That is also not what I said. Like, it is almost the opposite of my argument.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 390
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 390
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
Yeah, comments like the one you are responding to, are ignorant of history. Millennials drink less than previous generations, as Z drinks less than Millennials. Also what we now call unparenting has been a thing for long time. I have read articles discussing not disciplining your child, and believing their natural curiosity will lead them to what they need to be successful, as a concerning trend, from the 19th century. For a much more modern example, the Simpsons did a bit about this decades ago. In a flashback to Ned's childhood, he is an absolute terror, and his beatnik/hipster parents are talking to a specialist about it, and say "we've tried nothing, and we are all out of ideas". When I was a teen, in the 90s, there was a massive trend of not disciplining, or properly educating, your child because "you will just be killing their creativity".
yeah when I left I deleted everything. When I was talking about it to a friend who uses it, and knows my account, informed me that all my interactions with them are still there. Took a look, and yeah, everything restored.
Oh definitely. I know some people who are actually planning on this. There is a fucking graded road to their cabin, and it is only about an hour outside of a major city... like, they might leave you alone because you are out of the way, and inconsequential, but the moment they want that land, road, or you do something they don't like, it will only take one drone to wipe your family off the face of the earth.
Ah yes, the fighting a local force, in very difficult terrain, you do not have experience, with is a directly comparable situation to the local force, who know every inch of land they are on, and spend most of their time training in, without having to move half way across the planet first, argument.
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.
Yeah, I have run into a lot of keyboard warriors telling people to commit acts of violence to stop the regime, all while not doing anything of the sort. I doubt many, if any, of these people have ever been in a fight, let alone killed someone.
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.
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.
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.
the cost. everyone gets everything, no stratified application. The only way to keep genetically engineered casts from developing due to this would be if everyone gets it. Similar thing with very advanced automation. Once the technology hits a certain point ownership has to be shifted to the public at large. If some ownership, and others don't, for whatever reason, these technologies make a gap in power hitherto unknown. If the billionaire class exert outsized influence due to their resources now, then being able to simply decide how genetic engineering is used, or to own the machines that create almost all of our production, they will simply just be the god kings of an advanced tech era.
These types of things need to be completely socialized, no owners, no IP holders, no cost gates, etc.
We need to make genetic modification something that isn't gate kept by the rich. You might not think that horror scenarios where you will be genetically engineered to operate in a determined class/occupation, aren't possible, or probable, but I do. Without having some sort of regulation forcing genetic engineering to be universally available to everyone, with no exceptions, I see this being a very strong risk for the long term.
Yeah, you get the older, less advanced, gene editing tools, while the rich maintain their lock into the cutting edge. The new marker will be a combination of age and generation of genetic tech applied. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that make them better soldiers and laborers.
I think GATTACA is more a warning that gene editing will become a luxury of the wealthy, and inherently will be elitist, with no realistic way to separate the two. It will just become the new rich and connected qualifier, doesn't matter the actual capacities of the people, the one with the money, and connections, will be much more likely to get the thing.
Ah, yes, the birthday at a microbrewery, the place where children are allowed to go undisciplined, and the genesis point of the idea of people not disciplining their kids.
Seriously, do you not understand the concept of a single example being used to discuss a broader concept?