5 ms·

Perhaps, if humans are mostly fungible commodities that respond uniformly to inputs. And RIP if you dare suggest the inverse: subsidizing the reproduction of hi

Perhaps, if humans are mostly fungible commodities that respond uniformly to inputs. And RIP if you dare suggest the inverse: subsidizing the reproduction of high achievers.

alchemism 8y ago
What does "subsidizing reproduction" entail, exactly?
- Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
  I was having some fun employing a different definition in my reply. Think natalist policies geared toward the successful.
- haihaibye 8y ago
  https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/09/fall-meritocracy/ https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/09/fall-meritocracy/ Subsidise embryo selection for IQ for the poor: Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce if they had 100 kids. It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes, it’s the genes that couples already have.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>subsidizing the reproduction of high achievers. [Western] Capitalism does this by concentrating wealth with higher "achievers".
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  It kind of doesn't given lower fertility rates of wealthier people. Which is fine with me, since I'm not a eugenics person like the other poster.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Doesn't that mean that the reproduction is "subsidised" more: If you're wealthy but less fecund you have more wealth to support each child than someone who is either more fecund or less wealthy.
opportune 8y ago
Fuck off Nazi
acjohnson55 8y ago
Aside from the nasty eugenics overtones of this concept, it's flawed from the perspective of how warped the reward system of America's brand of capitalism is. All of our forms of measuring merit are deeply distorted. We pour advantages upon those who have already benefited from previous advantage and then congratulate ourselves for our foresight in identifying how deserving they are when they continue to flourish. The result is a lot of mediocrity elevated and "unrecognized" talent squandered. Scare quotes, because the interlocking circles of privilege and protectionism are how our system is designed to work. We are a deeply elitist society mascarading as a humble, objective meritocracy. No one with advantages actually wants fair competition.

Perhaps, if humans are mostly fungible commodities that respond uniformly to inputs. And RIP if you dare suggest the inverse: subsidizing the reproduction of high achievers.

alchemism 8y ago

What does "subsidizing reproduction" entail, exactly?

Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
I was having some fun employing a different definition in my reply. Think natalist policies geared toward the successful.
haihaibye 8y ago
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/09/fall-meritocracy/ https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/09/fall-meritocracy/ Subsidise embryo selection for IQ for the poor: Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce if they had 100 kids. It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes, it’s the genes that couples already have.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

>subsidizing the reproduction of high achievers. [Western] Capitalism does this by concentrating wealth with higher "achievers".

acjohnson55 8y ago
It kind of doesn't given lower fertility rates of wealthier people. Which is fine with me, since I'm not a eugenics person like the other poster.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Doesn't that mean that the reproduction is "subsidised" more: If you're wealthy but less fecund you have more wealth to support each child than someone who is either more fecund or less wealthy.

opportune 8y ago

Fuck off Nazi

acjohnson55 8y ago

Aside from the nasty eugenics overtones of this concept, it's flawed from the perspective of how warped the reward system of America's brand of capitalism is. All of our forms of measuring merit are deeply distorted. We pour advantages upon those who have already benefited from previous advantage and then congratulate ourselves for our foresight in identifying how deserving they are when they continue to flourish. The result is a lot of mediocrity elevated and "unrecognized" talent squandered. Scare quotes, because the interlocking circles of privilege and protectionism are how our system is designed to work. We are a deeply elitist society mascarading as a humble, objective meritocracy. No one with advantages actually wants fair competition.