Parental uncertainty, and it's impacts on equitable social treatment.

[Swammerdami]

So, now that all kinds of posters have bloviated heavily about their various attachments to their genetic rather than intellectual heritage, let me point out the actual purpose of the thread:

To maybe convince people that their obsession with genetics over intellectual heritage is misplaced. ..............

Railing against the instincts that evolution has resulted in and proposing we ignore it and accept and replace instincts with your ideas of a "better" system seems to me to be rather arrogant.

I understand and largely agree with your point, skepticalbip. But isn't replacing instincts (or ancient cultural norms) with "better ideas" a major theme of much progressive thought?

 

[skepticalbip]

So, now that all kinds of posters have bloviated heavily about their various attachments to their genetic rather than intellectual heritage, let me point out the actual purpose of the thread:

To maybe convince people that their obsession with genetics over intellectual heritage is misplaced. ..............

Railing against the instincts that evolution has resulted in and proposing we ignore it and accept and replace instincts with your ideas of a "better" system seems to me to be rather arrogant.

I understand and largely agree with your point, skepticalbip. But isn't replacing instincts (or ancient cultural norms) with "better ideas" a major theme of much progressive thought?

A different idea is not necessarily a "better idea". Caring for your offspring is a time tested and effective system that has served humanity well ever since there has been humanity. The "better idea" of turning your offspring over to others and adopting the kid of someone else may or may not work to sustain humanity. It sounds to me more like an idea that may further some political ideology but will it further or hinder humanity in the long run?

Those proposing such a thing should at least test their idea. I suggest that they have a child and take it to an orphanage to trade in for a child that has been there for a while. Newborns are in demand so should quickly be adopted. They could give the left behind child that no one wanted a good home. Now the test; do they regret giving up their child or are they happy to see it go as it spreads diversity?

 

[rousseau]

I understand and largely agree with your point, skepticalbip. But isn't replacing instincts (or ancient cultural norms) with "better ideas" a major theme of much progressive thought?

A different idea is not necessarily a "better idea". Caring for your offspring is a time tested and effective system that has served humanity well ever since there has been humanity. The "better idea" of turning your offspring over to others and adopting the kid of someone else may or may not work to sustain humanity. It sounds to me more like an idea that may further some political ideology but will it further or hinder humanity in the long run?

Those proposing such a thing should at least test their idea. I suggest that they have a child and take it to an orphanage to trade in for a child that has been there for a while. Newborns are in demand so should quickly be adopted. They could give the left behind child that no one wanted a good home. Now the test; do they regret giving up their child or are they happy to see it go as it spreads diversity?

The bolded is the fallacy we're looking at in this thread. Human behaviour isn't, will never be, oriented towards 'humanity'. It's just not how we're built.

Any deliberate cultural change needs to be made with this understanding in mind. We need to work around our nature, not try to change it or combat it.

 

[skepticalbip]

I understand and largely agree with your point, skepticalbip. But isn't replacing instincts (or ancient cultural norms) with "better ideas" a major theme of much progressive thought?

A different idea is not necessarily a "better idea". Caring for your offspring is a time tested and effective system that has served humanity well ever since there has been humanity. The "better idea" of turning your offspring over to others and adopting the kid of someone else may or may not work to sustain humanity. It sounds to me more like an idea that may further some political ideology but will it further or hinder humanity in the long run?

Those proposing such a thing should at least test their idea. I suggest that they have a child and take it to an orphanage to trade in for a child that has been there for a while. Newborns are in demand so should quickly be adopted. They could give the left behind child that no one wanted a good home. Now the test; do they regret giving up their child or are they happy to see it go as it spreads diversity?

The bolded is the fallacy we're looking at in this thread. Human behaviour isn't, will never be, oriented towards 'humanity'. It's just not how we're built.

Any deliberate cultural change needs to be made with this understanding in mind. We need to work around our nature, not try to change it or combat it.

That is pretty much the gest of my point but you stated it much more succinctly. Instinct or human nature rules. Any system that depends on humans (individuals) acting against their nature is doomed to failure... even if that untested system gives those proposing it warm fuzzy tingles down their leg.

 

[rousseau]

The bolded is the fallacy we're looking at in this thread. Human behaviour isn't, will never be, oriented towards 'humanity'. It's just not how we're built.

Any deliberate cultural change needs to be made with this understanding in mind. We need to work around our nature, not try to change it or combat it.

That is pretty much the gest of my point but you stated it much more succinctly. Instinct or human nature rules. Any system that depends on humans acting against their nature is doomed to failure... even if that untested system gives those proposing it the warm fuzzies.

I'm of the view that progressive politics are a bit of a social process. The ideas are often a bit off, but the overall effect is a subset of people pushing for change and things getting collectively better over time.

But left unchecked progressive ideas can also be dangerous. What we're looking for is a diversity of opinion, and for the best idea to emerge from that diversity, which is actually how things work now in a lot of the world.

 

[Swammerdami]

The bolded is the fallacy we're looking at in this thread. Human behaviour isn't, will never be, oriented towards 'humanity'. It's just not how we're built.

Any deliberate cultural change needs to be made with this understanding in mind. We need to work around our nature, not try to change it or combat it.

That is pretty much the gest of my point but you stated it much more succinctly. Instinct or human nature rules. Any system that depends on humans acting against their nature is doomed to failure... even if that untested system gives those proposing it the warm fuzzies.

I'm of the view that progressive politics are a bit of a social process. The ideas are often a bit off, but the overall effect is a subset of people pushing for change and things getting collectively better over time.

But left unchecked progressive ideas can also be dangerous. What we're looking for is a diversity of opinion, and for the best idea to emerge from that diversity, which is actually how things work now in a lot of the world.

I'm in agreement with rousseau and skepticalbip, who express the key points very eloquently. (I deliberately placed "better ideas" in quote marks in my earlier post.)