undefined | Better HN

0 pointssillysaurusx24d ago0 comments

Although primogeniture has been discriminatory for basically the entire time it's existed, the discrimination isn't inherent. It's an implementation detail. Modern British Royal succession now uses absolute, gender-neutral primogeniture since 2013.

In fact, there are few things less discriminatory than a random birth order. You may as well be assigned a random number at birth, and the lower your number, the more you're paid. In such a system, there's nothing to discriminate against; the ordering is absolute and immutable, and everyone is treated equally.

I agree that it's a bleak idea, but Animats wasn't talking about subjugating women.

0 comments

marxisttemp24d ago

Primogeniture in any form is discriminatory precisely since birth order is an immutable, permanent, unchosen characteristic assigned randomly at birth, just like race or sex.

Saline951524d ago

Primogeniture makes sense in a world where odds that you arrive at the adult age are rather low, due to the high risk of death from illness and injuries.

The oldest child is the most likely to survive. It is a rational and fair rule in such context.

marxisttemp24d ago

Many discriminatory policies could be considered rational. It is rational for jobs to discriminate against handicapped people who require extra affordances to be able to do the same job (for example, wheelchair ramps).

“Fair” is a much trickier beast! My favorite approach to conceptualizing fairness is Rawls’ veil of ignorance: if you were going to be placed as a random member of society, rather than your current position, and you would still support a policy given this change, then the policy is fair. Knowing that, beyond the veil of ignorance, I may be a paraplegic, would I still support dismantling the ADA’s wheelchair accessibility requirements?

Saline951523d ago

Things like inclusion and other theories such as the one you describe are only possible in rich and technology-advanced societies. And are vulnerable to groups chosing to play against the whole society.

When you have to struggle for life, discriminating against some categories, such as disabled people is necessary for the whole group to survive. Animals do it, and humans in antiquity did it too, out of necessity. It's actually how evolution happens. Humans still do it to some extent when they choose how to mate : they discriminate.

biztos24d ago

Is the oldest child the most likely to survive, or is the winner simply the oldest surviving child?

leereeves24d ago

Rather than being distracted by whether primogeniture specifically is/was discriminatory, we should remember that "what was valued" in the societies Animats discussed very much included being male.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

marxisttemp24d ago

Primogeniture in any form is discriminatory precisely since birth order is an immutable, permanent, unchosen characteristic assigned randomly at birth, just like race or sex.

Saline951524d ago

Primogeniture makes sense in a world where odds that you arrive at the adult age are rather low, due to the high risk of death from illness and injuries.

The oldest child is the most likely to survive. It is a rational and fair rule in such context.

marxisttemp24d ago

Saline951523d ago

biztos24d ago

Is the oldest child the most likely to survive, or is the winner simply the oldest surviving child?

leereeves24d ago

Rather than being distracted by whether primogeniture specifically is/was discriminatory, we should remember that "what was valued" in the societies Animats discussed very much included being male.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse