[extropy-chat] late response to Dan/Technotranscendence

[Matthew Gingell]

Rather than getting hung up on the differential prevalence of mysogeny
with respect to sex and whatever, isn't just enough to acknowledge men
and woman do not have exactly equivalent interests? For random
instance on public funding of research into treating prostate vs.
breast cancer. Neither population is right or wrong or good or bad,
there are just instances where we in the aggregate tend to weight
various preferences and goals differently.

Same deal for high vs. low IQ voters: What works best for highly
skilled, high achieving professionals isn't likely to be a good fit
for the interests of low skill labor. Weighting the distribution of
political power towards particular segments of society isn't going to
get you better decisions in any Platonic sense, it's just going to get
you a policy environment more closely reflecting the interests of the
empowered groups. Maybe the clever would end up being better at
screwing the not-clever than visa versa, but from my perspective that
isn't an obviously desirable feature of an electoral system.

I suggest we stick with the Enlightenment one-man-one-vote thing, at
least till we can make some more progress on this whole human condition
fiasco.