Of course, this is satire, excellent satire and clearly shows what would really be necessary in order to achieve their goals of "equity" and "social justice".
Why not just identify the ideal person and clone him or her, then confer societal advantages on them? The humane part would be to allow those of us who were born, raised, and lived under the "old" regime to die out. Eventually we'd all be too old even to have kids. It would take awhile, but eventually the world would be populated by clones of the ideal person. By the way, your method would take a long time, too, perhaps too long. Genetic variability and latent traits that might suddenly show up (even "beneficial" mutations) would make achieving equality through selective breeding almost impossible regardless of the timeline. My way would achieve perfect equality in about 100 years, especially if babies born at the beginning of the new regime were sterilized at birth. Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem of benefits accruing to where one lives, but that is easily dealt with by allowing people to live only in the most beneficial places. With cloning, population control is a snap.
I particularly liked this fragment: “My proposal, which does not require the extermination or sterilization of anybody, or at most very few...” I do hope your readers recognize that they are reading a satirical mockery and not an earnest proposal. We shall see.
You guessed correctly. Luckily, I am not familiar with professional egalitarian philosophy. But you did make me a little nervous. I confess to having just googled "Zoya Ulianova Kobapotskaya" on the horrifying possibility that there is actually somebody out there who stands sincerely behind the nightmare envisioned above. Google, thankfully, returned nothing.
There's a recent debate on whether reading bedtime stories to one's children is morally objectionable because it hoards opportunities. One writer wonders whether it should be characterized as objectionable self-dealing, or better yet, a Ponzi scheme.
Astonishing. And baffling. And - because people are so strangely receptive to logical argumentation for the absurd - heartbreaking. By the way, I just read a Substack article on The Tyranny of Need by a certain Rona Dinur. Might Zoya Ulianova Kobapotskaya be the satirical pen name Rona uses to shine light into the deeper and scarier nature of such thinking? It's possible :)
Besides- as you can see, there's no need for intentional satire here. you can just read the original materials. The satire writes itself... it's not the scariest argument I've seen in real papers
Googling “Ulianov” will bring one to the real name of Vladimir Lenin (or whoever still lies by the Red Square…). “Koba” was Stalin’s nickname, so the writer had some fun with the pseudonym Ulianova Koba-pots-kaya! The idea of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” works great for parents-kids relationship. Alas, some never quite grow up and believe it will also work among adults.
Was this a demonstration project to exhibit the direction an AI might take if we ask it to help us achieve “true” equality? Maybe tweaked a little here and there to amp up the horror? Could be!
I have met too many people who are loud proponents of such things. Some even had bullhorns. This sounds more like a selection of quotations than satire. Oh, I'll accept it as satire -- but the True Believers are just as likely to take it as a serious (if modest) proposal.
True! But far more humane than cloning which, by the way, we don't quite know how to do it safely. Sterilizing the entire population ? How crazy is that ?
Every revolution devours its own children and you will be eaten first by your wonderful communist system. I hope delusional people like you will never prevail in our world.
Of course, this is satire, excellent satire and clearly shows what would really be necessary in order to achieve their goals of "equity" and "social justice".
Why not just identify the ideal person and clone him or her, then confer societal advantages on them? The humane part would be to allow those of us who were born, raised, and lived under the "old" regime to die out. Eventually we'd all be too old even to have kids. It would take awhile, but eventually the world would be populated by clones of the ideal person. By the way, your method would take a long time, too, perhaps too long. Genetic variability and latent traits that might suddenly show up (even "beneficial" mutations) would make achieving equality through selective breeding almost impossible regardless of the timeline. My way would achieve perfect equality in about 100 years, especially if babies born at the beginning of the new regime were sterilized at birth. Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem of benefits accruing to where one lives, but that is easily dealt with by allowing people to live only in the most beneficial places. With cloning, population control is a snap.
Maybe the author felt that cloning was not a ``humane'' solution.
It's as humane as forced breeding.
I really enjoyed this essay and I am still smiling to myself while I try to find out how to join her Political Party
I particularly liked this fragment: “My proposal, which does not require the extermination or sterilization of anybody, or at most very few...” I do hope your readers recognize that they are reading a satirical mockery and not an earnest proposal. We shall see.
We saw.
Lucky for you, you sound unfamiliar with some of professional egalitarian philosophy (I guess...?). The boundaries there get really murky
You guessed correctly. Luckily, I am not familiar with professional egalitarian philosophy. But you did make me a little nervous. I confess to having just googled "Zoya Ulianova Kobapotskaya" on the horrifying possibility that there is actually somebody out there who stands sincerely behind the nightmare envisioned above. Google, thankfully, returned nothing.
There's a recent debate on whether reading bedtime stories to one's children is morally objectionable because it hoards opportunities. One writer wonders whether it should be characterized as objectionable self-dealing, or better yet, a Ponzi scheme.
Astonishing. And baffling. And - because people are so strangely receptive to logical argumentation for the absurd - heartbreaking. By the way, I just read a Substack article on The Tyranny of Need by a certain Rona Dinur. Might Zoya Ulianova Kobapotskaya be the satirical pen name Rona uses to shine light into the deeper and scarier nature of such thinking? It's possible :)
Haha no, it's not me!
Besides- as you can see, there's no need for intentional satire here. you can just read the original materials. The satire writes itself... it's not the scariest argument I've seen in real papers
I don't know if it's a humane proposal, but it's certainly a Modest Proposal.
Touche!
Googling “Ulianov” will bring one to the real name of Vladimir Lenin (or whoever still lies by the Red Square…). “Koba” was Stalin’s nickname, so the writer had some fun with the pseudonym Ulianova Koba-pots-kaya! The idea of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” works great for parents-kids relationship. Alas, some never quite grow up and believe it will also work among adults.
Lenin's wife's nae was Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya
Nice work!
This is what I came here for.
Was this a demonstration project to exhibit the direction an AI might take if we ask it to help us achieve “true” equality? Maybe tweaked a little here and there to amp up the horror? Could be!
I wonder what percentage of readers won't understand that this is satire...
I have met too many people who are loud proponents of such things. Some even had bullhorns. This sounds more like a selection of quotations than satire. Oh, I'll accept it as satire -- but the True Believers are just as likely to take it as a serious (if modest) proposal.
And by the way, have we really gotten to the point where subscribers to a STEM Substack don't instantly recognize satire?
This was penned on April 1st, I take it ?
I wasn't exactly sure if this was satire, parody, or neither. I hope it is either one of those and not genuine. It's a scary proposition!
Interesting but risky. Has never been tried, even for horses sheep, etc.
True! But far more humane than cloning which, by the way, we don't quite know how to do it safely. Sterilizing the entire population ? How crazy is that ?
Every revolution devours its own children and you will be eaten first by your wonderful communist system. I hope delusional people like you will never prevail in our world.
You are so sweet.
Have you been hacked, Heterodox STEM?
It’s a joke. Humor. Kind of.
Oh thanks, I was sincerely worried