= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on Open Thread, Jul. 13 - Jul. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (297)
I experienced a discussion on facebook a few months ago where someone tried to calmly have a discussion, of course it being facebook it failed, but I am interested in the idea, and wanted to see if it can be carried out here calmly, knowing it is potentially of controversy. I first automatically felt negative to the discussion but then I system-2'd it and realised I don't know what the answers might be:
The historic basis of relationships was for procreation and child rearing purposes. In the future I expect that to not be the case. either with designer-babies, or just plenty of non-natural birthing solutions as to make the next generation make-able without needing to go through a regular-family structure.
At that time, the potential for intra-family sexual relations would be possible and not at all whatsoever biologically-risky of causing genetic abnormalities.
How will the world's opinion change about intra-family intra-relations in the future?
Potentially anyone consenting could have sexual encounters with anyone else who is also consenting. However there are existing relationships where one party carries the power - i.e. parent-child, where even if the child is above consenting age (even as far as 10+ years above the age of consent) there can still be power held by the parent over the child.
That was the only point of value before the thread turned to a mush-zone.
Of course there already exist normal relationships with power imbalances. And as was mentioned a few days ago here - an abusive relationship sucks if its from an AI to you, or from a human partner to you.
Any thoughts?
(Edit: inter -> intra, Thanks @Artaxerxes)
I don't see any moral reason why this should not happen, aside from deontological. It's possible to make the case that you would be more likely to end up in a dsyfunctional relationship, but it's possible to make the opposite case too - you have a much better idea of what the person is REALLY like before entering into a relationship with them, so you're less likely to enter into a relationship if you're incompatible.
I think this is one of those "gay marriage 50 years ago" things. People are going to come up with all sorts of excuses why it's wrong, simply because they're not comfortable with it.
And do you have evidence they were wrong? According to gay activist groups themselves half of all male homosexual relationships are abusive, for example.
Almost all of the evidence I've seen has shown they're wrong. A quick google for statistics on incidences of abuse vs. heterosexual relationships showed they were wrong, and the few sources I've seen (which I couldn't find through my quick google) that showed the opposite where from biased organizations already predisposed against homosexuality.
I could be convinced of the opposite, but that one sentence you gave will hardly bump my prior.
Isn't this a fully general explanation for anything at all?
It could be, for anything that people aren't comfortable with. This isn't in any way a rebuttal to arguments - it's an explanation for bad/non-arguments.
That's partway where the original discussion was going.
if only that were true for all people who enter relationships.
(rational relationships is a recent pet topic of mine)
I would apply the rule that I apply to polyamory - there are ways to do it wrong, and ways to do it less wrong. I do wonder if it has an inherent wrongness risk to it, but people probably implied that about being gay 50 years ago...
And I've yet to see evidence that they were wrong.