Monday, January 30, 2017
Injustice is Genetic
Why do rapists exist?
Evolution is a reproduction maximizing algorithm. It does not care if you suffer. It is indifferent. Not only does it not care — worse, it cannot even know it should care. It is just math, a numbers game, an algorithm.
The problem with talking about evolution is that the message is always delivered with moral bias, as if nature was some sort of divine commandment. Even the term "survival of the fittest" contains an implicitly normative (moral) assertion that somehow the existence of some trait that nature favors is proof of its moral virtue. It is not. And to show why, let us go through some examples.
Let us start with the right-wing fear of idiocracy. We will start with this one because the right is the side that likes to make morals out of situations that evolution favors.
The problem is that the welfare state, by taxing the middle class, suppresses their birth rates, while subsidies to the poor increase their birth rates. Thus, the handouts have a dysgenic effect; they make the population stupider over time. This is most acutely illustrated in the cinematic satire Idocracy (2006), by Mike Judge. Evolution may consider the "fittest" to be the dumber ones if the environment favors their reproduction. It is not only an argument against the welfare state, it is a strong argument against regarding nature as a source of moral values.
Whether or not a trait is eugenic or dysgenic is a value judgement. However, we may assert universal standards on the grounds that any individual denying those standards is being disingenuous. No one would honestly argue that stupidity and bad health are virtues, or that beauty and athleticism are not positive things.
The second example I will give you is breast cancer. Simply put, once a human being hits menopause she can no longer reproduce. Thus, evolution has little incentive to ensure her health after that point. Maladies that effect the elderly are largely due to the decreased potential for having children later in life. Long-lived organisms, like the Freshwater pearl mussel, have exceptionally healthy lives. Both their health and longevity are due to reproduction through a longer period of life. The endangered common Freshwater pearl mussel, has a reproductive period of about 75 years. As a result, it has a maximum lifespan of about 210–250 years. Basically, the longer an organism can reproduce, the more of it's lifespan it spends healthy, or the longer its life is. Reproduction creates a positive incentive against disease. Illnesses like breast cancer and prostate cancer are largely due to the fact that humans do not routinely have children when elderly. In the case of women, they can't because of menopause.
So the injustice of aging is biological and evolutionary in origin. It is also sexist, since more women get breast cancer than men get prostate cancer, and at an earlier age. This is no argument for sexism. It is an argument against regarding evolution as a source of morality.
Similarly, the argument for racism on the basis of Human Biodiversity is not cogent. Nature is something to be surpassed. Yes, politics should not base itself on the delusional idea that humans are equal, but we may also regard human inequality as an injustice. If a man is more violent or less intelligent, if he lacks impulse control or mathematical skills as a result of being at the lower end of the bell curve for his people, who are themselves in a lower range, then that is an injustice to him. It is greater injustice to the society that must put up with him. Judgement and pity are not mutually exclusive; we both judge the criminal and pity their genetic inferiority at the same time. No fact of genetics should imply a moral good when it is harmful to society. Patriarchy is not good simply because it out-reproduces egalitarianism. The cognitively challenged are not superior simply because they out-reproduce the intelligent. Women are not inferior because they get breast cancer more often than men get prostate cancer. Pedophiles are not acceptable just because they are genetic in origin. Rape is not moral simply because rapists reproduce their own genes through rape. The IS of a genetic fact does not conclude in a righteous OUGHT to that genetic fact. If you disagree with me on this point then you must explain to me why rape and idiocracy are moral.
We may still judge them all. Even if every nasty trait every human being has is ultimately genetic in origin this proves nothing. Judge them all. Then genetically engineer them to be better.
Let us create a world without war and madness, without pederasts or cancer. We will engineer Blacks with impulse control, creative Asians, and Whites without religious fanaticism. We will create a society where no one is fat, dull, or slow, and where everyone can do calculus — in their heads. Until one can modify his own genetics, free will is basically an illusion.
When a murderer is arrested we will engineer him to be docile and law abiding. To prevent him from resenting the treatment we have given him, we will give him another treatment that makes him appreciate it.
No unsatisfied customers!
Suffering is genetic. Loneliness is genetic. Hypergamy is genetic. Male dominance is genetic. Pedophilia is genetic. Liberalism is genetic. We can make them better! There is a cure. Think of the possibilities!
Posted by A MK