Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility
It’s ironic because the more people who accept the plot of ‘Idiocracy’ (2006) as plausible or scientific is evidence that humanity is getting stupider.
Bostrom wrote a paper on existential risk that helped launch the longtermist movement, in which he discusses “dysgenic pressures” – dysgenic is the opposite of eugenic. Bostrom wrote:
“Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (‘lover of many offspring’).”
Well I would rather people discuss and look at these issues. Currently it seems people have made the decision before, and potentially in spite of, evidence and that decision is final. That not how the world should work.
that statement is such bullshit: it implies intelligence is an easily quantifiable and purely genetic trait. What constitutes intelligence? If i know quantum physics but nothing of genetic, how smart I am? If i know both but know nothing of sociology, of politics, of the injustices perpretrated in the world, how dumb does that make me? is it decided by my genetics, or is it the nurture i am shown and i have towards my intellect that grows it?
What we call intelligence is largely a genetic trait. Otherwise I’d be able to have this conversation with my dog.
I think the main point is, if the genetic predisposition to what we call intelligence does not positively affect the reproduction rate, the process of evolution could phase it out at any time. The “goal” of evolution is adaptation in order to reproduce. The intelligence is not THE strategy to adapt, its A strategy. It could be replaced by something else, like faster reproduction rate, or the ability to survive in harsh environment without a need for clothes, housing, and medicine.
So what I’m getting is that the philosophies aren’t the problem, but rather it’s members of the community doing unethical things in the name of the movement
Sam Bankman-Fried
Bay Area Misogyny
In a 2023 Time magazine article, seven women reported misconduct and controversy in the effective altruism movement. They accused men within the movement, typically in the Bay Area, of using their power to groom younger women for polyamorous sexual relationships.[147] The accusers argued that the majority male demographic and the polyamorous subculture combined to create an environment where sexual misconduct was tolerated, excused or rationalized away.
Philosophy Tube have a great video about Effective Altruism. It was some time ago that I watched, but iirc, EA is just “let us do unregulated capitalism at our own benefit, because in the future trillions and trillions of humans are going to benefit from it. Don’t mind the planet being destroyed now, and the billions of humans suffering now, everything would be cool in future. Trust me bro.”
That’s only “longtermism”. EA as introduced by Peter Singer in “the life you can save” is an incredibly sincere and well founded philosophy of charity.
The EA movement, based on what I know of it, seems as though it’s complete hogwash, just a veneer of ‘mathematically proven’ benevolence hiding privileged people who are really only endeavoring to further enrich themselves. It looks and smells like bullshit to me. I’m sure some good things have been done by people who call themselves EAs but it’s still really reminiscent to trickle down economics from my perspective
Check out the original episodes Behind the Bastards did on Bankman-Fried for a more in depth and entertaining breakdown of why they suck
I must have had a very surface level understanding of what it was. The parts I saw previously were about finding which charities to donate to and career development.
Add comment