I know, who cares. Could be lots of drama if the CDU/CSU lose majority.
Anyway, I am not a citizen so I can't vote. But my foid is and she will vote. The problem is that she is a white woman so she is gonna vote wrong.
I know she plans to give one of her votes for the greens. And my problem is that they are extremely bussy/train loving cute twinks that used to be journ*lists, diversity professors, and book translators before becoming politicians. And I draw the line at journ*lism.
Should I lock the door and "lose the key" or do I let a woman practice her right to vote?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Many would argue measuring intelligence is just arbitrary and subjective too. We both would disagree with them, but that brings me on to your next point:
I disagree there, as I think beauty is objective too - just super tricky to get the full truth on it, just like it's fairly tricky with intelligence.
And you could say the same about intelligence. There'll be a new "stupid 50%" after the population has gotten more intelligent. This is why it's crucial to not go down the purity spiral too far, as the logical conclusion of that path would leave the world's population in the hundreds instead of the billions.
Yeah, it's a fair point. I think very, very long term, it will always succeed no matter what. But without a border, you're gonna have a rough short term. In theory. There's also the argument that putting up a border is a natural part of what makes us who we are, and is all part of the evolutionary pattern, so perhaps it shouldn't even be classed as an 'intervention' in a sense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think there's merit to this. I'll concede, I too believe most attraction is ultimately functional - we desire whatever we think gives our genes the highest chance of being passed on. That's an objective metric. If something is causally linked to improved fitness, it's not arbitrary. I was more so thinking about the random variation on top, and about cases when runaway sexual selection ends up with less fit species, when I called preference arbitrary.
I was about to argue something like "but now even the stupid 50% will be capable of figuring out space colonization", but tbh I don't even know how that would improve our quality of life. We'd just adapt to it and call our scifi future lives the new normal. The hedonic treadmill strikes again.
I guess, at the end of the day, no matter how much you improve us as a species, it fundamentally won't ever make us happier as a species. The only thing intelligence leads to is a more conscious and vivid experience of that unhappiness. Rather than breeding us to be more aesthetically pleasing, you should breed us to be more blissfully ignorant and content with dating ugly people. Or just hook us up to life support and wirehead us to death. That'd probably be the objectively and subjectively least miserable experience.
Unironically just abort the human race at this point
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whoops, here we are serious posting, tut tut!
Yes! But I think it goes even further than just functional. Form also gives happiness. Some things are completely unfunctional (for example, the exterior of this cathredral), but they still look good, and having things that look good helps to make the world a better place. Form isn't always in harmony with function, even if it can be. Sometimes, we sacrifice function to get something which looks nicer (and vice versa of course). And this whole "form" metric (not just the function) I believe is still objective, although it's very hard to prove that of course.
Anyway, a face can look bad and still be very functional. We like the best of both worlds, an attractive face, which also happens to be functional.
Honestly, intelligence wise, that would be "good enough" for me. I think it'd be awesome to communicate with such individuals, as long as other personality traits such as a sense of humour, or beauty aren't sacrificed. Maybe it would be better to gain even greater intelligence than that, but it could be diminishing returns, happiness-wise.
Getting deep into philosophy territory here. I think it would make us happier overall, but I can't prove it. Life was really tough 1000 years ago.
See, for people who especially want the truth, I don't think they could be fooled that easily. Only if someone's lying to themself could they consider someone like Leslie Jones from Ghostbusters or the women (?) from Vox/Huffpost beautiful.
Don't give up on us that easily! There's still good left in the world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context