the ecological fallacy and identity politics

I think there's something to the healthcare thing too. I think human physiology and psychology is not built, in some sense, to live in the sort of world our frontal cortexes and opposable thumbs have built. All this food, all this medicine, all this luxury. We've beaten nature to a certain extent and the biology of evolution is simply not fast enough to keep up with it. I think the phenomenon of single mothers is evidence of it. There is no way mother nature would select for %50 single motherhood. That one is on us.

I feel like this is part of the role I play in my city. To go around being 'State Daddy' to single mothers all over the north side. No idea how to feed or discipline or talk to or even conceptualize a healthy child and a healthy family. So you have people calling 911 State Daddy for a baby with a runny nose in a house full of weed smoke. State Daddy has been asked for tax advice. State Daddy got called to give a 15 year old girl a pregnancy test once because she had sex last night and now this morning she can feel the new baby moving in her. State Daddy has to tell 12 year old boys how to act around girls. State Daddy sometimes has to roll his eyes when voodoo and demons are used to explain ailments and stand as the one person in the room who doesn't listen to that mumbo jumbo and can speak an entirely different language of greek and latin objective medical terminology.

I guess I'm part of the problem. But it's paying for my wedding and my trip to Hawaii next year so... eat the weak?

Palum said:

I think one of the largest problems has actually been the proliferation of better medical care.

Medical care now still doesn't actually solve the issues, for the most part we are treating symptoms. I think like many of society's ills, if we can't treat the cause, spending endless resources to treat the symptoms only grows the malignant elements.

If people actually died on time, we wouldn't have this ridiculous notion of working for fifty years. We wouldn't have 30 year retirements.

If people couldn't get free treatment for diabetes, society would adapt and stop gorging itself as much and parents would give a shit.

If you couldn't survive most gunshots gang warfare would end quicker.

So it's really AGs fault.

Click to expand...

The problem with this (improved and 'free' health services) is incomplete implementation. Destructive behavior is subsidized without compensating restriction of iberties. There is nothing wrong with free healthcare provided benefits are qualified based on diet, fitness and genetic susceptibility. There is nothing wrong with irresponsible populations unfit for child rearing fucking like rabbits provided births are regulated and parenting licensed. There is nothing wrong with subsidizing substance abuse and delusion (but for the moral repugnance of it) provided the afflictions are controlled and quarantined and denied every opportunity to infiltrate society at large. There are solutions to every problem associated with with public subsidy but always they demand a denial of liberty. The alternative of course is to eliminate subsidies and instead allow nature to conduct the unpalatable business many are so eager to decry as unjust as she always has, thanklessly.

Furnishing a benefit without exacting a price only defers and amplifies the cost. To the individual. To society. And to humanity.

This is a good thread:

What singular root cause though?

One side doesn't think we're degenerating into multi colored pan sexual mullatos under communism fast enough and the other thinks we've e already passed peak communist dyed hair freak show.

sadris said:

This is a good thread:

Click to expand...

Sorry you're not authorized to view this Tweet.

Surely there has to be a Twitter archive service that pulls the whole thread?

Its easy to forget how life was without the healthcare and luxury.

Some of the points are valid, everything is good and bad complete, but its not like society was prime function in 1582.

The longevity is not a root cause. It is an exacerbation probably. Its a largely unforseen challenge to society, surely. But without the stability the general health provides we would be facing other pressures. Which, it can be argued, are worse.

War IS less catostrophic. Epidemic IS less rampant. Legalized slavery IS outmoded.

Its not all bad, either.

maskedmelon said:

The most tragic revelation I have had is coming to understand that the most moral choice is also the most pragmatic. At face value for one who likes to think, it ought appear as a glorious reconciliation between the lunacy of one's heart and the certainty of one's mind. Reason is callous though, numb to the nature of the truths it delivers.

The congruence of course depends upon our moral code and the principles by which we determine right and wrong. Indeed those principles vary widely by culture, but if we were to distill them all into a single guiding premise of what one ought do, it would be to minimize suffering.

One might argue that maximizing utility is morally superior to minimizing suffering, but the two are indistinguishable for one who suffers and the former is less tangible than the latter given that one must act before it is recognized. While suffering may be easily identified and squashed because it exists, increased utility cannot even be recognized until it has been created.

In understanding the most fundamental principle of morality as minimization of suffering, reason delivers some extraordinarily painful conclusions.

Interestingly, man struggles to find purpose in the absence of hardship.

Click to expand...

The problem is no first world country on the planet is willing to do what you suggest. At the very basis of what you are saying you have to have a government that says No to the guy with the broken leg that crawls into the hospital, with no way to pay for it. They have to say no to the mom with two many mouths to feed. etc... You have a point, and most of us might be better off if we did things that way but there will never be the political will to do that. Human beings have to much empathy and world is to small now.

Better to discuss creating a system, that is least gamable and rewards good behavior some and penalizes bad behavior some.

sadris said:

This is a good thread:

Click to expand...

Good thread. I'd add in 1st World Privilege.

These people LARPing as Communists or Nazis have never had to deal with hunger, war, or disease.

If you are a goddamn US College student you are more privileged than 99.9% of humans in history.

Omi43221 said:

The problem is no first world country on the planet is willing to do what you suggest. At the very basis of what you are saying you have to have a government that says No to the guy with the broken leg that crawls into the hospital, with no way to pay for it. They have to say no to the mom with two many mouths to feed. etc... You have a point, and most of us might be better off if we did things that way but there will never be the political will to do that. Human beings have to much empathy and world is to small now.

Better to discuss creating a system, that is least gamable and rewards good behavior some and penalizes bad behavior some.

Click to expand...

That's not quite what I am saying ^^ I am arguing that it is immoral to allow a mother to ever produce too many mouths to feed, because it establishes a lineage of misery. If a mother is unable to provide for her children in the most basic sense, then they are going to suffer, she is going to suffer and in all likelihood, they will mature to be as ineffective as her. Subject to the same deficiencies of reason, they'll make the same mistakes and will each in turn create too many mouths to feed. Simply feeding those mouths is immoral because it perpetuates the misery.

The best solution is qualified reproductive rights. The less ideal solution is a blind eye, ceding responsibility to nature. The popular solution of minimally subsidizing their existence without corrective action is immoral because it propagates misery.

And there are several nations/cultures that have employed similarly reasoned solutions throughout history.

As for the guy who breaks his leg, there are many more less severe restrictions that could be imposed to minimize the chance of it occurring in a 'free' healthcare setting: 1. Regulate work conditions, 2. restrict dangerous leisure activities, etc. Leaving him untreated is immoral because, again, it propagates misery.

Sadre Spinegnawer said:

I think your first two sentences hit the real problem in terms of future outcomes. Of course we could provide universal care. But if it is done stupidly, you will end up with stupid consequences. And, even if it is provided well, how do you discourage or rule out parasitism or state-sponsored slow-mo suicide?

My response would be, I would rather implement the system, and then tune it, than not do much of anything, and exist with our current system, which is hardly efficient in capital terms. The US is basically funding the rest of the world's pharmaceutical research. Come on.

Click to expand...

I think it is imperative that we address societal ailments before or alongside the symptoms if we are to preserve humanity. Instituting programs to treat symptoms while ignoring the conditions giving rise to them only fosters more of those adverse conditions. We can't pay for peoples' diabetes treatment if we don't control their diet. We can't pay for people's cancer treatments if we allow consumption of carcinogens. And more importantly it is immoral to divert resources from responsible and productive individuals and their heirs to combat the results of the destructive practices of others.

There is nothing virtuous about provision for all if it increases misery or retards the advance of mankind. Minimally subsidizing one's existence is selfish ecause it compels another to misery for the placating of one's own conscience and denying humanity a secure future is a betrayal of self and every other person past or present.

maskedmelon said:

The best solution is qualified reproductive rights.

.

Click to expand...

Your not seriously suggesting that a government take the position that you can't have a kid unless you meet some financial qualification are you? I can only imagine the uproar that would happen if a politician actually suggested this.

Omi43221 said:

Your not seriously suggesting that a government take the position that you can't have a kid unless you meet some financial qualification are you? I can only imagine the uproar that would happen if a politician actually suggested this.

Click to expand...

We must understand where we are going before deciding how to get there ^^ we've been discussing fallacious reasoning and its damaging effects. The fact that many people object to an argument does not make the argument any less valid or true. If we are to combat faulty reasoning, we must employ correct reasoning.

Do you believe it is more wrong to deny people children than it is for people to (most often inadvertently, but also willfully) create them and then be unable to care for them in addition to diminishing their own livelihoods? Which yields a better outcome? Which results in more misery?

I think misery is part of life, should we try to minimize it, yes. Are we ever going to stamp it out, no. Do I think the amount of misery is a fair measure of the success or failure of a social program. Not sure I can get on board with that. I think looking at misery is only one small facet of the worthiness of social policy. You give lip service to being pragmatic, but your proposing a solution that would destroy the sense of equity for the lower class and would never be seriously considered. Honestly, it smacks of eugenics and all the baggage that goes along with that.

So to answer your questions specifically

Do you believe it is more wrong to deny people children than it is for people to (most often inadvertently, but also willfully) create them and then be unable to care for them in addition to diminishing their own livelihoods? YES

Which yields a better outcome? Again not sure, if your proposed solution causes wide spread social unrest then I'll take the slightly more misery.

Which results in more misery? Given the above, not sure.

Mario Speedwagon said:

Honestly I think we should think about revisiting eugenics. There are ethical was in which to encourage it that don't involve mass killings and forced sterilizations. I'm not sure how just letting everyone fuck whoever they want and make as many kids as they want is any more moral than a directed breeding program, just based on outcomes.

Ultimately, morality should be something that serves to increase survivability and fitness of the species. Otherwise it's just an abstraction that doesn't really make any sense.

Click to expand...

My Opinion...... but morality is there to increase trust to make it more likely that we are able to cooperate with each other.

What happens when we can design our kids?