A thought experiment an extremely liberal friend and I engage in from time to time is "what position will 'the kids' have 50 years from now that strikes you as not only incorrect but completely unreasonable/unbelieveable in the current climate?"
I think the best answer we have come up with so far is giving human rights to plants (end vegetative slavery! etc.) It's kind of a fun conversation.
The two additional ones I can think of, personally:
Transhumanism, in a mostly unregulated corporate-driven sense. I'm on the fence about things like genetic modification and biotechnology, but without serious governmental regulations I'm worried it'll have a really nasty reaction with class differences and lead to an almost insurmountable caste system. Will "the kids" 40-50 years from now think nothing of employers making them undergo extensive genetic modification or bio-tech implants as a condition of employment? How acceptable will it be to discriminate, legally, economically and socially, against the unmodified or under-modified?
Increased sexualization of children, increased social acceptance of explicit sexual content, combined with advances in physical/cognitive development, leading to the lowering of the age of consent to, say, 12. Which would then alter the media landscape rather drastically. Squicktastic!
A thought experiment an extremely liberal friend and I engage in from time to time is "what position will 'the kids' have 50 years from now that strikes you as not only incorrect but completely unreasonable/unbelieveable in the current climate?"
I think the best answer we have come up with so far is giving human rights to plants (end vegetative slavery! etc.) It's kind of a fun conversation.
The two additional ones I can think of, personally:
Transhumanism, in a mostly unregulated corporate-driven sense. I'm on the fence about things like genetic modification and biotechnology, but without serious governmental regulations I'm worried it'll have a really nasty reaction with class differences and lead to an almost insurmountable caste system. Will "the kids" 40-50 years from now think nothing of employers making them undergo extensive genetic modification or bio-tech implants as a condition of employment? How acceptable will it be to discriminate, legally, economically and socially, against the unmodified or under-modified?
Increased sexualization of children, increased social acceptance of explicit sexual content, combined with advances in physical/cognitive development, leading to the lowering of the age of consent to, say, 12. Which would then alter the media landscape rather drastically. Squicktastic!
I'd say ego and sense of entitlement that college = good job.
You're expecting that demanding rewards for successfully completing hard work will go out of vogue?
For one, I don't consider college hard work. For another, our generation seems to have this "go to school make bank I deserve it" mentality. Rather then you know, working at a job and working up through the ranks.
Also, you guys are really attached to a useless flap of skin
Yes, we are. And if you're trying to convince me, for one, to cut it off of my son, you should bring something stronger than the claim of a slight (if statistical) decrease in the risk of the transmitting diseases which are already easily avoided in the first world by testing and protected sex.
I mean seriously, it's like you're arguing for a surgical procedure to protect babies from polio. Don't get me wrong, polio is pretty bad, but where I come from that's an unnecessary surgery.
Keep reading. It's also been linked to a decrease in the chance of penile cancer. You yourself said you'd support it if it prevented cancer, so you've proven that no facts will ever sway you.
Well, first of all, I think you'll find if you look that I never said that.
Some studies have reported that genital warts are more common among uncircumcised men than among circumcised men,4,5,30,31,32,33 but other studies have not confirmed these associations.2,34,35,36,37 Epidemiologic evidence suggests that the absence of circumcision at birth and the presence of phimosis, poor genital hygiene, genital warts, and HPV infection are risk factors for penile cancer.3,10,11,38,39 Other data have suggested that the risk of cervical cancer is reduced among the female partners of circumcised men, but these studies were limited by the small number of circumcised men or the low sensitivity of the methods used to detect HPV DNA.40,41,42
That's where the "penile cancer arises less often in men who were circumcised as babies" claim comes from. Considering that penile cancer accounts for 0.2% percent of cancers in the US anyway, I'm gonna say no, still not a good enough reason to cut off a part of a baby.
Anyhoooooo, I think that Body Piercings and Tattoos will be big talking point for our children. I remember 20 years ago when tattos where only for hardcore rocker types and Body Piercings was for sexual deviants.
Its taken off since then, but I don't think its going to last. I think its going to be like 80s hair/60s clothes is today. There is just something trashy about the whole thing. Kids are going to look at pics from today and laugh.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited May 2010
That's probably true of every fashion. I'm sure Caesar thought that young women were being too immodest, and that everyone's hair looked ridiculous.
Guys, if you wanna go talk about dicks all day, go make your own thread and quit derailing this one so heavily.
Anyone have any other things our generation will be hated for?
My bet is still on meat-eating, our fear of AI, and our dislike of genetic engineering/body modification.
I assume you mean meat-eating as in cruely imprisoning animals and eating their flesh. And I almost gurantee you the only reason this will stop is because of some sort of synthetic meat that we will eventually be able to produce. And then future generations will look back from their pedestals and call us cruel. Yet they would do so with a luxury that we do not currently possess.
Seriously though, I don't think eating meat is inherently bad. Just some of the current ramifications that come of eating meat due to our limitations.
edit: Correct me if I am wrong but also doesn't a large part of our fertilizer come from animal manure?
So I was looking through a collection of sexist vintage ads, and I thought to myself, "isn't it weird that so many people went along with this and didn't realize how wrong they'd be 50 years later?"
And then I realized that people of that generation probably thought the same of the generation before them, and they the prior generation. Every generation we appear to grow more... liberal I suppose?
However, I don't consider myself a member of some unique snowflake generation that won't be subject to the same pattern. I'll be 70 years old one day, cursing at how the world is going to hell because _______, while the rest of the world looks at me and goes "damnit grandpa, why can't you just die".
So what will that issue be? I'm hoping gay rights won't be a major issue by the time I'm 70 so what else is left? Will we consider people with intellectual disabilities to be just as smart as the rest of us? Will we decide that owning pets is immoral or that pets are as smart as the rest of us? Will we scorn old people who think 5-year-olds don't know as much about the world as adults?
I really can't figure out what I'll be hated for in 50 years, and it kind of bugs me. What do you guys suggest?
1.The national debt.
Eventually the Chinese will start retiring and want their money back.
2. Being old.
Like it or not you can't ignore demographics and with much of the western world's birthrate being below the 2.1 required for stability, you're going to have a lot of old people demanding heavy taxes to pay for their retirements from far fewer young people. Hence, resentment.
3. Being liberal.
The future belongs to the duggers and their imitators because they simply have more kids. There's a good article online called "The comming patriarchy" that makes this argument very well. Simply put, from a darwinian standpoint, being pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-birth control drives down your birthrate.
The future belongs to the duggers and their imitators because they simply have more kids. There's a good article online called "The comming patriarchy" that makes this argument very well. Simply put, from a darwinian standpoint, being pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-birth control drives down your birthrate.
The future belongs to the duggers and their imitators because they simply have more kids. There's a good article online called "The comming patriarchy" that makes this argument very well. Simply put, from a darwinian standpoint, being pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-birth control drives down your birthrate.
how do you explain Italy?
Oh you mean northern Algeria? The second "I" in PIIGS? Give it a few decades once the conservative, fertile immigrants outnumber the liberal, childless Italians.
Hell, you could say that about all of europe. The future belongs to the immigrants because of the euro deathwish/refusal to reproduce.
The future belongs to the duggers and their imitators because they simply have more kids. There's a good article online called "The comming patriarchy" that makes this argument very well. Simply put, from a darwinian standpoint, being pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-birth control drives down your birthrate.
how do you explain Italy?
Outlier.
But this has been going on for a while anways, see Japan and Scandinavian Europe.
Not being immortal.... they'll think it silly how we all used to die so easily from something so silly as old age.
On a more serious note, I think our generations evil may be how we idolize celebrities and make them seem so important. How we react to things like Diana dying, to celebrities cheating on each other, how we make sportsmen so important and how disgustingly some sports fans act (especially in football.... soccer for anyone non-european). In the future they will either treat people more equally on the whole and the national wealth will be more equal per person, or they will have become more clinical and think less of the individual due to huge technological advances which show us to be more meaningless. This is thinking way farther ahead than 50 years though, I'm thinking more like 400 - 1000 years.
The future belongs to the duggers and their imitators because they simply have more kids. There's a good article online called "The comming patriarchy" that makes this argument very well. Simply put, from a darwinian standpoint, being pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-birth control drives down your birthrate.
how do you explain Italy?
Outlier.
But this has been going on for a while anways, see Japan and Scandinavian Europe.
Both of which have pretty hard futures ahead of them as a result.
I'm not saying #3 is a good thing, but like it or not 1. Kids pick up of their parents values. and 2. Retirement programs are essentially ponzi schemes that require a worker to retiree ratio as high as possible. You start having a spike in retirees and a drop in workers you're boned save for higher taxes or reduced benefits; neither of which go over well.
If these programs collapse, the only old people able to sruvive will be the ones in traditional famelies with plenty of kids to help out while childless couples could starve to death.
That is a damn good answer. Like supporting and being proud of your country is one thing but holy crap some people take it too far. Unfortunately I don't see it going away.
If we're talking about 50 years, I've got no doubt that patriotism and nationalism will still manage to manifest themselves in vigorous and, on occasion, dangerous ways. Seriously, the idea of nationalism has been around.....well, since the development of the nation-state, and before that, the actual sentiment existed in society in a different form.
But yeah, it would be nice to people putting things into perspective more often.
I don't see why you're so attached to the idea of removing a flap of skin. The benefits of circimcision, especially for privileged western men, are nowhere near urgent enough to justify doing it at babyhood. The kid will be fine if you wait till he's old enough to decide for himself, so why not wait till he's old enough to decide for himself? It's his flap of skin, after all.
I like your "lol ur penis is small" argument, though. My penis is so small it doesn't even exist.
Scalfin makes some good points, but yeah, the whole "why so small penis lol" argument doesn't really help him. Plus, it's easily responded to by the whole, "Why are you so terrified of something you were born with?" (or, if you prefer the religious version, "Why are you so terrified of something God gave you, and half of the population?").
I mean, personally, I was taught about safe sex and personal hygiene at a very young age. But I'm also one of those people who washes his hands every time I use a toilet, even just to clean one.
They're never going to do that, though, because making that argument would require admitting to themselves that the entire movement is one big naturalist fallacy.
Patriotism, nationalism, and jingoism have been horrifically negative and manifesting in aggressive and idiotic ways for the past thousand years or so, I can't see it changing much.
That is a damn good answer. Like supporting and being proud of your country is one thing but holy crap some people take it too far. Unfortunately I don't see it going away.
If we're talking about 50 years, I've got no doubt that patriotism and nationalism will still manage to manifest themselves in vigorous and, on occasion, dangerous ways. Seriously, the idea of nationalism has been around.....well, since the development of the nation-state, and before that, the actual sentiment existed in society in a different form.
But yeah, it would be nice to people putting things into perspective more often.
I don't see why you're so attached to the idea of removing a flap of skin. The benefits of circimcision, especially for privileged western men, are nowhere near urgent enough to justify doing it at babyhood. The kid will be fine if you wait till he's old enough to decide for himself, so why not wait till he's old enough to decide for himself? It's his flap of skin, after all.
I like your "lol ur penis is small" argument, though. My penis is so small it doesn't even exist.
Scalfin makes some good points, but yeah, the whole "why so small penis lol" argument doesn't really help him. Plus, it's easily responded to by the whole, "Why are you so terrified of something you were born with?" (or, if you prefer the religious version, "Why are you so terrified of something God gave you, and half of the population?").
I mean, personally, I was taught about safe sex and personal hygiene at a very young age. But I'm also one of those people who washes his hands every time I use a toilet, even just to clean one.
They're never going to do that, though, because making that argument would require admitting to themselves that the entire movement is one big naturalist fallacy.
No it isn't. The point is that they are removing a healthy, functioning organ for no good reason.
The whole "conservatives have more kids!" argument totally falls apart when you realize that those kids have to live somewhere, and the denser and more urban an area gets the more liberal it gets.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The whole "conservatives have more kids!" argument totally falls apart when you realize that those kids have to live somewhere, and the denser and more urban an area gets the more liberal it gets.
That's why we have districts and an electoral college
and a senate
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Plus even conservatives are having fewer kids. The Quiverfull movement is the true outlier.
And I love how people still believe in the Islamic Europe meme when Muslims make up around 10% of the population at the most(other then muslim european countries).
Italy? Has 1 million Muslims... Out of 60 million people.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Both of which have pretty hard futures ahead of them as a result.
I'm not saying #3 is a good thing, but like it or not 1. Kids pick up of their parents values. and 2. Retirement programs are essentially ponzi schemes that require a worker to retiree ratio as high as possible. You start having a spike in retirees and a drop in workers you're boned save for higher taxes or reduced benefits; neither of which go over well.
If these programs collapse, the only old people able to sruvive will be the ones in traditional famelies with plenty of kids to help out while childless couples could starve to death.
I doubt that the complete collapse of the social safety net would occur in a vacuum. Any massive social/cultural/economic upheaval that would lead to childless old folks starving to death en masse would also provide a huge disincentive to having multiple children, and would also impact existing families.
The whole "conservatives have more kids!" argument totally falls apart when you realize that those kids have to live somewhere, and the denser and more urban an area gets the more liberal it gets.
That's why we have districts and an electoral college
and a senate
I guess I don't really understand the point being made here.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The whole "conservatives have more kids!" argument totally falls apart when you realize that those kids have to live somewhere, and the denser and more urban an area gets the more liberal it gets.
That's why we have districts and an electoral college
and a senate
I guess I don't really understand the point being made here.
At this current point, the world population is about 50/50 urban and rural. The US has a neat democratic policy that includes territory area in the factors determining single vote worth, for the exact reason that you've stated.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That is a damn good answer. Like supporting and being proud of your country is one thing but holy crap some people take it too far. Unfortunately I don't see it going away.
If we're talking about 50 years, I've got no doubt that patriotism and nationalism will still manage to manifest themselves in vigorous and, on occasion, dangerous ways. Seriously, the idea of nationalism has been around.....well, since the development of the nation-state, and before that, the actual sentiment existed in society in a different form.
But yeah, it would be nice to people putting things into perspective more often.
I don't see why you're so attached to the idea of removing a flap of skin. The benefits of circimcision, especially for privileged western men, are nowhere near urgent enough to justify doing it at babyhood. The kid will be fine if you wait till he's old enough to decide for himself, so why not wait till he's old enough to decide for himself? It's his flap of skin, after all.
I like your "lol ur penis is small" argument, though. My penis is so small it doesn't even exist.
Scalfin makes some good points, but yeah, the whole "why so small penis lol" argument doesn't really help him. Plus, it's easily responded to by the whole, "Why are you so terrified of something you were born with?" (or, if you prefer the religious version, "Why are you so terrified of something God gave you, and half of the population?").
I mean, personally, I was taught about safe sex and personal hygiene at a very young age. But I'm also one of those people who washes his hands every time I use a toilet, even just to clean one.
They're never going to do that, though, because making that argument would require admitting to themselves that the entire movement is one big naturalist fallacy.
No it isn't. The point is that they are removing a healthy, functioning organ for no good reason.
A) That's not an organ. It will never be an organ. To insist that it is an organ shows either total ignorance, a lack of honesty, or both. You have yet to show a loss of functionality due to the procedure. Without that evidence, the "organ" is about as "functional" as the ability to get hiccups. That means that, as far as evidenced claims are concerned, the procedure is neutral at worst.
C) I've shown reasons. You just keep dismissing them for no reason other than not liking the results.
Hell, this argument you just made is a rewording of "how dare you change something from its natural state," making it a perfect example of the naturalist fallacy.
The future belongs to the duggers and their imitators because they simply have more kids. There's a good article online called "The comming patriarchy" that makes this argument very well. Simply put, from a darwinian standpoint, being pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-birth control drives down your birthrate.
I inherited my political views from my parents and consider the exact same solutions are applicable to the exact same problems? Huh, that makes the annual Thanksgiving Day arguments far more strange.
speaking of which, I think there will be a general trend away from surgery in general as treatment due to cost saving measures in healthcare.
Here's how I understand it will work:
In the near future, a lot of specialized surgical residencies are going to cut down or shut down. This will be concurrent with a decreased call for surgeries in general due to multivariable factors.
Family medicine, internal medicine, and general medicine in general will be the mass product of medical schools, and each of these proliferative new doctors will "stake their claim" in rural or urban areas and will be partially reimbursed by the government based on how much of an area they can adequately cover.
Relic surgeons and specialists will still get boatloads of money because they will have no competition, and as a result of superior medical transportation they will be receiving patients from all over the US. Their workload will go up to compensate for a reduced single reimbursement.
General practitioner's salary will go up semi-comparably, and the alpha-batch ones will work extra hard to cover the entire US until they get backup from the next generation.
Uh, why am I writing this here? Oh yeah, we'll start to abhor surgery in general as a failure of modern medicine - a last stand that should never have happened against any disease or condition preventable or curable by non-invasive methods if caught early enough.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No it isn't. The point is that they are removing a healthy, functioning organ for no good reason.
A) That's not an organ. It will never be an organ. To insist that it is an organ shows either total ignorance, a lack of honesty, or both. You have yet to show a loss of functionality due to the procedure. Without that evidence, the "organ" is about as "functional" as the ability to get hiccups. That means that, as far as evidenced claims are concerned, the procedure is neutral at worst.
C) I've shown reasons. You just keep dismissing them for no reason other than not liking the results.
Hell, this argument you just made is a rewording of "how dare you change something from its natural state," making it a perfect example of the naturalist fallacy.
Ok, it's not an organ, but you are still removing healthy tissue for no good reason. No good reason because I haven't seen any reason that makes neonatal circumcision necessary. To prevent a rare form of cancer? It's a surgery and as such there can be complications or accidents. It's essentially a cosmetic procedure done because of tradition, cultural values and religious ideas. Because it's seen as normal or ancient texts demand it. No pediatric organisation recommends it because there is no good medical reason to do it.
Paladin, are you saying that the fact that our government gets less and less democratic as time goes by is a good thing or bad thing? I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or just crazy.
Anyways, people continue to get smarter and more educated, so regardless of how dumb people want to make their kids, odds are they're going to wise up and say 'fuck you' to their parents more and more often as time goes by.
The internet alone means society will trend liberal and less dickish; lack of empathy is the source of all evil, and lack of empathy is caused by ignorance (and occasionally mental illnesses).
More democracy just makes the least common denominators stronger. More democracy is not intrinsically good. More democracy means, for example, that Western nations will not do anything to combat climate change because "skeptics" target the weak, stupid and degenerate lines of thinking in the audience, while those who want us to deal with the problem must address the higher faculties of man.
The internet can actually increase cultural and social entropy, rather than reduce it - it can become another platform for the retards, the careless, the uneducated and the forceful.
No it isn't. The point is that they are removing a healthy, functioning organ for no good reason.
A) That's not an organ. It will never be an organ. To insist that it is an organ shows either total ignorance, a lack of honesty, or both. You have yet to show a loss of functionality due to the procedure. Without that evidence, the "organ" is about as "functional" as the ability to get hiccups. That means that, as far as evidenced claims are concerned, the procedure is neutral at worst.
C) I've shown reasons. You just keep dismissing them for no reason other than not liking the results.
Hell, this argument you just made is a rewording of "how dare you change something from its natural state," making it a perfect example of the naturalist fallacy.
Ok, it's not an organ, but you are still removing healthy tissue for no good reason. No good reason because I haven't seen any reason that makes neonatal circumcision necessary. To prevent a rare form of cancer? It's a surgery and as such there can be complications or accidents. It's essentially a cosmetic procedure done because of tradition, cultural values and religious ideas. Because it's seen as normal or ancient texts demand it. No pediatric organisation recommends it because there is no good medical reason to do it.
It's a non-invasive surgery, less significant than tonsil removal. Also, the WHO recommends the procedure for all areas with competent medical practitioners. Given that you have internet access, I think that applies to your area, and is much more authoritative than random pediatric organizations. Hell, the fact that the only harm you can point to is that it's a medical procedure means that, unless our medical system catches fire, the excuses for opposition will fall away as medicine improves and become more routine.
It helps prevent cancer and most types of STI's. That's more than most vaccines, and you might as well complain that children shouldn't be forced to attend school because it'll be years before they use the skills they acquire and they might get cooties from the other kids.
More democracy just makes the least common denominators stronger. More democracy is not intrinsically good. More democracy means, for example, that Western nations will not do anything to combat climate change because "skeptics" target the weak, stupid and degenerate lines of thinking in the audience, while those who want us to deal with the problem must address the higher faculties of man.
Which is why Europe, whose parliamentary system is more democratic than our bicameralism is due to the Senate, and the House managed to pass cap & trade mechanisms? Democracy uber alles is foolish, particularly depending on the institutions and setup that exists (see: California in comparison to some Nordic countries that allow referenda) but the notion that oligarchy is better seems shortsighted at best.
My completely unwavering position on circumcision of boys.
Plastic surgery on kids is fucking cunty.
It's their body. They can't give consent. The only actually "overbearing" argument (i.e. one that actually doesn't depend on taste or subjective standards) is one of retarded religious and social conformity.
Stupid, collectivist, intrusive, religious and - in cases anesthesia is not used - evil.
Not allowed. Ban everywhere, heavy fines on those who insist.
More democracy just makes the least common denominators stronger. More democracy is not intrinsically good. More democracy means, for example, that Western nations will not do anything to combat climate change because "skeptics" target the weak, stupid and degenerate lines of thinking in the audience, while those who want us to deal with the problem must address the higher faculties of man.
Which is why Europe, whose parliamentary system is more democratic than our bicameralism is due to the Senate, and the House managed to pass cap & trade mechanisms? Democracy uber alles is foolish, particularly depending on the institutions and setup that exists (see: California in comparison to some Nordic countries that allow referenda) but the notion that oligarchy is better seems shortsighted at best.
There can be a balance between democracy and the "rule of the wise". Which is why institutions are so important (they contain elements of pure democracy and pure meritocracy), and why I really am horrified by how everything is muddled up, so that these institutions (the academe, the science, the media, the arts) no longer retain influence based on their merit, and no longer strive to retain it.
More democracy just makes the least common denominators stronger. More democracy is not intrinsically good. More democracy means, for example, that Western nations will not do anything to combat climate change because "skeptics" target the weak, stupid and degenerate lines of thinking in the audience, while those who want us to deal with the problem must address the higher faculties of man.
The internet can actually increase cultural and social entropy, rather than reduce it - it can become another platform for the retards, the careless, the uneducated and the forceful.
Do you have any evidence to this? Because the opposite seems to be the case.
My completely unwavering position on circumcision of boys.
Plastic surgery on kids is fucking cunty.
It's their body. They can't give consent. The only actually "overbearing" argument (i.e. one that actually doesn't depend on taste or subjective standards) is one of retarded religious and social conformity.
Stupid, collectivist, intrusive, religious and - in cases anesthesia is not used - evil.
Not allowed. Ban everywhere, heavy fines on those who insist.
So kids with major illnesses that fuck up how they look shouldn't be able to have their parents get them plastic surgery now?
My completely unwavering position on circumcision of boys.
Plastic surgery on kids is fucking cunty.
It's their body. They can't give consent. The only actually "overbearing" argument (i.e. one that actually doesn't depend on taste or subjective standards) is one of retarded religious and social conformity.
Stupid, collectivist, intrusive, religious and - in cases anesthesia is not used - evil.
Not allowed. Ban everywhere, heavy fines on those who insist.
You mean besides the many peer-reviewed studies I've shown showing the procedure to be beneficial?
I assume you also oppose kids going to school until the age of consent, and oppose making kids who don't want to attend school attend anyway.
Paladin, are you saying that the fact that our government gets less and less democratic as time goes by is a good thing or bad thing? I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or just crazy.
Anyways, people continue to get smarter and more educated, so regardless of how dumb people want to make their kids, odds are they're going to wise up and say 'fuck you' to their parents more and more often as time goes by.
The internet alone means society will trend liberal and less dickish; lack of empathy is the source of all evil, and lack of empathy is caused by ignorance (and occasionally mental illnesses).
I think the internet will make people more empathetic and more ignorant, and possibly more good and more evil.
It is true that you have the capability of being exposed to a wider array of viewpoints and facts with the internet, but the internet also removes the compulsory need to socialize with nearby people who may or may not share your point of view. Groupthink is a real problem on the internet since you have no reason to socialize with people who think differently from you - technology has made that problem go away. It happens with all internet communication, even in this very forum.
also pure democracy wasn't such a great thing anyway. Nobody likes to compromise, so with every vote there are winners and losers. And the losers get screwed hard
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
My completely unwavering position on circumcision of boys.
Plastic surgery on kids is fucking cunty.
It's their body. They can't give consent. The only actually "overbearing" argument (i.e. one that actually doesn't depend on taste or subjective standards) is one of retarded religious and social conformity.
Stupid, collectivist, intrusive, religious and - in cases anesthesia is not used - evil.
Not allowed. Ban everywhere, heavy fines on those who insist.
So kids with major illnesses that fuck up how they look shouldn't be able to have their parents get them plastic surgery now?
Ooooh. You got me. I'm meeeeltiiing.
I'll just add a nice little caveat then. A qualifier, if you will.
Plastic surgery that is unrelated to the objective capacity of the child to have a normal life is fucking cunty.
As is pedantry.
But hey, maybe we could have a completely useless discussion on what "objectively" is a "normal" life. After all, maybe, if the kid, like, goes to a Jewish school he will, like, feel left out in the shower.
So there, Kastanj! Have at thee!
I'm not talking about this anymore. Find someone who agrees with you instead - I am neurologically incapable of considering a change of heart on this matter.
My completely unwavering position on circumcision of boys.
Plastic surgery on kids is fucking cunty.
It's their body. They can't give consent. The only actually "overbearing" argument (i.e. one that actually doesn't depend on taste or subjective standards) is one of retarded religious and social conformity.
Stupid, collectivist, intrusive, religious and - in cases anesthesia is not used - evil.
Not allowed. Ban everywhere, heavy fines on those who insist.
So kids with major illnesses that fuck up how they look shouldn't be able to have their parents get them plastic surgery now?
Ooooh. You got me. I'm meeeeltiiing.
I'll just add a nice little caveat then. A qualifier, if you will.
Plastic surgery that is unrelated to the objective capacity of the child to have a normal life is fucking cunty.
As is pedantry.
But hey, maybe we could have a completely useless discussion on what "objectively" is a "normal" life. After all, maybe, if the kid, like, goes to a Jewish school he will, like, feel left out in the shower.
So there, Kastanj! Have at thee!
I'm not talking about this anymore. Find someone who agrees with you instead - I am neurologically incapable of considering a change of heart on this matter.
You know, the inability to consider changing positions or ever being convinced of something is a bad quality for a person to have on a forum called "debate and discourse." Actually, it's pretty bad for life in general, so your parents probably should have considered surgery.
Posts
You're expecting that demanding rewards for successfully completing hard work will go out of vogue?
The two additional ones I can think of, personally:
Transhumanism, in a mostly unregulated corporate-driven sense. I'm on the fence about things like genetic modification and biotechnology, but without serious governmental regulations I'm worried it'll have a really nasty reaction with class differences and lead to an almost insurmountable caste system. Will "the kids" 40-50 years from now think nothing of employers making them undergo extensive genetic modification or bio-tech implants as a condition of employment? How acceptable will it be to discriminate, legally, economically and socially, against the unmodified or under-modified?
Increased sexualization of children, increased social acceptance of explicit sexual content, combined with advances in physical/cognitive development, leading to the lowering of the age of consent to, say, 12. Which would then alter the media landscape rather drastically. Squicktastic!
The world might be a little less cold and humorless if we had more ads like these.
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
One of the things I really am proud of my Rep for doing.
For one, I don't consider college hard work. For another, our generation seems to have this "go to school make bank I deserve it" mentality. Rather then you know, working at a job and working up through the ranks.
I'd say it's a huge problem.
Well, first of all, I think you'll find if you look that I never said that.
Second, read your own study:
That's where the "penile cancer arises less often in men who were circumcised as babies" claim comes from. Considering that penile cancer accounts for 0.2% percent of cancers in the US anyway, I'm gonna say no, still not a good enough reason to cut off a part of a baby.
Its taken off since then, but I don't think its going to last. I think its going to be like 80s hair/60s clothes is today. There is just something trashy about the whole thing. Kids are going to look at pics from today and laugh.
I assume you mean meat-eating as in cruely imprisoning animals and eating their flesh. And I almost gurantee you the only reason this will stop is because of some sort of synthetic meat that we will eventually be able to produce. And then future generations will look back from their pedestals and call us cruel. Yet they would do so with a luxury that we do not currently possess.
Seriously though, I don't think eating meat is inherently bad. Just some of the current ramifications that come of eating meat due to our limitations.
edit: Correct me if I am wrong but also doesn't a large part of our fertilizer come from animal manure?
crocs
1.The national debt.
Eventually the Chinese will start retiring and want their money back.
2. Being old.
Like it or not you can't ignore demographics and with much of the western world's birthrate being below the 2.1 required for stability, you're going to have a lot of old people demanding heavy taxes to pay for their retirements from far fewer young people. Hence, resentment.
3. Being liberal.
The future belongs to the duggers and their imitators because they simply have more kids. There's a good article online called "The comming patriarchy" that makes this argument very well. Simply put, from a darwinian standpoint, being pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-birth control drives down your birthrate.
Margaret Thatcher
how do you explain Italy?
Oh you mean northern Algeria? The second "I" in PIIGS? Give it a few decades once the conservative, fertile immigrants outnumber the liberal, childless Italians.
Hell, you could say that about all of europe. The future belongs to the immigrants because of the euro deathwish/refusal to reproduce.
Margaret Thatcher
Outlier.
But this has been going on for a while anways, see Japan and Scandinavian Europe.
On a more serious note, I think our generations evil may be how we idolize celebrities and make them seem so important. How we react to things like Diana dying, to celebrities cheating on each other, how we make sportsmen so important and how disgustingly some sports fans act (especially in football.... soccer for anyone non-european). In the future they will either treat people more equally on the whole and the national wealth will be more equal per person, or they will have become more clinical and think less of the individual due to huge technological advances which show us to be more meaningless. This is thinking way farther ahead than 50 years though, I'm thinking more like 400 - 1000 years.
Both of which have pretty hard futures ahead of them as a result.
I'm not saying #3 is a good thing, but like it or not 1. Kids pick up of their parents values. and 2. Retirement programs are essentially ponzi schemes that require a worker to retiree ratio as high as possible. You start having a spike in retirees and a drop in workers you're boned save for higher taxes or reduced benefits; neither of which go over well.
If these programs collapse, the only old people able to sruvive will be the ones in traditional famelies with plenty of kids to help out while childless couples could starve to death.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy
Margaret Thatcher
They're never going to do that, though, because making that argument would require admitting to themselves that the entire movement is one big naturalist fallacy.
No it isn't. The point is that they are removing a healthy, functioning organ for no good reason.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
That's why we have districts and an electoral college
and a senate
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And I love how people still believe in the Islamic Europe meme when Muslims make up around 10% of the population at the most(other then muslim european countries).
Italy? Has 1 million Muslims... Out of 60 million people.
I doubt that the complete collapse of the social safety net would occur in a vacuum. Any massive social/cultural/economic upheaval that would lead to childless old folks starving to death en masse would also provide a huge disincentive to having multiple children, and would also impact existing families.
I guess I don't really understand the point being made here.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
At this current point, the world population is about 50/50 urban and rural. The US has a neat democratic policy that includes territory area in the factors determining single vote worth, for the exact reason that you've stated.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A) That's not an organ. It will never be an organ. To insist that it is an organ shows either total ignorance, a lack of honesty, or both.
C) I've shown reasons. You just keep dismissing them for no reason other than not liking the results.
Hell, this argument you just made is a rewording of "how dare you change something from its natural state," making it a perfect example of the naturalist fallacy.
I inherited my political views from my parents and consider the exact same solutions are applicable to the exact same problems? Huh, that makes the annual Thanksgiving Day arguments far more strange.
Here's how I understand it will work:
In the near future, a lot of specialized surgical residencies are going to cut down or shut down. This will be concurrent with a decreased call for surgeries in general due to multivariable factors.
Family medicine, internal medicine, and general medicine in general will be the mass product of medical schools, and each of these proliferative new doctors will "stake their claim" in rural or urban areas and will be partially reimbursed by the government based on how much of an area they can adequately cover.
Relic surgeons and specialists will still get boatloads of money because they will have no competition, and as a result of superior medical transportation they will be receiving patients from all over the US. Their workload will go up to compensate for a reduced single reimbursement.
General practitioner's salary will go up semi-comparably, and the alpha-batch ones will work extra hard to cover the entire US until they get backup from the next generation.
Uh, why am I writing this here? Oh yeah, we'll start to abhor surgery in general as a failure of modern medicine - a last stand that should never have happened against any disease or condition preventable or curable by non-invasive methods if caught early enough.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ok, it's not an organ, but you are still removing healthy tissue for no good reason. No good reason because I haven't seen any reason that makes neonatal circumcision necessary. To prevent a rare form of cancer? It's a surgery and as such there can be complications or accidents. It's essentially a cosmetic procedure done because of tradition, cultural values and religious ideas. Because it's seen as normal or ancient texts demand it. No pediatric organisation recommends it because there is no good medical reason to do it.
Anyways, people continue to get smarter and more educated, so regardless of how dumb people want to make their kids, odds are they're going to wise up and say 'fuck you' to their parents more and more often as time goes by.
The internet alone means society will trend liberal and less dickish; lack of empathy is the source of all evil, and lack of empathy is caused by ignorance (and occasionally mental illnesses).
The internet can actually increase cultural and social entropy, rather than reduce it - it can become another platform for the retards, the careless, the uneducated and the forceful.
It's a non-invasive surgery, less significant than tonsil removal. Also, the WHO recommends the procedure for all areas with competent medical practitioners. Given that you have internet access, I think that applies to your area, and is much more authoritative than random pediatric organizations. Hell, the fact that the only harm you can point to is that it's a medical procedure means that, unless our medical system catches fire, the excuses for opposition will fall away as medicine improves and become more routine.
It helps prevent cancer and most types of STI's. That's more than most vaccines, and you might as well complain that children shouldn't be forced to attend school because it'll be years before they use the skills they acquire and they might get cooties from the other kids.
Which is why Europe, whose parliamentary system is more democratic than our bicameralism is due to the Senate, and the House managed to pass cap & trade mechanisms? Democracy uber alles is foolish, particularly depending on the institutions and setup that exists (see: California in comparison to some Nordic countries that allow referenda) but the notion that oligarchy is better seems shortsighted at best.
Plastic surgery on kids is fucking cunty.
It's their body. They can't give consent. The only actually "overbearing" argument (i.e. one that actually doesn't depend on taste or subjective standards) is one of retarded religious and social conformity.
Stupid, collectivist, intrusive, religious and - in cases anesthesia is not used - evil.
Not allowed. Ban everywhere, heavy fines on those who insist.
There can be a balance between democracy and the "rule of the wise". Which is why institutions are so important (they contain elements of pure democracy and pure meritocracy), and why I really am horrified by how everything is muddled up, so that these institutions (the academe, the science, the media, the arts) no longer retain influence based on their merit, and no longer strive to retain it.
Do you have any evidence to this? Because the opposite seems to be the case.
So kids with major illnesses that fuck up how they look shouldn't be able to have their parents get them plastic surgery now?
You mean besides the many peer-reviewed studies I've shown showing the procedure to be beneficial?
I assume you also oppose kids going to school until the age of consent, and oppose making kids who don't want to attend school attend anyway.
I think the internet will make people more empathetic and more ignorant, and possibly more good and more evil.
It is true that you have the capability of being exposed to a wider array of viewpoints and facts with the internet, but the internet also removes the compulsory need to socialize with nearby people who may or may not share your point of view. Groupthink is a real problem on the internet since you have no reason to socialize with people who think differently from you - technology has made that problem go away. It happens with all internet communication, even in this very forum.
also pure democracy wasn't such a great thing anyway. Nobody likes to compromise, so with every vote there are winners and losers. And the losers get screwed hard
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ooooh. You got me. I'm meeeeltiiing.
I'll just add a nice little caveat then. A qualifier, if you will.
Plastic surgery that is unrelated to the objective capacity of the child to have a normal life is fucking cunty.
As is pedantry.
But hey, maybe we could have a completely useless discussion on what "objectively" is a "normal" life. After all, maybe, if the kid, like, goes to a Jewish school he will, like, feel left out in the shower.
So there, Kastanj! Have at thee!
I'm not talking about this anymore. Find someone who agrees with you instead - I am neurologically incapable of considering a change of heart on this matter.
You know, the inability to consider changing positions or ever being convinced of something is a bad quality for a person to have on a forum called "debate and discourse." Actually, it's pretty bad for life in general, so your parents probably should have considered surgery.