believe that the deaf people who make that claim know more about the situation than I do.)
For contrast, consider being diabetic: It's possible to arrange one's life such that diabetes is well-controlled, but there seems to be a pretty good consensus among diabetics that it's bad news, and I've never heard of anyone intentionally trying to have a diabetic child, xkcd jokes aside.
In what situations is being deaf an advantage?
When a being is submitting a threat, through an audio-only channel, to destroy paperclips if you don't do X, when that being prefers you doing X to destroying paperclips.
(The example generalizes to cases where you have a preference for something else instead of quantity of existent paperclips.)
/handwaves appeal to UDT/TDT/CDT/*DT
And by allowing yourself to remain deaf, you have defected and acausally forced other beings to defect, rendering you worse off.
I'm researching this.
So far, most of the answers are variations on being able to avoid unwanted noise or indirect effects of that ability (e.g. being able to pay less for a house because it's in a very noisy area and most people don't want it). There've also been comments about being able to get away with ignoring people, occasionally finding out things via lip-reading that the people speaking don't think you'll catch, and being able to use sign language in situations where spoken language is difficult or useless (in a noisy bar, while scuba diving).
I'm still looking; there may be more.
These advantages look like rationalisations made by the parents in question, while I suspect (without evidence, I admit) that they simply fear their children being different. Seriously, ask a hearing person whether (s)he would accept a deafening operation in order to get away with ignoring people more easily.
Any condition can have similar "advantages". Blind people are able to sleep during daylight, can easily ignore visual distractions, are better piano tuners on average. Should blind parents therefore have a right to make their child blind if they wish? Or should any parents be allowed to deliberately have a child without legs, because, say, there is a greater chance to succeed in the sledge hockey than in the normal one?
I get the point of campaigns aiming to move certain conditions from the category "disease" to the category "minority". "Disease" is an emotionaly loaded term, and the people with the respective conditions may have easier life due to such campaigns. On the other hand, we mustn't forget that they would have even more easier life without the condition.
All of which are either obtainable through merely being hearing-impaired*, wearing ear-plugs, being raised by signing parents, or simple training.
Some benefits are bogus - for example, living in a noisy area doesn't work because the noxious noises (say, from passing trains) are low-frequency and that's where hearing is best; even the deaf can hear/feel loud bass or whatnot.
* full disclosure: I am hearing-impaired myself, and regard with horror the infliction of deafness or hearing-impairedness on anyone, but especially children.
I dunno, i don't agree with deaf parents deliberately selecting for deaf chldren but there is definitely a large element of trying to medicalise something that the people with the condition don't consider to be a bad thing.
Anyway, I think Silas nailed deaf community attitudes with the comparison between being deaf and being black, the main difference being that one is considered cultural (and therefore the problem is other people's attitudes towards it) and the other medical.
Edit: After further thought, I think I am using necessarily disadvantageous to mean that the disadvantages massively outweigh any advantages. Since being deaf gets you access to the deaf community, an awesome working memory for visual stuff, and (if you live in urban America) doesn't ruin your life, I don't think it's all disadvantage.
I don't see being black or white any more cultural than being deaf, in either case you are born that way and being raised in different culture doesn't change that a bit. The main difference is that the problem with being black is solely result of other people's attitudes. It is possible not to be a racist without any inconvenience, and if no people were racists, it wouldn't be easier to be white. On the other hand, being deaf brings many difficulties even if other people lack prejudices against the deaf. Although I can imagine a society where all people voluntarily cease to use spoken language and sound signals and listen to music and whatever else may give them advantage over the deaf, such a vision is blatantly absurd. On the other hand, society (almost) without racism is a realistic option.
Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness in Martha's Vineyard
In an isolated community with high genetic risk of deafness (not as high as I thought-- I remembered it as 1 in 6, it was actually 1 in 155), everyone knew the local sign language, deaf people weren't isolated, and deafness wasn't thought of as a distinguishing characteristic.
I wonder whether societies like that do as much with music as societies without a high proportion of deaf people.
Sorry, to clarify my comment about culture: I meant the problem is the surrounding culture's atittude towards it, not the culture of the people with the possibly disadvantageous condition.
I am not advocating that the rest of society gives up spoken language (and the complaint about music is just silly), I am advocating a group's right to do their thing provided it doesn't harm others. And I am not convinced that trying to arrange for your genes to provide you with a deaf child qualifies as harm, any more than people on the autism spectrum hoping and trying to arrange for an autistic child qualifies as harm. Deaf and severely hearing-impaired people are going to keep being born for quite a while, since the genes come in several different flavours including both dominant and recessive types, so I would expect services for the deaf to continue as a matter of decency for the forseeable future.
Do the rights include creating new group members? What about creationists screening their children from information about evolution, or any indoctrination of children for that matter, does that qualify as harm, or is it the group's right to do their thing? (Sorry if I sound combative, if so, it's not my intention, only inability to formulate the question more appropriately. I am curious where do you place the border.)
Interestingly enough, one thing both these examples have in common is that they are cases of intellectuals arguing that intellectuals should have more power.