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.

johnlawrenceaspden comments on Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: David_Gerard 01 October 2012 05:54AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (477)
Tags: open_thread open

Comments (477)

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

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 16 October 2012 12:24:23PM -1 points [-]

Lots of downvotes. So do we think there's a good case for coercive eugenics here then? That's got a sort of Schelling-pointy feel to it to me, so that I wonder if prohibiting incest might actually be the lesser of two evils.

If a case can be made for coercive eugenics here, where else can it be made? And how does the incest ick-factor influence the arguments?

Do people without siblings feel the ick-factor? Or do you need personal experience of the Westermarck effect?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 16 October 2012 01:22:43PM -1 points [-]

So do we think there's a good case for coercive eugenics here then? That's got a sort of Schelling-pointy feel to it to me, so that I wonder if prohibiting incest might actually be the lesser of two evils.

If we're comparing two "coercions" (coercive prohibition of incestuous couples from having children) (coercive prohibition of incestuous couples from having sex), the former seems to be the lesser coercion by far, and the more easily justified.

So is it "coercive" part of "coercive eugenics" that really bugs you, or is it that you have an ick-factor against eugenics altogether, voluntary eugenics too?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit