When I accept that a calculator won’t work without batteries, that’s not “thinking of the calculator like a rock”, and choosing to not notice the differences between the calculator and a rock so as to avoid holding it to higher standards. I’m still looking at the calculator as a calculator, just more specifically, as a calculator which doesn’t have any batteries—because that’s what it is. The idea is to move towards more detailed and accurate models, not less. Because this gives you options to improve the calculator by adding batteries.
Your words imply that you have expectations for “humans” which empirically do not seem to be holding up so far as you can tell. Rather than turning away from this failed expectation, saying “I won’t even think of them as human”, look into it. Why, exactly, are people failing to behave in the ways you think they should? Why is it wrong of you to expect people to behave in the ways you wished they would?
Or, put another way, what is the missing constraint that you’re not seeing, and how can you provide it such that people can and will live up to the standards you want to hold for them? (easier said than done, but doable nonetheless)
what is the missing constraint that you’re not seeing
Intelligence and personality, which are both largely innate.
how can you provide it
Genetic engineering…?
(EDIT: And, like, UBI / social safety nets / reform the education system / solve unemployment / cure all diseases / etc. All of these things would surely improve many people’s ability to perform well in life.)
Except that they’re not cats, right?
When I accept that a calculator won’t work without batteries, that’s not “thinking of the calculator like a rock”, and choosing to not notice the differences between the calculator and a rock so as to avoid holding it to higher standards. I’m still looking at the calculator as a calculator, just more specifically, as a calculator which doesn’t have any batteries—because that’s what it is. The idea is to move towards more detailed and accurate models, not less. Because this gives you options to improve the calculator by adding batteries.
Your words imply that you have expectations for “humans” which empirically do not seem to be holding up so far as you can tell. Rather than turning away from this failed expectation, saying “I won’t even think of them as human”, look into it. Why, exactly, are people failing to behave in the ways you think they should? Why is it wrong of you to expect people to behave in the ways you wished they would?
Or, put another way, what is the missing constraint that you’re not seeing, and how can you provide it such that people can and will live up to the standards you want to hold for them? (easier said than done, but doable nonetheless)
Intelligence and personality, which are both largely innate.
Genetic engineering…?
(EDIT: And, like, UBI / social safety nets / reform the education system / solve unemployment / cure all diseases / etc. All of these things would surely improve many people’s ability to perform well in life.)