As near as I can tell, Earl (my generic name for anyone that's so far out in left field that they couldn't make it back to the dugout in time for the game's ending) here has decided that having a gender is a bad thing (he starts with the assumption that gender is a constraint and then moves to demonstrate this via a varity of "interesting" examples). Then, via the use of large polysyllabic words (that have become some convoluted as to become unusable) he goes to support a position that seems to be largely centered around making women equal to men via chemical, medical, and biotechnological advancements.

His assumptions are that:
-evolution is a bad moral compass (explicitly stated)
-having different physical characteristics (whether or not they're limitations depends on the point of view) isn't a good thing. (somewhat explicitly stated)
-we have become so learned that we can adequately predict what future selective pressures will come to bear upon our race OR that no further selective pressures should be necessary.
-the way to eliminate inequality is to remove these perceived "constraints".

Personally, I think it's a bucket of crap. He does, at least, note that there are proven differences and that not every precious snowflake born can be anything they want to be. That's good - but the rest rides on the above assumptions.

To discuss:

Evolution is a bad moral compass - It isn't a compass at all. It's neither moral nor immoral. It simply is the response of our population to random mutations and selective pressures. No more or no less. However, this doesn't mean that there's no value in what evolution's produced. Its current end product (because, in spite of his other assumptions, evolution is still occuring in our species) is a very adaptable species that continues to flourish.

Gender differences are bad - Nonsense at face value. A thing, in and of itself, generally isn't bad or good. It just is. It's the way in which that thing is used that determines whether or not it benefits society and the ecosystem at large. Additionally, the world in which we operate is a very complex system. This complexity is social, physical, intellectual, and so on. Having a large number of diverse beings helps us to manage this level of complexity in a much easier way than we could if we were monoclonal.

Prediction/elimination of selective pressures Complete and utter bullshiat. The selective pressures that will shape our species in the future are still here and will continue to be here. The hubris that would assume that one can, from some central area, accurately understand the future well enough to know what selective pressures will come to bear is simply ludicrous.

Elimination of undesirable characteristics - To work to eliminate, in an unnatural fashion, certain alleles because someone considers them to be "constraining" is nothing short of a dressed up eugenics ploy. Why this should be disturbing is obvious - the end goal of a program that "calls for a more equitable distribution of gendered traits across the two sexes and the elimination of those gendered characteristics that are deemed disadvantageous." [emphasis mine] means that someone somewhere is going to be taking a decision out of your hand. Maybe they decide that something you value isn't useful anymore - your choice to pass that trait on to your children (or attempt to do so) is now gone. Big Brother at its worst.

While likely well-meaning, this sort of thinking is some of the scariest kind of stuff out there. Species, in general, have survived to this point due to a large number of characteristics - diversity being key to that survival.

The appropriate approach to eliminating inequality isn't to eliminate the differences, it's to understand them and ensure that the differences are treated appropriately in each situation. This is no different in any other aspect of life. Certain skills and abilities* (innate or learned) are valued more than others. As such, they are rewarded. However, when one possesses these skills and abilities, they also tend to have "constraints" in other areas. The combination and their value to society (micro and macro) should be what determines one's success** in the world.

*Skills and abilities - athletic, intellectual, desire, work ethic, etc.
**success - defined differently for different people. Here, I'm pointing to a combination of physical, emotional, and reproductive rewards.

Posted by: Ron on January 10, 2008 01:05 PM

just the usual extropian nonsense, with common error of short-sighted futurism.

Posted by: mrfred on January 11, 2008 10:18 AM

Problem is, with the technology available these days, loons like this can actually stand a good chance of imposing this kind of belief, over the objections (and often dead bodies) of those around them. It shows up in the news as some kind of bizarre headline... "Mysterious assailant severs genitals of third victim"... and maybe makes the front page of Fark, but people generally don't think much about how much crazy people can get away with these days, even after the WTC got turned into a live demonstration.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on January 12, 2008 12:35 AM

I doubt it'd be like that. I get the feeling that it'd roll in much more like "gun control"* - slowly encroaching upon individual things that seem to be good at the time, but in reality don't bring about the result desired. Therefore, more and more steps need to be taken.

*Even though it should be referred to as firearm control instead of gun control, it's about the silliest thing out there. It's failed in it's primary objective everywhere. Yet, folks continue to want to try more and more drastic controls that will continue to fail.

Posted by: ronaprhys on January 12, 2008 03:45 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?