You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DanArmak comments on Blues, Greens and abortion - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Snowyowl 05 March 2011 07:15PM

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

Comments (150)

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

Comment author: DanArmak 08 March 2011 10:22:33PM 0 points [-]

Precisely! And more than that, even if propensity to rape is both heritable and highly variable in the population (I've no idea if this is true), it doesn't follow that by culling some children of rapes the total number of rapists will go down.

Rapists can have children in normal marriages, like everyone else. And I've read somewhere that most rapists commit more than one rape; if true, then the mandatory abortion policy must be enforced in almost 100% of all rapes to drive the numbers of rapists below replacement rates.

Also, since the postulated rapist genes haven't been selected out of existence, there is probably some balance of rapist vs. none-rapist genes in the population. If we cull some but not all rapists, then we might create incentives for the remaining rapists to breed more to make up. And we'll be selecting for more successful rapists, resistant to our methods of catching or of punishing them.