Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Konkvistador comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - Less Wrong

25 Post author: orthonormal 26 December 2011 10:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1430)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 January 2012 09:32:58AM *  4 points [-]

Can't this same be said of last trimester abortions?

In any case much like we find pictures or videos of abortion distasteful, I'm sure future baby-killing society would still find videos of baby killings distasteful. We could legislate infanticide needs to be done by professionals away from the eyes of parents and other onlookers to avoid psychological damage. Also forbid media depicting it except for educational purposes.

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 January 2012 10:35:07AM 0 points [-]

We could legislate infanticide needs to be done by professionals away from the eyes of parents and other onlookers to avoid psychological damage.

For legal reasons, there'd just have to be a clear procedure where parents would take or refuse the decision, probably after being informed of the baby's overall condition and potential in the presence of a witness. I can't imagine how it could be realistically practiced without one. Such a procedure could ironically wind up more psychologically damaging than, say, simply distracting one's parental instinct with something like intoxication and personally abandoning/suffocating/poisoning the baby.

Also forbid media depicting it except for educational purposes.

Potential for tension and cognitive dissonance. Few things in our culture are censored this way, not even executions and torture. Would feel unusually hypocritical.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 January 2012 10:41:14AM *  6 points [-]

For legal reasons, there'd just have to be a clear procedure where parents would take or refuse the decision, probably after being informed of the baby's overall condition and potential in the presence of a witness. I can't imagine how it could be realistically practiced without one.

Humans are pretty ok with making cold decisions in the abstract that they could never carry out themselves due to physical revulsion and/or emotional trauma.

The number of people that would sign a death order is greater than the number of people that would kill someone else personally.

Potential for tension and cognitive dissonance. Few things in our culture are censored this way, not even executions and torture.

Does society feel conflicted bothered that child pornography is censored? We can even extend existing child pornography laws with a few good judicial decisions to cover this.

Would feel unusually hypocritical.

Read more Robin Hanson.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 January 2012 10:54:54AM 1 point [-]

Does society feel conflicted bothered that child pornography is censored? We can even extend existing child pornography laws with a few good judicial decisions to cover this.

Good point. If they aren't even people...

Comment author: [deleted] 02 January 2012 11:01:40AM 2 points [-]

In my own country pornography involving animals is illegal. It shows no signs of being legalized soon. And I live in a pretty liberal central European first world country.

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 January 2012 11:29:25AM 0 points [-]

I live in Russia and here the legal status of all pornography is murky but no law de facto prosecutes anything but production and distribution of child porn, and simple possession of child porn is not illegal. There's nothing about animals, violence, or such.

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 January 2012 10:46:36AM *  1 point [-]

The number of people that would sign a death order is greater than the number of people that would kill someone else personally.

Much greater? I think that people signing death orders for criminals could generally execute those criminals themselves if forced to choose between that and the criminal staying alive.

Does society feel conflicted bothered that child pornography is censored?

4chan could be an argument that it's beginning to feel so :) Society just hasn't thought it through yet.

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 January 2012 09:41:05AM *  -1 points [-]

Don't think so, because

1) such foetuses would likely only be seen by a surgeon if the abortion is done properly

2) they probably instinctively appear much less "person-like" or "likely to become a human" even if the mother sees one while doing a crude abortion on her own - maybe even for an evolutionary reason - so that she wouldn't be left with a memory of killing something that looks like a human.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 January 2012 10:12:45AM *  5 points [-]

they probably instinctively appear much less "person-like" or "likely to become a human" even if the mother sees one while doing a crude abortion on her own - maybe even for an evolutionary reason - so that she wouldn't be left with a memory of killing something that looks like a human.

blinks

How can a LWer even think this way? I suggest you reread this. I'm tempted to ask you to think 4 minutes by the physical clock about this, but I'll rather just spell it out.

Lets say you are 8 months pregnant in the early stone age. What is a better idea for you, fitness wise, wait another month to terminate reproduction attempt or try to do it right now?

I'm even tempted to say there is a reason women kill their own children more often than men.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 January 2012 10:31:15AM 5 points [-]

I'm even tempted to say there is a reason women kill their own children more often than men.

Higher expected future resource investment per allelle carried?

Comment author: [deleted] 02 January 2012 10:43:00AM *  4 points [-]

More or less. I'm pretty sure that controlling for certainty of the child being "yours" and time spent with them, men would on average find killing their children a greater psychological burden in the long run than women.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 January 2012 10:53:00AM 1 point [-]

More or less. I'm pretty sure that controlling for certainty of the child being "yours" and time spent with them, men would on average find killing their children a greater psychological burden in the long run than women.

Because after all that time spent with them some start to find them really damn annoying?

Comment author: [deleted] 02 January 2012 11:04:40AM 4 points [-]

We get attached to children and lovers with exposure due to oxytocin. Only when the natural switches for releasing it are shut off does exposure cease to have this effect.

Finding them annoying is a separate effect.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 January 2012 02:03:03PM 1 point [-]

We get attached to children and lovers with exposure due to oxytocin. Only when the natural switches for releasing it are shut off does exposure cease to have this effect.

I'm trying to relate this to your theory that men find it harder to kill their infants than women do. The influence of oxytocin discourages killing of those you are attached to and mothers get more of this than fathers if for no other reason than a crap load getting released during childbirth.