We have superseded many of its aspects but the law still stands.
We will either be lead down a path of ever worsening gene pool as the weak multiply indefinitely (see: idiocracy).
So what shall replace it? For the human species to endure on a longterm scale we must replace its effects. Our ootions arw as follows:
increase the risk to life in society in general. Remove safety railings, electrocution warnings, safety training etc.
Make conscious decisions about who and what metrics.
Realign the incentives on procreation. Again raising questions who and what metrics.
Option 1 will be immediately compensated for by the laws of capitalism and self preservation essentially we have got situation 3 where who is the rich and the metrics are wealth and self preservation.
Option 2 is just strait up eugenics.
Option 3 is eugenics lite.
This is something that the human species will eventually have to contentd with. If we are to condemned eugenics in all scenarios are we morally justified in ushering in a society or ineffective idiots?
Should we simply let the human species die. In this case many will revolt and institute option 2 or 3.
Do we hope that AI becomes capable to take care of all of us? In that case we are handing the future of our own species over to something other. Dogs did that and look where that got them. We have not been kind to the k9 species over the centuries. It was our doing in creating them as they are we are responsible for ensuring they do not live short lives of suffering and mystery as many do. Will the ai simply decide its not worth it and kill our species or implement options 2 or 3?
I see no moraly justified solution to this problem. Fortunately morality doesn’t exist its just a social construct we made the fuck up and thus can be rewritten.
Genetic abnormalities will be corrected via gene therapy, and competition for mates didn’t stop when we stopped being part of the food chain. Most people do marry in their socioeconomic range
That’s the do nothing case. Research consistently finds a negative correlation between IQ and the number of children people have. Thus people will get dumber and dumber (see: idiocracy).
Humanity as a whole evolved beyond the usual environmental pressures when we invented civilizations. We won’t de-evolve intelligence genetically anytime soon! Societal demphasis on learning, that’s a different matter.
We are literally deselecting for the intelligence gene that is quite literally what we have scientific evidence for. You are objectively wrong and proving my very point.
We have superseded many of its aspects but the law still stands.
We will either be lead down a path of ever worsening gene pool as the weak multiply indefinitely (see: idiocracy).
So what shall replace it? For the human species to endure on a longterm scale we must replace its effects. Our ootions arw as follows:
Option 1 will be immediately compensated for by the laws of capitalism and self preservation essentially we have got situation 3 where who is the rich and the metrics are wealth and self preservation.
Option 2 is just strait up eugenics.
Option 3 is eugenics lite.
This is something that the human species will eventually have to contentd with. If we are to condemned eugenics in all scenarios are we morally justified in ushering in a society or ineffective idiots?
Should we simply let the human species die. In this case many will revolt and institute option 2 or 3.
Do we hope that AI becomes capable to take care of all of us? In that case we are handing the future of our own species over to something other. Dogs did that and look where that got them. We have not been kind to the k9 species over the centuries. It was our doing in creating them as they are we are responsible for ensuring they do not live short lives of suffering and mystery as many do. Will the ai simply decide its not worth it and kill our species or implement options 2 or 3?
I see no moraly justified solution to this problem. Fortunately morality doesn’t exist its just a social construct we made the fuck up and thus can be rewritten.
Genetic abnormalities will be corrected via gene therapy, and competition for mates didn’t stop when we stopped being part of the food chain. Most people do marry in their socioeconomic range
That’s the do nothing case. Research consistently finds a negative correlation between IQ and the number of children people have. Thus people will get dumber and dumber (see: idiocracy).
Humanity as a whole evolved beyond the usual environmental pressures when we invented civilizations. We won’t de-evolve intelligence genetically anytime soon! Societal demphasis on learning, that’s a different matter.
We are literally deselecting for the intelligence gene that is quite literally what we have scientific evidence for. You are objectively wrong and proving my very point.