Hacker News Reader

Comment by ColanR | Hacker News Reader

> there's a push on campus to mandate the procedure, to combat "lookism."

That sounds incredibly dystopian.

Consider how dystopian it is that there are classes of people nigh-instantly dismissed because of their appearance. That's plenty dystopian, no?

No, that’s the natural way the world works, natural selection.

What's even more dystopian is mandated, invasive, mind-altering surgery. As far as 'my body, my choice' goes, there's little difference between that and the forced sterilization China used to mandate.

Just to play devil's advocate:

I mean, yes, this hypothetical procedure does sound dystopian on its face (haha). But then again, imagine if you just judged people by how nice they actually were, not by what their face looked like? Imagine if you were evaluated by the merits of your mind, of you, not the 'flawed' representation of you (your face) given to you by your DNA?

I've been helped enormously in almost every area of my life by the way I look and how I'm able to present myself physically. Much of that is because of my DNA -- something I didn't work for or ask for. It was given to me for free. Likewise, others are deprived through no fault of their own. Of course, that's the way it is. I like being attractive and having attractive friends and romantic partners. But what if it didn't matter? Would my life be richer?

> Imagine if you were evaluated by the merits of your mind, of you, not the 'flawed' representation of you (your face) given to you by your DNA?

Do you believe that accidents of genes (and actions taken by the mother at times) affect brain development? If so, aren't we just moving the problem to a different body part ?

(keeping the devil's advocate train going )

It's a good train to keep going, and the end of the line will be the realisation that allowing some people to receive better treatment for any reason, birth, wealth, looks, intelligence, or anything else, is inherantly unfair.

I hope that some day in the future we'll look back on the way poor people are treated now with the same horror we have today if we hear a black or gay person was refused healthcare or another service.

Does "better treatment" include higher wages for skills demonstrated? Or are you talking, like, equal application of law? That what I'd assume.

Sure, that's not an issue. Those higher wages can be used to purchase trinkets like a bigger car, fancier house, whatever. As long as the important stuff like education, healthcare, transportation, legal advice etc. are equally accessible to all, and more importantly, you can't buy better healthcare, education, or legal support with more money.

more importantly, you can't buy better healthcare, education, or legal support with more money

That's Harrison Bergeron territory. Sorry, you can't go on a vacation to France because your kids might learn something.

Obviously, like all political ideas, if you take it to the extreme it becomes nonsense.

For example, we are currently living the idea of capitalism taken to the extreme, where one man can own a trillion dollars while others can't afford healthcare or education, and it's clearly becoming more and more nonsensical to allow this. Let's try swinging the needle in the other direction for a while.

I'm not sure it is possible to separate those two things as long as our behaviours subtly change because of some quality we perceive in another person.

A baseline for human needs ( food, shelter, access to health and opportunities to develop oneself) can be codified into law but we'll always find a way to express those biases at the higher levels IMO.

> can be codified into law but we'll always find a way...

Which is the best argument for a minimal legal ethical codes. Any system can be hacked, especially those designed by humans. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So...

That's basically what John Rawls ends up concluding [1]. But the same line of thinking also leads to the conclusion that Free Will doesn't really exist, rather we humans are a product of our environment/genetics (and thus don't inherently deserve better treatment or rewards since all our efforts and subsequent results aren't 'really' our own doing). I wrote a little bit about this here [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

[2] https://www.hugomontenegro.com/blog/the-absurdity-of-free-wi...

This veil of ignorance is such a simple concept, yet it never occurred to me. It’s actually making me reevaluate my worldview. Thanks for linking it!

I agree with the conclusion but I'm quite stumped on how to improve that today since aren't even aware of our biases in most interactions. Some definition of Universal Income/Access helps but incentives aren't aligned with the most powerful groups today.

My patchwork strategy nowadays is "Nature is always unfair on the individual level. Leverage your advantages to make life better for those less fortunate." and hope enough people do this to improve the world.

The difference here is that a good brain is adding value to society. A good face (arguably) isn't.

I don't think that's quite clear in a capitalist world though. Good faces and whole industries around good faces have led to billions and billions of "wealth" being created through direct careers and indirect revenue streams like modeling, etc. ( The "utility" of those existing is a different animal but goes too far from the main thread)

Not once everyone has it done automatically and society accepts it. It’ll be something like a vaccine against the measles.

Given that it's a work of fiction, it's literally dystopian!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com