Iron
-
They should put meth in birth control. It would make it easier to remember to take it on time and I could call them “mommy’s pep pills” and it would be charmingly ironic because I have no children because I’m good at taking my pills on time.
wrote last edited by [email protected]my antidepressant is apparently really damn addictive, I forgot to take them for a week with no issues. Honestly I felt better. No idea why I didn't have any withdrawals
️I do imagine meth is slightly more impactful though
-
I find it surprising that you think the rich and powerful would not choose to genetically enhance themselves (their children) to be smarter, more attractive, etc. They would surely be the first to do so.
Yes it does make sense that they would give up their identity, their being, their humanity just for a leg up to win a place in the machine, for a shot at running the machine, king of the shit hill, that does explain a lot.
-
How bad could it be? Ethan Hawke succeeds in the movie even though he's got no real genetic qualifications.
Ask Jude Law inside the incinerator how things are going for him
And astronaut boy is not going to be normal
after the surveillance state twisted him like a pretzel so he could avoid detection -
It's always lovely to be reminded that eugenics remains a popular idea so long as you don't call it that.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I get why you think that, but it does not say permanent.
If the birth control lasted 1-6 month to ensure active addicts would not have children, I would be kind of in favor of it. There is nothing good about a child being raised by meth addicts or taken by CPS and going through orphanages/foster care.
-
are you this skeptical every time a new treatment for something comes out?
wrote last edited by [email protected]No, because very advanced levels of genetic engineering are unlike anything we historically have done, as is automation that basically replaces all humans as the general work force. They are not apples to apples comparable.
Though, I guess I do feel we are at the point where holding IP for medicine has become too empowering to private entities in general, and should no longer be allowed. However, advanced genetic engineering is a special case.
-
No, because very advanced levels of genetic engineering are unlike anything we historically have done, as is automation that basically replaces all humans as the general work force. They are not apples to apples comparable.
Though, I guess I do feel we are at the point where holding IP for medicine has become too empowering to private entities in general, and should no longer be allowed. However, advanced genetic engineering is a special case.
wrote last edited by [email protected]advanced genetic engineering would be cool but that's not what polygenic selection is. Polygenic selection just lets you roll the dice a couple times and choose the best embryo available (a typical number of embryos to choose from is, like, 5). It's the safest, babiest steps toward actual genetic engineering.
-
Yes it does make sense that they would give up their identity, their being, their humanity just for a leg up to win a place in the machine, for a shot at running the machine, king of the shit hill, that does explain a lot.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't really get how you're getting all that from polygenic selection -- the current state of the art in legal eugenics. Polygenic selection is just like, choosing the best of n embryos; any one of these babies you could have conceived naturally, it just boosts the odds a little. Anyway, it doesn't affect oneself, only one's children, so nobody actually gets a choice, and nobody's identity can be given up. One's identity isn't formed until well after birth. What you're saying doesn't even make a lick of sense.
-
advanced genetic engineering would be cool but that's not what polygenic selection is. Polygenic selection just lets you roll the dice a couple times and choose the best embryo available (a typical number of embryos to choose from is, like, 5). It's the safest, babiest steps toward actual genetic engineering.
yes, I have been trying to express that what we have at the moment is not so much the problem as the advancement and what is to come. I am also not saying that we should not do these things, I am saying when do do them we must not allow it be controlled, via IP ownership, or otherwise, by a private entity. As things stand the medical industry holds far too much sway with their ownership of things people need to live, or live well. They are also actively working against social medicine, with a current focus on the UK, and a variety of developing nations. They should not be afforded the power imbalance such ownership allows them now, and as things like this progress, it will only make that power imbalance worse. Every technology is a double edged sword, and the more one affects society the more we need to prevent the cutting edged aimed at us. I could not dare to guess the ways in which we could be impacted by future technology, much how people in the 90s could not have envisioned the societal issues that are arising now, such as the loneliness epidemic, and the structural loss of actual ownership, or any rights to anything we have. Sure we had a pretty good guess that propaganda would run wild, and it has, but many other things that have huge impacts are things no one was thinking about even 20 years ago.
-
yes, I have been trying to express that what we have at the moment is not so much the problem as the advancement and what is to come. I am also not saying that we should not do these things, I am saying when do do them we must not allow it be controlled, via IP ownership, or otherwise, by a private entity. As things stand the medical industry holds far too much sway with their ownership of things people need to live, or live well. They are also actively working against social medicine, with a current focus on the UK, and a variety of developing nations. They should not be afforded the power imbalance such ownership allows them now, and as things like this progress, it will only make that power imbalance worse. Every technology is a double edged sword, and the more one affects society the more we need to prevent the cutting edged aimed at us. I could not dare to guess the ways in which we could be impacted by future technology, much how people in the 90s could not have envisioned the societal issues that are arising now, such as the loneliness epidemic, and the structural loss of actual ownership, or any rights to anything we have. Sure we had a pretty good guess that propaganda would run wild, and it has, but many other things that have huge impacts are things no one was thinking about even 20 years ago.
Well, I do agree we should completely rework IP law in general. But I wouldn't want to delay progress in genetic engineering until we can restructure society. It's important to improve the human condition, even if society isn't able to allow equitable access to every technology yet.
-
Well, I do agree we should completely rework IP law in general. But I wouldn't want to delay progress in genetic engineering until we can restructure society. It's important to improve the human condition, even if society isn't able to allow equitable access to every technology yet.
Tell me, what exactly is the threshold where a private entity owning society directing technology crosses to where it should no longer have that control over it? Define when allowing technology to be privately owned goes from where we are, to "oh shit, they already have complete control"? Because I would prefer to restructure how ownership of ideas works before we have to destroy society in order to course correct.
-
Tell me, what exactly is the threshold where a private entity owning society directing technology crosses to where it should no longer have that control over it? Define when allowing technology to be privately owned goes from where we are, to "oh shit, they already have complete control"? Because I would prefer to restructure how ownership of ideas works before we have to destroy society in order to course correct.
Well, the current situation in the U.S. is pretty bad. But I'm happier that at least some people are able to get, say, insulin for their diabetes, than that nobody can. I would of course greatly prefer free or at least cheap access to insulin for all, but I would not press a magic button to remove insulin entirely in order to screw over big pharma. I know someone with diabetes -- how could I say their life is not worth the cost to society that comes capitalists exploiting a monopoly on insulin?
Similarly, in the future, I hope to be able to say that in expectation somebody I know would have had down syndrome had it not been prevented by (the non-evil kind of) eugenics programs such as polygenics.
-
Well, the current situation in the U.S. is pretty bad. But I'm happier that at least some people are able to get, say, insulin for their diabetes, than that nobody can. I would of course greatly prefer free or at least cheap access to insulin for all, but I would not press a magic button to remove insulin entirely in order to screw over big pharma. I know someone with diabetes -- how could I say their life is not worth the cost to society that comes capitalists exploiting a monopoly on insulin?
Similarly, in the future, I hope to be able to say that in expectation somebody I know would have had down syndrome had it not been prevented by (the non-evil kind of) eugenics programs such as polygenics.
So where is the threshold? Also, you are talking to someone who is likely to die from the government's recent bill stopping the supply of medicine, and other treatment, I will need. This is the result of private ownership of the medicines, and machines, needed to deal with this, and their power to affect the government. So I am currently in the situation I propose will happen, in a much larger manner, in the future as these technologies develop, and society becomes more intertwined with it. So, where is the threshold were we stop this, and change our laws on owning ideas? I propose that we crossed it some time ago, and this shift into IP law is long over due. I would rather get this done earlier, rather than later, because the only thing that will happen is this dependency will grow. Your appeal to emotion with your anecdote about your diabetic will only worsen the type of situation I find myself in, as society becomes more dependent on the tech. The longer we wait the more catastrophic it will become due to pussy-footing around, and kicking the can down the road, as people don't want to make hard decisions.
-
I don't really get how you're getting all that from polygenic selection -- the current state of the art in legal eugenics. Polygenic selection is just like, choosing the best of n embryos; any one of these babies you could have conceived naturally, it just boosts the odds a little. Anyway, it doesn't affect oneself, only one's children, so nobody actually gets a choice, and nobody's identity can be given up. One's identity isn't formed until well after birth. What you're saying doesn't even make a lick of sense.
I wonder how many steps of this kind of seemingly banal interference before the humans that come out are as broken as your average pug. We easily have made human monsters in the past, like the Hapsburg and sure you'll say it's inbreeding but I say no, it's any long term act of human selective breeding other than natural sexual mate selection, uncoordinated beyond the individual level.
I just hope the human GMO monsters aren't allowed to commit some kind of genetic neo-spinal catastrophe on humanity by growing an extra finger or something. Anyone who understand the subtext of "xmen" should understand where that's going to go even in the best case.
-
So where is the threshold? Also, you are talking to someone who is likely to die from the government's recent bill stopping the supply of medicine, and other treatment, I will need. This is the result of private ownership of the medicines, and machines, needed to deal with this, and their power to affect the government. So I am currently in the situation I propose will happen, in a much larger manner, in the future as these technologies develop, and society becomes more intertwined with it. So, where is the threshold were we stop this, and change our laws on owning ideas? I propose that we crossed it some time ago, and this shift into IP law is long over due. I would rather get this done earlier, rather than later, because the only thing that will happen is this dependency will grow. Your appeal to emotion with your anecdote about your diabetic will only worsen the type of situation I find myself in, as society becomes more dependent on the tech. The longer we wait the more catastrophic it will become due to pussy-footing around, and kicking the can down the road, as people don't want to make hard decisions.
We should already change our laws on ownership. I'm not sure how it's possible that I'm saying "we should improve healthcare and also change IP laws" and you're hearing me say "IP laws are good the way they are." The U.S. is past the threshold already.
-
We should already change our laws on ownership. I'm not sure how it's possible that I'm saying "we should improve healthcare and also change IP laws" and you're hearing me say "IP laws are good the way they are." The U.S. is past the threshold already.
No, that is not what I am hearing, I am hearing "we should change IP law, but not if it interrupts development/production of medical tech"
-
No, that is not what I am hearing, I am hearing "we should change IP law, but not if it interrupts development/production of medical tech"
I didn't say that at all. I never said those were mutually exclusive. You are the one who came along and asserted that medical advancements could only be made under current IP law.
-
I didn't say that at all. I never said those were mutually exclusive. You are the one who came along and asserted that medical advancements could only be made under current IP law.
That is also not what I said. Like, it is almost the opposite of my argument.
-
That is also not what I said. Like, it is almost the opposite of my argument.
Okay, well, to be clear, my position is: let's do medical advancement and let's replace current IP law. Whether or not billionaires get a profit doesn't enter my calculus. I care only about improving the life of the lower class; redistributing the wealth of billionaires would definitely be good for that goal, but if there is something that benefits both the lower class and billionaires I will not reject it on the principle of not helping billionaires.
-
Okay, well, to be clear, my position is: let's do medical advancement and let's replace current IP law. Whether or not billionaires get a profit doesn't enter my calculus. I care only about improving the life of the lower class; redistributing the wealth of billionaires would definitely be good for that goal, but if there is something that benefits both the lower class and billionaires I will not reject it on the principle of not helping billionaires.
I do not believe that stripping them of IP rights can go off without disrupting the system in place. I am not saying we should never do anything again. I am saying we are going to have to shift ownership from the private entity, to the public. This will cause a lot of corporations to shut down, leave industries, etc. They will also use their ability to manipulate vital technologies, like drugs, and dialysis, etc., to cause pain in order to scare people into compliance with them. The longer we wait to stop them from owning everything, the more catastrophic this change could be.
-
I do not believe that stripping them of IP rights can go off without disrupting the system in place. I am not saying we should never do anything again. I am saying we are going to have to shift ownership from the private entity, to the public. This will cause a lot of corporations to shut down, leave industries, etc. They will also use their ability to manipulate vital technologies, like drugs, and dialysis, etc., to cause pain in order to scare people into compliance with them. The longer we wait to stop them from owning everything, the more catastrophic this change could be.
So I think we agree?
