Hacker News Reader

These arguments are frankly ridiculous.

> A. Destroys information from the universe.

Does erasing a blackboard or wiping a hard drive destroy information from the universe? I can hardly think of an action that doesn't destroy information. Moving destroys the information of where we were immediately before. Think destroys the thoughts we had prior. Do we have a moral imperative to preserve everything that exists in the present? If so, we are pretty screwed. BTW, information can not be destroyed from the universe, but that's a bit pedantic and beside the point.

> B. Destroys /genetic information/, which is an evolutionary mechanism.

Your body constantly creates unused genetic material in the form of billions of sperm each day. You can argue that a zygote is more complete genetic information, but it is (almost) no more information than the sperm and egg contain separately. Better stop beating it - every sperm really is sacred to the universe.

> C. Slows evolutionary development, as beneficial mutations are already rare enough - increased abortions also increase the loss of a punctuated-equilibrium event.

Seriously? This doesn't deserve a direct response, but it's addressed below.

Apparently we have a moral obligation to produce a maximal number of offspring and ensure that every egg is fertilized. Otherwise, we are robbing the universe of its precious information and stopping our evolution. That is the logical corollary of your silly rationalizations for why you oppose abortion. And if we are supposed to help evolution along, shouldn't we stop allowing stupid and fat people to breed and preserve our resources for the most fit? No, because none of what you say is the basis for any sort of morals - it's complete nonsense.

Side point: Animals kill their unfit young, or young they are unable to care for. Are they also stopping evolution and sinning against the universe? Or are they contributing to evolution by removing poor genes, and contributing to the survival and health of the species by preserving resources for young that can be cared for. Or is evolution an undirected process, which can't be "stopped?" Oh yeah, I forgot.

The second part just reinforces your idea that we are morally obligated to maximize our offspring to create as much genetic diversity as possible, which is on its face ridiculous. Of course, you neglect that genetic diversity is not the only, or even the primary determinate of whether we have "Hitlerbabies" or Churchills. In fact, much if not most of the difference is environmental, which incidentally is helped by aborting babies that will not be raised in a healthy environment, and are therefor more likely to bring violence and suffering to the world. Maximizing births is not the way to produce your uberman.

I'm not sure why I bothered responding, this is such a load of nonsense.

I love how polite you are. Benefiting me with Ad Hominems just makes people not want to like you - which helps me out. Thanks!

A. No, because a blackboard is not a biological organism which is capable of manipulating the environment. When a single man (which required being a zygote first) can invent a wheat that can "save a billion lives" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) - then yes, it matters.

It also matters if they abort his education. Zygotes develop and acquire informtion, and the more of it, and the more collaboration from these humans from zygotes results in fundamentally world changing and humanity-pushing events. (As well as, admittedly, ones that scale humanity back, unfortunately - but abortion is the aid to this, not the contender.)

B. Red Herring, Straw Man. I like how you switched the argument over to sperms to make a sassy comment but then failed to actually refute the evolutionary mechanics of genetics. Right, because you can't. A subsequent zygote is fundamentally different in its genetic makeup than the one before - so why not keep both?

C. Ad Hominem. If my argument is "silly" why do you use logical fallacies?

Actually yes, a universe full of more information is simply progressive. Are you now arguing for destroying information? I hope that doesn't mean you are going to delete your comment - that would, afterall, be consistent with what you are proposing. However every new comment you add is providing unique insight - one which hopefully others will analyze and make beneficial conclusions from. In the same way as (A).

Stupid and fat people have actually produced rather intelligent offspring, surprisingly. Do you deny this? Because if you do, we first might need to have a discussion about not being intolerant.

When did I bring morality into it? I never did, just sheer math and evolution. I don't need morality to prove my point.

Are you proposing that we /should/ kill our young and unfit? I suggest not, but you seem to be refuting this - which puts you in an awkward position.

This is what I summarized from your last paragraph: "aborting babies ... helps [reduce] violence and suffering."

Ad Hominems attacks are against the person, not the idea. Calling you an idiot or ignorant would be ad hominem. Calling your ideas silly is certainly a rhetorical fallacy and not polite, but it's not ad hominum. I stand by my characterization.

> A. No, because a blackboard is not a biological organism which is capable of manipulating the environment.

Your statement was about removing information from the universe, not biological diversity. Evolution is a processes of removing biological diversity - that's how it works, so it may be ugly at times, but hard to call it unethical.

> B. Red Herring, Straw Man. I like how you switched the argument over to sperms

The argument is about removing genetic diversity, and if it applies to zygotes, it applies to sperm. Every sperm has unique genetics, so why not use them all? In fact, lets clone every egg and sperm and generate every possible combination - that will help evolution along. You have to follow statements to their logical conclusion, and in this case, it's absurd.

> Are you now arguing for destroying information?

Destruction of information is as important as creation. Forgetting is as important as remembering. Evolution is a process of natural selection, meaning those organisms not selected are lost. The human brain forgets almost everything it perceives so that it can remember what's important. Death is as important to evolution and species survival as birth. So yes, I am perfectly comfortable with the "loss" of information.

I'm also comfortable with the loss of zygotes before they grow into sentient beings who are likely to lead a life of suffering and imposing suffering on others. Our species certainly does not need genetic diversity at the expense of other qualities.

> Stupid and fat people have actually produced rather intelligent offspring, surprisingly. Do you deny this?

No, but both characteristics are genetically influenced. Smarter people produce smarter offspring, and fat people produce fatter offspring. My point was not to advocate for eugenics, but to point out that if we are trying to help evolution along, that's the way to do it, not making unlimited babies.

> When did I bring morality into it? I never did, just sheer math and evolution. I don't need morality to prove my point.

Ok, so you are just advocating for a maximally dominant species, without regard to ethics. In that case, see above regarding helping evolution.

> Are you proposing that we /should/ kill our young and unfit?

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm merely following the trails of logic.

> "aborting babies ... helps [reduce] violence and suffering."

Yes, aborting zygotes who are unwanted and are unlikely to be cared for certainly reduces violence and suffering, both for them and for those they will impose suffering upon.

Churchills, as you call them, by and large come from loving, supporting families, have access to opportunity and education, are well fed and sheltered, and have strong communities.

I don't know Churchill's biography, but I'm going to guess he was no gutter baby.

Well things seem more comfortable now :)

A. 1. Yes, you caught me there. I did say information, and then moved on to genetic information. Your point is valid against "information" in general. So I shall admit to that and move onto the important parts.

2. Evolution is the process of continual genetic diversity - natural selection is the process of eliminating the unfit. So you can't flip this.

B. Sperms, no. Zygote potential, yes. Therefore I would find it ideal to generate every combination, and play it out. This is not absurd at all - it is Evolution. No?

"Death" see (2)

I'd also like to point out that smart people come from fat people, skinny people come from stupid people, and skinny from fat and smart from stupid.

--> And zow! I believe we've hit the crux of our disagreement. Maximal evolution.

Well, I find the perspective of not protecting the young / killing of babies as an avoidable option, since we are the dominant species, we can manipulate our environment to restrain natural selection in favor of our own.

It appears, that you favor natural selection's brutality against us, and encouraging upon zygotes in unfavorable circumstances, thus diminishing their life.

I would argue against your assertion that "they'd grow up violent and suffering anyways" -- but that appears now to be pointless, since we've found our fundamental (and unfortunate) disagreement.

Thank you for sharing, I'm going to sleep now, it was interesting learning your perspective! (Feel free to reply, just don't bait me to respond back! lol.)

> 2. Evolution is the process of continual genetic diversity - natural selection is the process of eliminating the unfit. So you can't flip this.

> B. Sperms, no. Zygote potential, yes. Therefore I would find it ideal to generate every combination, and play it out. This is not absurd at all - it is Evolution. No?

This is all wrong. Evolution and naturals selection refer to exactly the same process. If you want to separate them, evolution is the result of natural selection over time.

Your concept of "maximal evolution" doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, the numbers in that scenario exceed the resources of the known universe.

I think we are far better off overall growing our species at a rate we can support with all the benefits of society rather than maximizing our gene pool. In fact, I think your proposition sounds far more brutal than mine. Streets filled with unwanted crack babies and accidental teen mothers sounds nightmarish. I'll take offing some zygotes any day.

You only talk about the effect of the aborted. For 2, it's worth mentioning that people who raise children at young ages often stop attending school/university/whatever, meaning that sometimes not having an abortion will "abort" your modern Einstein.

Talking about the universe is odd, considering that the issues around abortion mostly affect society, and at a push humanity. On the universe scale, there is no more information destroyed/created by having an abortion than by raising the child. The universe does not know the difference between a human's life and the absence of a human's life.

1C) assumes that the abortee will have more children overall if the child is not aborted than if they are not. This is hardly something that can be assumed, given how people's lives can be massively affected by a child. It also takes a very micro scale view of evolution; I do not think many people believe that adopting a policy of encouraging very large families is something that is good for the planet, and unfortunately for us, what is bad for the planet is usually bad for us (in the long run). However, when you make an argument that appeals to evolution, the long run is the only run that matters.

2's point on historical greatness coming from unexpected circumstances is most likely the product of massive selection bias. I would be very interested to see a study showing significant difference between the distribution of the backgrounds of "great people" and "normal people".

2A equates the destruction in abortion to the destruction in the Second World War.

2B references a society with no Hitlerbabies, which doesn't seem to really be what anyone is discussing here. I think it's fair to assume that there is a near to uniform distribution of potential across aborted children, meaning that there isn't a clear reason why there should suddenly be no Hitlerbabies/no entrepreneurs.

But seriously, how do you write a comment about the affects of abortion on society without talking about the woman who is having the abortion.

Yes, a child that stops continuing their education is subsequently reducing the amount of knowledge in their mind - and thus the amount of new conclusions they could derive (if they bothered to maximize this information). It is unfortunate.

Discussing things in terms of the "universe" is simply with respect to an alternate universe. "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than the second. True, my first argument is not making much of a statement about society or morality - just information.

1C) Correct, but it should be noted that there is a difference between the /gain and loss/ of information in a system, versus merely the /total/ information in a system. So here are the differences: "+1 +2 = +3", "+1 -1 +2 = +2", "+2 = +2". While a family might eventually have 2 children after they aborted 1, that is not necessarily mutually exclusive from them having had 3.

I unfortunately have to play the http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ card. While I understand that vast majority of people are frightened about and do not encourage people having "large families", it is all based on an irrational fear originating in Malthus' wrong mathematics. He forgot to calculate for technology.

Technology, interestingly enough, is a direct result of available information within a system, and the collaboration of multiple minds. This really is where the (seemingly obscure?) comments on "universe and information" become consequential to human behavior and development.

2. True -- history is a massive selective bias. And this is my point, great people come from horrible as well as fantastic backgrounds.

2A. No no, I was actually saying that abortion could have killed Hitler in the same way it could have killed Da`Vinci. I was being realistic.

2B. Yes! There is a uniform distribution of a variety of potential personalities (from opposite extremes of Hitler and Churchill, and everywhere inbetween) in the continual development of a human from zygote to adult. You will get diversity.

Abortion, instead, shrinks this diversity. Which is bad, because then you don't get the extremes that push humanity forward (as well as the ones that push it back). But a plus-sum gain is always better than a zero-sum gain. Abortion, by its virtue of destroying information, is a reduction.

Because I am interested in the /origins/ of the woman that was or was not aborted. If she was not born, how can I talk about her?

> "One universe no babies are aborted" and the other "Universe where babies are aborted". The former has greater opportunity for outpacing the information than the second.

This is the basis of your entire position and it is both false and reduces to absurdity.

Having more babies does increase the genetic diversity of humans. Genetic diversity however is not the only or even primary determining factor in just about any measure of human success, including generating Churchills.

Absurdity: This creates an imperative to reproduce as rapidly as possible and maximize genetic diversity, without regard to the resources or environment available. Why is a fertilized egg more valuable than all the unfertilized eggs that could be fertilized - in this framework, they it is equally imperative to bring both to life?

Even if "overpopulation is a myth," that does not mean maximum population is a virtue.

I want to first thank you for being nicer!

Could you explain why the explosion of human population in the last several thousand years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg) is possible, and why it does not imply success? Particularly with the limited resources we've overcome with the advent of crop rotation, agriculture and farming, technology, etc. - and the limited resources today we are still solving for and continually will do so?

It looks like we need a criterion for "success" and "evolution" and "progress"! I would love to hear your input.

The explosion of humanity is possible because of the development of technologies, most importantly agriculture.

Population is certainly a measure of success for a species, however it is not a particularly good one in my opinion.

China's population boom occurred during one of its least successful times in history. China's current success comes at a time of minimal population growth. What's more "successful"? A prosperous society with a static population, or a starving one with a rapidly growing population?

Was China of 1970 more successful than Europe of 1450? It had more people...

That then depends on your definition of success. Which I still would want you to provide.

Plus, I think terms of "success" with respect to a /nation/ is slightly skewed when compared to the "success" of genetics or species. I don't think that is an accurate cross-comparison.

I don't really need a definition of success, but I'd say a society that has a high chance of survival, has minimal suffering, and creates beauty.

Given all those things being equal, certainly a higher population would be more successful. However fast population growth is likely to work against most of those goals.

I'd also add to the list advanced technology and knowledge of the universe and consciousness.

> a zygote is genetically unique

I don't see that as morally relevant, despite your consequences.

Cancerous cells in my body are genetically unique human tissue. I fully support their eradication.

But maybe they're not human enough. If I use genetic engineering to combine my thumb with a tiny snippet of DNA from Joseph Stalin, so I could show off my eclectic "Stalin Thumb," it would be genetically unique human tissue. My fancy thumb has no rights equivalent to those of other humans.

Say I'm in a lab that catches fire. Because of the massive imminent backdraft, I have time only to save either the old lab tech, Fred, or a shelf of petri dishes containing 10 million blastocysts. According to the unique genetic material hypothesis, if I don't watch Fred writhe in flaming horror, then I'm a monster, committing one of the worst genocides in the history of the planet. (Note that a blastocyst has fewer cells than the brain of a fly.) I would contend that there is no amount of blastocysts you could save to justify letting Fred die in a fire.

I can't accept "genetically unique human material" as the sole determinant of moral responsibility, it just causes too many problems.