[bitdizzy]

> Call them callous, but theirs is a way of being in the world that is no less valid than one that holds every individual's life worthy of special protection from the consequences of their unforced errors, and where these might be attributable to mental illness, there is a rational argument for putting the space and resources consumed by the mentally ill to better use.

You've asserted that this eugenicist viewpoint is valid and is defensible but you don't present such a defense. Would you like to post a defense this position which is by no means obvious?

[Igelau]

That's not eugenics. It's one of those short-sighted "utilitarian" views that you'd usually see on LessWrong or something.

It's not eugenics though.

[bitdizzy]

It is eugenics once you start digging into it and having a conversation about the etiology of the social problems being discussed. As a former LWer, I regret to inform you that a great deal of utilitarianism on LessWrong is eugenics without explicitly mentioning the belief in an essential origin of human qualities that one wishes to promote or demote. There are many naive members of the community who don't or refuse to see it, and a large contingent of manipulative people who know exactly what they're saying.

[futurehero]

Calling my position eugenicist is a straw-man. I am not advocating for artificially selective evolutionary pressure, but rather am pointing out that allowing natural selection to take its course is a rational position to hold, even moreso in the face of the accumulating consequences of Malthusian crisis. Humanity's battle is not with Darwin, it's with Fermi.

[tyrust]

In what way is jailing and murdering people (innocent, guilty, mentally ill, or otherwise) "allowing natural selection to take its course"?

[typon]

Weird how the Malthusian crisis' victims always end up being disadvantaged unprivileged serfs