What does it mean for a person to be "better" or "worse." Human hierarchies objectively exist; we observe these social configurations across domains. Genetics contribute to the position individuals have within those. ๐งต
If we mean "better or worse" in a broad ideological sense, a la "everyone has intrinsic spiritual value," I guess you could say "better or worse" doesn't exist. Keira seems to believe in what is basically a secular version of this.
In other words, the belief that everyone is fundamentally of equal value (no matter how they differ biologically from one another). This is fine. It's an ethical belief. It's not really falsifiable, given that this equality of quasi-spiritual worth is not measurable.
What if we look at specific observed hierarchies, measures of "value" that have been quantified in human beings, and their relationship to individual genetics?
Some people will immediately think of intelligence, but perhaps an even more clear example is that of physical traits and attractiveness.
Being really hot doesn't make someone a "better" person in a broad or metaphysical sense. However, it does place individuals higher in mating hierarchies we observe in human beings.
Few would claim less attractive individuals (or those lower in whatever trait) are not "fully human." It's a bit of a strawman.
And yet despite being fully human and of the same intrinsic worth, we don't see an equal distribution of swipes on Tinder.
We see human beings express (fairly consistent) preferences for certain physical features in their own mate selection.
We see human beings express (fairly consistent) preferences for certain physical features in their own mate selection.
It's probably easier to deny that intelligence influences placement in success-based hierarchies than it is to deny that attractiveness influences placement in mating hierarchies.
Physical attractiveness, at least, is worn externally.
Physical attractiveness, at least, is worn externally.
Below the "mating hierarchy" and on an individual level, genes contribute to variables determining relationship formation and success.
Not only physical, but behavioral.
Personality traits with varying degrees of heritability impact relationships for better or worse.
Not only physical, but behavioral.
Personality traits with varying degrees of heritability impact relationships for better or worse.
The belief that someone is "fully human" will not make you attracted to them, by the way.
Having highly egalitarian beliefs doesn't seem to change how people prefer mates who are conventionally attractive.
Having highly egalitarian beliefs doesn't seem to change how people prefer mates who are conventionally attractive.
People will go on and on about how everyone is equal, but when it comes down to it they will show preferences for some individuals over others in their own choices.
And these preferences are not random, so you'll see some people emerge as more preferred on average.
Beauty is not entirely "subjective" in this sense.
Beauty is not entirely "subjective" in this sense.
We know about the Halo Effect and some degree of "lookism" in society where more attractive individuals have better outcomes, even outside of romantic relationships.
It's all very pretty to say "everyone is equal, valuable, and human," but the fact is that we do observe unequal outcomes for individual life trajectories based in part on genetics.
Given that, imagine: you're having a child and you are told that he will be unattractive. You know this will impact his romantic life negatively. He will struggle because of it.
It will carry over to other areas of his life as well.
It will carry over to other areas of his life as well.
But, you're given an option: you can push a button. This will make him conventionally attractive. Tall, handsome, beautiful, whatever.
His life will probably be better if you do.
His life will probably be better if you do.
Do you press the button?
Loading suggestions...