There are lots of topics where no popular position on them is unflawed that nevertheless get discussed without the level of emotional investment we see when gender relations or tribal affiliations (or, to a lesser extent, morality) get involved.
The problem is that the positions on this topic (not just the popular ones, but all the conceivable non-transhumanist ones) are not just "unflawed", they're pretty damn horrible, absolutely speaking.
Consider everyone (who's smart enough for it and cares to) unabashedly using "PUA"-style psychological manipulation (not the self-improvement bits there, what they call "inner game" and what's found in all other self-help manuals, but specifically "outer game", internalizing the "marketplace" logic and applying it to their love life) versus things staying as they are, with the sexual status race accelerating and getting more crazy. Clearly, both situations are not just "flawed" but fucking horrible, full of suffering and adversity and shit. That's very easy to imagine, and that's where the tension comes from.
(BTW, privately I'm so disgusted at those "seduction" tricks that it took some willpower not to heap abuse at such practices throughout this comment. Don't talk to me about it.)
To make sure I understand... do you predict that for any question, if a group of people G has a set of possible answers A, and G is attempting to come to consensus on one of those answers, G's ability to cooperate in that effort will anticorrelate (p > .95) with how unpleasant G's expected results of implementing any of A are?
That would surprise me, if so, but it wouldn't vastly shock me. Call it ~.6 confidence that the above is false.
I'm ~.7 confident that G's ability to cooperate in that effort would anticorrelate more strongly with the standard deviation within G of pre-existing individual identifications with political or social entities associated with a particular member of A.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.