Resolves YES/NO to majority vote of poll I will hold around market close. If the poll is 50/50 I will resolve to PROB=50%.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ424 | |
| 2 | Ṁ184 | |
| 3 | Ṁ94 | |
| 4 | Ṁ88 | |
| 5 | Ṁ77 |
@JiSK I'll post the poll link here. Everyone's free to answer it. Anyone can send the poll to anyone they want. As I've said previously, there's no restriction on who can vote.
@levifinkelstein you obviously need to be able access the poll though, like you need internet, a device that can connect to the internet, some way of interacting with the device to answer the poll, any relevant account you need to log in to the polling system, etc.
@levifinkelstein If you cared about running the market well, you would have answered one of the several earlier times I asked.
@robotnik That’s definitely not part of the definition.
@4mur1c4 are you screwing with me? The definition you linked absolute says sterilization.
@4mur1c4 so your argument is that it's ok because they ask the kids with down syndrome first? Eugenics is not just some hypothetical thing. It's a government policy that has been enacted at various times in history.
@robotnik Forced sterilization is always bad. However, the idea that we can and should remove maladaptive genetics is a good one. Luckily technology is catching up to that and those genetic problems will be able to be fixed. The idea that eugenics is bad is tied to the historical implementation of it, primarily nazi ideology, which is objectively bad.
@4mur1c4 Eugenics (eg forced sterilization) was official government policy in Sweden until 1976. In the US some states had Eugenics agencies (for much of the 20th century even going by that name) engaged in compulsory sterilization until the 1980s.
My point is simply that if you're exclusively talking about gene therapy you're not actually engaging in a conversation about Eugenics.
@robotnik Historical implementations have been terrible crimes against humanity. I don’t think that it necessarily has to be that way though.
@4mur1c4 I think it's reasonable to be more than just skeptical of any program that seeks to direct the evolution of a human population. I think it's incumbent on us to rigorously interrogate the motives as well as the competence of anyone setting out to do such things. If such action is ENTIRELY voluntary, it is not Eugenics, nor is it going to be particularly effective at its objective.
If a mentally retarded couple say, or a couple where one or both members has a sub-optimal genetic condition - or where both members have DIFFERENT sub-optimal genetic conditions - love each other and wish to form a family who precisely has the moral authority to prevent them from doing so without their informed consent? Those are extremes, but once the door is open to extremes, in what world has any agency with power limited themselves to their original mandate?
If it is voluntary - if parents elect to undergo in vitro gene therapy for their offspring - that is one thing. I'm not sure that its necessarily a GOOD thing, as this is also how you get GATTACA, but I'm content to consider it as morally neutral.
@robotnik I'm sorry but can you provide some kind of sourcing for the claim that "If such action is ENTIRELY voluntary, it is not Eugenics?"
@levifinkelstein Still not answering my question. Who are you asking? By what means are you finding people to ask? Are you posting it on Twitter? On a Substack? On LessWrong? Just on Manifold?