What are things that are illegal today that could become legal in 50 years?
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdayI could see several forms of human genetic engineering becoming legal. For instance, three-parent children, also known as mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) is illegal in most western countries, though it was legalized in the UK, Spain, and Italy. The FDA banned in it in the US in 2015 because it involves human subjects research without prior approval from an institutional review board.
-
Not with the way the US is headed.
wrote last edited by [email protected]There’s money to be made. Profit trumps “morals” in the US.
-
There’s money to be made. Profit trumps “morals” in the US.
Does it though? We are literally watching payment processors change this in the gaming world right now.
Banning porn is literally a major part of Project 2025, as are draconian drug laws.
-
I could see several forms of human genetic engineering becoming legal. For instance, three-parent children, also known as mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) is illegal in most western countries, though it was legalized in the UK, Spain, and Italy. The FDA banned in it in the US in 2015 because it involves human subjects research without prior approval from an institutional review board.
I would just be happy with being able to make eggs and sperm from stem cells so it doesn't matter what kind of pairing you have you can make babies if you really want to. Two ciswomen, two cismen with a surrogate, cisman and transwoman with a surrogate, ciswoman and transman, and so on.
-
Does it though? We are literally watching payment processors change this in the gaming world right now.
Banning porn is literally a major part of Project 2025, as are draconian drug laws.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, but it’s highly regulated where it is legal, which is what they’re trying to do with gaming and porn right now. Thing is, weed has got a lot better and cheaper once we started regulating it. So we like that.
They can’t use the whole “threat to children” to get their way with their agenda. The big deal now is for it to be legalized federally, so the payment processor can get on that bandwagon.
-
Yeah, but it’s highly regulated where it is legal, which is what they’re trying to do with gaming and porn right now. Thing is, weed has got a lot better and cheaper once we started regulating it. So we like that.
They can’t use the whole “threat to children” to get their way with their agenda. The big deal now is for it to be legalized federally, so the payment processor can get on that bandwagon.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah legalizing it is totally on Republican's agendas, and not... *checks notes... Instituting a Christian Theocracy with Trump as king.
They're literally busy trying to rig the 2026 midterms with gerrymandering. Get real.
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdayLegal for who?
-
There’s money to be made. Profit trumps “morals” in the US.
There's more money to be made keeping it illegal. More risk, more reward.
Most of the UK illegal weed is produced by a monopoly producer. There's the odd hippy growing their own, but the stuff the most prolific dealers sell all comes from the same source, up and down the country.
-
I would just be happy with being able to make eggs and sperm from stem cells so it doesn't matter what kind of pairing you have you can make babies if you really want to. Two ciswomen, two cismen with a surrogate, cisman and transwoman with a surrogate, ciswoman and transman, and so on.
A lot of billionaires lately are concerned about population decline. At least, they claim they're concerned about population decline. But they're really ultimately motivated by the same "Great Replacement" conspiracy theories and eugenics ideals as any other right wing ghoul. I know for certain that Elon Musk is as much concerned about what kind of children are being born, rather than just that a certain number are born.
I know this because, to my knowledge, none of these ghouls have ever directed any of their vast fortunes towards developing assisted reproduction technologies. These technologies include artificial gametes, but they would also include technologies like artificial uteri.
Imagine being able to produce an embryo via in vitro fertilization and grow that embryo to full term without ever needing gestation in a uterus, a true artificial womb. Bypass the problem of infertility all together. Think what that would enable. With access to better and cheaper reproductive technology, then more LGBT couples could have children. And couples could have children at later years. Menopause would be no barrier to couples having children. The only limit on who and what ages people could have children would be based on what resources and remaining lifespan couples have to care for them.
But Musk doesn't want to help trans people have children. Musk doesn't want to help couples have children in their forties or fifties. He doesn't want LGBT couples reproducing. He wants women at home in the kitchen, pregnant in their twenties instead of couples using artificial uteri to have children in their forties or fifties. He's far more concerned about his vision of social control and eugenics than he is about the impact of an aging population on national pension systems. If these billionaire ghouls were just concerned about an aging population, they would be pouring billions into assisted reproduction technologies. Instead they pour their money into politics. The fact that none of them have really shows a great deal about their motivations.
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdayViolating laws.
-
There's more money to be made keeping it illegal. More risk, more reward.
Most of the UK illegal weed is produced by a monopoly producer. There's the odd hippy growing their own, but the stuff the most prolific dealers sell all comes from the same source, up and down the country.
But not by the white people.
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdayIn the US? Child labor.
-
A lot of billionaires lately are concerned about population decline. At least, they claim they're concerned about population decline. But they're really ultimately motivated by the same "Great Replacement" conspiracy theories and eugenics ideals as any other right wing ghoul. I know for certain that Elon Musk is as much concerned about what kind of children are being born, rather than just that a certain number are born.
I know this because, to my knowledge, none of these ghouls have ever directed any of their vast fortunes towards developing assisted reproduction technologies. These technologies include artificial gametes, but they would also include technologies like artificial uteri.
Imagine being able to produce an embryo via in vitro fertilization and grow that embryo to full term without ever needing gestation in a uterus, a true artificial womb. Bypass the problem of infertility all together. Think what that would enable. With access to better and cheaper reproductive technology, then more LGBT couples could have children. And couples could have children at later years. Menopause would be no barrier to couples having children. The only limit on who and what ages people could have children would be based on what resources and remaining lifespan couples have to care for them.
But Musk doesn't want to help trans people have children. Musk doesn't want to help couples have children in their forties or fifties. He doesn't want LGBT couples reproducing. He wants women at home in the kitchen, pregnant in their twenties instead of couples using artificial uteri to have children in their forties or fifties. He's far more concerned about his vision of social control and eugenics than he is about the impact of an aging population on national pension systems. If these billionaire ghouls were just concerned about an aging population, they would be pouring billions into assisted reproduction technologies. Instead they pour their money into politics. The fact that none of them have really shows a great deal about their motivations.
-
Legal for who?
feel free to specify if you have something in mind
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdaywrote last edited by [email protected]I will bet that a lot of genetic engineering restrictions in Europe will be more relaxed in 50 years than they are today.
The introduction of the car had people who were worried about it passing a lot of restrictions too; these went away over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
Red flag laws were laws in the United Kingdom and the United States enacted in the late 19th century, requiring drivers of early automobiles to take certain safety precautions, including waving a red flag in front of the vehicle as a warning.
In the United Kingdom, the law required self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.
In particular the Locomotives Act 1865, also known as Red Flag Act, stated:
- Firstly, at least three persons shall be employed to drive or conduct such locomotive, and if more than two waggons or carriages he attached thereto, an additional person shall be employed, who shall take charge of such waggons or carriages;
- Secondly, one of such persons, while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives, and shall signal the driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages drawn by horses, passing the same.
The Red Flag Act was repealed in 1896, by which time the internal combustion engine was well into its infancy.[1]
-
I will bet that a lot of genetic engineering restrictions in Europe will be more relaxed in 50 years than they are today.
The introduction of the car had people who were worried about it passing a lot of restrictions too; these went away over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
Red flag laws were laws in the United Kingdom and the United States enacted in the late 19th century, requiring drivers of early automobiles to take certain safety precautions, including waving a red flag in front of the vehicle as a warning.
In the United Kingdom, the law required self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.
In particular the Locomotives Act 1865, also known as Red Flag Act, stated:
- Firstly, at least three persons shall be employed to drive or conduct such locomotive, and if more than two waggons or carriages he attached thereto, an additional person shall be employed, who shall take charge of such waggons or carriages;
- Secondly, one of such persons, while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives, and shall signal the driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages drawn by horses, passing the same.
The Red Flag Act was repealed in 1896, by which time the internal combustion engine was well into its infancy.[1]
I was very confused at first. Here in Washington State "red flag" laws take people's guns away, which is very different than a person waving a literal red flag. xD
-
There’s money to be made. Profit trumps “morals” in the US.
Pretty sure arresting minorities trumps "morals".
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdayMany places are legalizing psychedelic mushrooms. MDMA is being used for veteran PTSD, and ibogane is gaining respect for severe addiction
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdayPunching Nazis
-
piggybacking on @[email protected] great post
yesterdayIn 50 years we're basically gonna be living in madmax. So everything is legal. Wild west baby
