Humans have already shown that it’s going to be a slippery slope when designer babies pick up full steam. PGD is widely used around the world currently to allow parents to select some of the traits of their children, such as gender and eye color.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a19313/genetic-engineering-allow-parents-select-gender-eye-color-children/
First genetically modified human embryo happened this year.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/world-s-first-genetically-modified-human-embryo-raises-ethical-concerns/
Is genetic modification of humans to remove genetic illnesses like some cancers, color blindness, Sickle-Cell, Hemophilia, etc. a matter of if or a matter of when? A U.S. Panel has already endorsed it for these serious diseases.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603633/us-panel-endorses-designer-babies-to-avoid-serious-disease/
Ethically and morally I see it as a positive thing. The ability to remove genetic diseases from the world is huge in and of itself, and I think it more than overcomes the possible abuse by parents to make perfect little designer babies. But we live in a capitalist world so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is “better†than the rest of us? Or on the other end what about genetic mistakes happening in third world countries doing bargain basement genetic modifications?
So do you think the benefits of genetically modified humans outweigh the negatives?
I have to be honest, I don't have much thought on it one way or another. Morally I am for it, but I have read enough cyber punk to know what it leads to :P.
Yes, I think the benefits are worth it. There are a lot of ethical issues in medicine, and while this is a big one, it's just another ethical issue.
Getting rid of heritable diseases (in perpetuity) is a hugely beneficial thing. That's an ethical imperative.
But designer babies, that's a little murkier. Especially when it exacerbates Haves and Have-Nots.
If it were implemented in an ethical way (which is doubtful atm), it might be okay. For example, Martian colonists collectively deciding on some trait that would be beneficial in their low-gravity environment, that might be okay. But only the super rich making designer babies, that way leads to a very bad future.
In the future, you techno-enthusiasts will all be sterile female worker bees in Hillary's hive ;-) You won't be Dr Frankenstein, drawing lightning from Heaven.
Bioengineering in an immoral world? Not a good idea. Best to nuke humanity first, before we show how we can build The Island of Dr Moreau.
Sorry, bioethics concerns are my highest concern ... and the failure of most people to take it seriously is why I have no hope for humanity. We already have sheep in London who are 10% human genome. How much farther do you maniacs want to take it? Weed out all Republicans? How about weed out all Black people or all Democrats? You know where this is going. There is no utopia, just dystopia.
I've been expecting this for years now. I think that when genetic engineering is introduced for human babies, it will be resisted at first. Sometime down the line, however, I think public opinion will slowly shift to accept it, embrace it, and eventually mandate it. At some point, it is going to be considered child abuse not to genetically engineer children to be clear of genetic diseases, just as neglecting to give children vaccines is starting to be seen as child abuse. It might even be common practice to maximize intelligence, artistic ability, etc, and the entire human race will have the genetic component to literally be capable of mastering any skill they desire.
Some people will no doubt design their sons to be mentally challenged socially inept banjo players.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 16, 2017, 12:35:18 PM
I've been expecting this for years now. I think that when genetic engineering is introduced for human babies, it will be resisted at first. Sometime down the line, however, I think public opinion will slowly shift to accept it, embrace it, and eventually mandate it. At some point, it is going to be considered child abuse not to genetically engineer children to be clear of genetic diseases, just as neglecting to give children vaccines is starting to be seen as child abuse. It might even be common practice to maximize intelligence, artistic ability, etc, and the entire human race will have the genetic component to literally be capable of mastering any skill they desire.
Raising the bar of human capabilities across the board could be a huge boon to humanity. Imagine what humanity could accomplish with prodigies galore working with increasingly sophisticated technology. But implemented in an incorrect way could lead to a genetic elite and genetic discrimination.
As always, science/technology unlocks the future but we have to choose what kind of future we want.
Making us more resilient could pose other problems to the symbiosis we call the human digestive system. If they wanted us to be able to get the nutrients we need without bacteria and other lifeforms living in us, they would really have to rework the human body to overcome the deficiencies. Also there are issues with creating a totally different type of class warfare where you have the designer people of means versus then randoms who can't afford it.
Quote from: Coveny on September 16, 2017, 11:29:07 PM
Making us more resilient could pose other problems to the symbiosis we call the human digestive system. If they wanted us to be able to get the nutrients we need without bacteria and other lifeforms living in us, they would really have to rework the human body to overcome the deficiencies. Also there are issues with creating a totally different type of class warfare where you have the designer people of means versus then randoms who can't afford it.
Maybe people will be sterilized from birth, so that no accidental babies could be made. Then if they want a child, they'll have to go to a doctor to have one made, using the parent(s) own genes as a base to start with. They might even have parenting permits, requiring people to prove their worth as potential parents, which will be revoked if the parent is found guilty of child abuse.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 16, 2017, 12:35:18 PM
I've been expecting this for years now. I think that when genetic engineering is introduced for human babies, it will be resisted at first. Sometime down the line, however, I think public opinion will slowly shift to accept it, embrace it, and eventually mandate it. At some point, it is going to be considered child abuse not to genetically engineer children to be clear of genetic diseases, just as neglecting to give children vaccines is starting to be seen as child abuse. It might even be common practice to maximize intelligence, artistic ability, etc, and the entire human race will have the genetic component to literally be capable of mastering any skill they desire.
Cannibalism will be resisted at first, but given the ability of the human to accommodate to dystopias .... it will become normal. And sorry, you won't be maximizing anything ... the wealthy will make themselves or their children into supermen. Khan!
Quote from: SGOS on September 16, 2017, 12:52:34 PM
Some people will no doubt design their sons to be mentally challenged socially inept banjo players.
And that isn't child abuse? Parents do a bad enough job already. Brainiacs are autistics male defectives ... the people who post here would be weeded out by the managerial class.
Quote from: Coveny on September 16, 2017, 11:29:07 PM
Making us more resilient could pose other problems to the symbiosis we call the human digestive system. If they wanted us to be able to get the nutrients we need without bacteria and other lifeforms living in us, they would really have to rework the human body to overcome the deficiencies. Also there are issues with creating a totally different type of class warfare where you have the designer people of means versus then randoms who can't afford it.
Why do you hate your gut bacteria? Are you Howard Hughes?
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 16, 2017, 11:40:21 PM
Maybe people will be sterilized from birth, so that no accidental babies could be made. Then if they want a child, they'll have to go to a doctor to have one made, using the parent(s) own genes as a base to start with. They might even have parenting permits, requiring people to prove their worth as potential parents, which will be revoked if the parent is found guilty of child abuse.
Too bad they didn't do it to your parents? Is that you Dr Mengele? I am so glad we will be finally able to clone Hitler's nose (movie Sleeper and Boys From Brazil) so we can really get that 1000 year Reich going ;-(
Quote from: Coveny on September 15, 2017, 06:55:32 PM
So do you think the benefits of genetically modified humans outweigh the negatives?
I think it's something we need to move very slowly and carefully at. We can't always predict whether or not there will be any knock-on effect from changing a gene or two -- we already know that it's possible for one stretch of code to be transcribed in multiple ways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_splicing). I'd be concerned about the possibility of messing up an alternate transcription.
A long, slow process of evolution brought our species to this point, and dinking with a code that's evolved to fit its environment should not be done lightly.
Quote from: trdsf on September 17, 2017, 12:44:53 AM
A long, slow process of evolution brought our species to this point, and dinking with a code that's evolved to fit its environment should not be done lightly.
We shouldn't do anything that defies God's plan.
But ... but ... technology is a god. We are merely arbitrary genetic transcriptions, copywrited by Google. Yes ... your modded DNA will be owned by a corporation, not by you. Any idea that we are going toward a democratic free market is ... hashish.
if I could be genetically modified overnight, i'd like to be more like Beast from x-men.
(http://www.oocities.org/steele_x/X-Men/Beast2.jpg)
because being big, blue, furry and incredibly agile would be a step up from a typical boring human. #mutantlove.
Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 07:52:55 AM
But ... but ... technology is a god. We are merely arbitrary genetic transcriptions, copywrited by Google. Yes ... your modded DNA will be owned by a corporation, not by you. Any idea that we are going toward a democratic free market is ... hashish.
This is the beginning of a movie script. Genetically engineered children end up with corporations retaining specific rights over the children. As an interesting twist in the story line, let's say these specific rights have come to be called "Mineral Rights." The children belong to the parents, but corporations own the Mineral Rights, and can help themselves to ownership of the children's achievements later in life. Personal achievements such as wealth and power then become corporate property. Power being the most useful, but rights to wealth perhaps more glamorous. The wealth is divided up among upper management, while the power is reserved for the corporation to gain further influence over society.
I'm not sure where the story goes after this, but it's a beginning.
I've taken the first steps toward being a cyborg. Useful.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2017, 10:11:54 AM
I've taken the first steps toward being a cyborg. Useful.
After two cataract surgeries, my eye lenses are artificial. I am already a cyborg ... and a demi-god. All you technology worshippers, bow down and worship my cyborgness.
People building a master race ... where have I heard that before?
Baruch wrote:QuoteAfter two cataract surgeries, my eye lenses are artificial.
I had the same surgery. Still need glasses though. :(
Quote from: pr126 on September 17, 2017, 11:02:14 AM
Baruch wrote:I had the same surgery. Still need glasses though. :(
Yes, my vision was much improved the first 8 years, but aging continues.
Quote from: pr126 on September 17, 2017, 11:02:14 AM
Baruch wrote:I had the same surgery. Still need glasses though. :(
Quote from: pr126 on September 17, 2017, 11:02:14 AM
Baruch wrote:I had the same surgery. Still need glasses though. :(
Yeah, but I'm not going blind. I had an orange haze over everything. Now I'm just seeing double.
Quote from: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 07:11:01 AM
We shouldn't do anything that defies God's plan.
Jesus H. Christ! Somebody finally stated the obvious!!
Quote from: pr126 on September 17, 2017, 11:02:14 AM
Baruch wrote:I had the same surgery. Still need glasses though. :(
Yeah, me too. But at least the fog has lifted--the most startling effect was that the computer graphics looked so good I thought somebody had come in in the dead of night and installed a new graphics card in my computer. :)) And my prescription was much weaker. Actually, the Dr. told me that with my eyesight, I was legal to drive. I tried it--came back to the Dr. and told him that I'd much rather have glasses--thank you. I do think eyesight is a little important when driving. :)
QuoteI do think eyesight is a little important when driving. :)
It doesn't seem to be any trouble for Mr. Magoo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8GTHXTEvIc
Quote from: pr126 on September 17, 2017, 02:02:47 PM
It doesn't seem to be any trouble for Mr. Magoo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8GTHXTEvIc
It has been AGES since I thought of him! Jim Backus was great!
It seems to me, in a general sense, genes are not and never have been, static. They are constantly changing. But the changes that take hold and are handed down in any great number take a long, long time--especially in human terms. So, are we really arguing and agonizing over the speed of change rather than change itself?
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
It seems to me, in a general sense, genes are not and never have been, static.
Considering that we have 98% genes in common with chimpanzees, implying that they've been the same since the split, I can't agree with you.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2017, 03:33:28 PM
Considering that we have 98% genes in common with chimpanzees, implying that they've been the same since the split, I can't agree with you.
A 2% variation in a different direction (and given gene splicing we can do better than that) you would be a different kind of simian, and living in a zoo.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2017, 10:11:54 AM
I've taken the first steps toward being a cyborg. Useful.
Me too! I wear glasses. Cyborgs need love too!
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 17, 2017, 04:31:22 PM
Me too! I wear glasses. Cyborgs need love too!
I have hardware implanted. Some of it is helpful.
Makes it tough in the MRI, huh?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2017, 03:33:28 PM
Considering that we have 98% genes in common with chimpanzees, implying that they've been the same since the split, I can't agree with you.
That illustrates my point. At one time, I would imagine that chimps and humans were almost, if not the same collection of genes. Over time the 100% has degraded to 98%; I would suggest that in another million years (or any other very long time span), the 98% will degrade to 97% and then 96%, etc. Both human and chimp genes will have mutated and had the mutations take effect. If we now create gene mutations and don't totally rely on the old method, that degradation of the differences between chimp and human will happen more quickly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 05:22:06 PM
That illustrates my point. At one time, I would imagine that chimps and humans were almost, if not the same collection of genes. Over time the 100% has degraded to 98%; I would suggest that in another million years (or any other very long time span), the 98% will degrade to 97% and then 96%, etc. Both human and chimp genes will have mutated and had the mutations take effect. If we now create gene mutations and don't totally rely on the old method, that degradation of the differences between chimp and human will happen more quickly.
Much longer than that.
Quote7 million years ago
A new study of genes in humans and chimpanzees pins down with greater accuracy when the two species split from one. The evolutionary divergence occurred between 5 million and 7 million years ago, an estimate that improves on the previous range of 3 million to 13 million years in the past.Dec 19, 2005
When Humans and Chimps Split - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com/3996-humans-chimps-split.html
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2017, 05:39:00 PM
Much longer than that.
Okay--I can accept that time span. The only point I had was that we seem to be talking about speed of change, not that we will change--slowly or quickly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 06:11:11 PM
Okay--I can accept that time span. The only point I had was that we seem to be talking about speed of change, not that we will change--slowly or quickly.
I'm just pointing out that in 7 million years our DNA changed about 2%. Probably less if you give the chimps equal mutations.
The bright spot is that Dick and Jane Dumbfuck cannot afford designer babies while Buffy and Richard can. This alone suggests that hopefully if such comes to fruition, that children born from such devises will be of people of higher normal intellect. And lets face it, those with little intellect will be quite happy with the normal process....
Quote from: aitm on September 17, 2017, 08:50:12 PM
The bright spot is that Dick and Jane Dumbfuck cannot afford designer babies while Buffy and Richard can. This alone suggests that hopefully if such comes to fruition, that children born from such devises will be of people of higher normal intellect. And lets face it, those with little intellect will be quite happy with the normal process....
Rich =/= "higher than normal intellect".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 17, 2017, 09:20:48 PM
Rich =/= "higher than normal intellect".
Didn't say rich. But in general people of greater wealth do have a higher intellect than us lower caste.
Quote from: aitm on September 18, 2017, 10:42:51 AM
Didn't say rich. But in general people of greater wealth do have a higher intellect than us lower caste.
[citation required]
I think it's inevitable that gene "improvement" will be taken advantage of by whomever can afford it. If not in America, then there are plenty of other places in the world that don't play by our rules. This may well be one of those proverbial genies that's out of its bottle for good. With things like CRISPR Cas-9 and whatever else they'll be coming up with, genetic manipulation is getting easier, so that soon any Joe Blow will be able to make use of the genetic code to create wonders.
We've got way too much knowledge for the miniscule amount of wisdom we have.
I just saw this video about fetuses in a pod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgmdF9l7K9o
Sorta on topic methinks.
Quote from: Coveny on September 18, 2017, 06:07:15 PM
I just saw this video about fetuses in a pod.
Now all we have to do is build a rocket around it, put a baby in it, and fire it at an alien world.
Just a male conspiracy to make women unnecessary. The feminist equivalent, artificial sperm, is much closer to actual existence ... oh Aldous Huxley.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 18, 2017, 03:33:54 PM
Okay, we're done here.
Aitm is laconic ... so this is Atheist Sparta! Prepared to be kicked down a deep we ... ell ...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 18, 2017, 03:33:54 PM
Okay, we're done here.
well, you seem to be suggesting that, in general, uneducated people, across the board, make the same money as those of higher education. I would tend to think that a citation would not be needed...unless one was truly uneducated, which if that is true, then indeed, we are done here.
Quote from: aitm on September 18, 2017, 09:45:41 PM
well, you seem to be suggesting that, in general, uneducated people, across the board, make the same money as those of higher education. I would tend to think that a citation would not be needed...unless one was truly uneducated, which if that is true, then indeed, we are done here.
I read about an artificial womb for deliberately preemie lambs. It worked. Can you guess what comes next?
Cheap mutton?
Quote from: aitm on September 18, 2017, 09:45:41 PM
well, you seem to be suggesting that, in general, uneducated people, across the board, make the same money as those of higher education. I would tend to think that a citation would not be needed...unless one was truly uneducated, which if that is true, then indeed, we are done here.
Fucking strawman argument.
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
Quote from: pr126 on September 19, 2017, 12:10:39 PM
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
Well, it could be any future. I have 60 shelf feet of double stacked sci fi books mostly about possible futures (spare me the Flash Gordon shoot them up garbage). I like scientific speculation of social extensions on current society.
Yeah some is garbage but most deal with current problems extended into the future to the logical utopian or dysutopian limits.
Favorite SyFy author? Mine is Arthur C Clarke.
I like Orson Scott Card - even if he is a Mormon. I don't know that he's my favorite, though. I'd have to think more about that. I do like his characters and the moral quandaries they must navigate.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 10:56:39 AM
Cheap mutton?
Go to an Aztec religious festival. Find you are the main course ;-( Oh yes, that is just prejudice. Perfectly all right to cut the living heart out of a captive, and add part of him to the chili con carne. And yes, there is proof that occasional cannibalism was the norm. It was also for Japanese officers in WW II.
Quote from: aitm on September 18, 2017, 09:45:41 PM
well, you seem to be suggesting that, in general, uneducated people, across the board, make the same money as those of higher education. I would tend to think that a citation would not be needed...unless one was truly uneducated, which if that is true, then indeed, we are done here.
But averages, aren't the same as specific results. There are poor PhDs and wealthy HS grads.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 02:39:53 AM
I read about an artificial womb for deliberately preemie lambs. It worked. Can you guess what comes next?
I was a premie ... but I didn't come from Krypton. But I am a demigod. What say you, Bear-El?
Quote from: pr126 on September 19, 2017, 12:10:39 PM
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
People here think you are an Epsilon ... but they are wrong. They are mostly Betas themselves ... small fish in a big pond.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 01:14:16 PM
I like Orson Scott Card - even if he is a Mormon. I don't know that he's my favorite, though. I'd have to think more about that. I do like his characters and the moral quandaries they must navigate.
Do his characters escape the quandaries of their special underwear ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 01:14:16 PM
I like Orson Scott Card - even if he is a Mormon. I don't know that he's my favorite, though. I'd have to think more about that. I do like his characters and the moral quandaries they must navigate.
Heinlein
Asimov.
Jack Chalker.
Anne Mcaffrey.
Niven and/or Pournelle.
David Drake.
Harry Harrison.
John Campbell.
the list is long.
Quote from: Baruch on September 19, 2017, 01:27:46 PM
But averages, aren't the same as specific results. There are poor PhDs and wealthy HS grads.
Oh sure, one can be a very educated idiot. Just look at some Trumpians. 2 of his lawyers were caught sharing a $3000 bottle of wine at lunch last week as if it was a normal thing to do. Next to a table of reporters.
You have to be pretty dim to do either.
Quote from: Baruch on September 19, 2017, 01:27:46 PM
But averages, aren't the same as specific results. There are poor PhDs and wealthy HS grads.
Meh, I don't care enough to bother trying to prove that collage educated peeps on the average make more money than high school dropouts. I am sure it's out there. Don't care, I know I am right anyway....I always am.........so ..........there. :P~~
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 19, 2017, 01:38:35 PM
Heinlein
Asimov.
Jack Chalker.
Anne Mcaffrey.
Niven and/or Pournelle.
David Drake.
Harry Harrison.
John Campbell.
the list is long.
Damn good list! You like Chalker? I have a whole shelf...
Quote from: aitm on September 19, 2017, 06:00:53 PM
Meh, I don't care enough to bother trying to prove that collage educated peeps on the average make more money than high school dropouts. I am sure it's out there. Don't care, I know I am right anyway....I always am.........so ..........there. :P~~
Educated yes, intelligent, no. Many intelligent people never get a chance to even finish high school.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 19, 2017, 06:13:28 PM
Educated yes, intelligent, no. Many intelligent people never get a chance to even finish high school.
I don't want to say that education is over-rated. I took most "Introduction To..." classes in college I could fit into my major schedule and the general knowledge as been great. Understanding the basics of botany, geology, and anthropology, etc inform my life to this day and I try to keep up with general knowledge as best I can.
But I've known some self-educated people with high school degrees who are pretty impressive. I would say, however, that the difference is breadth.
I was sitting in abn office waiting room for a telecommunications meeting (my eventual specialization) and a fellow sat down next to me and mentioned explosives. We had a grand 15 minutes discussing chemical reactions. When the receptionist called him into his meeting, he said "well, let's go".
I had to say that wasn't my meeting. He asked why I was there and I said "telecommunications". He asked if I wanted to come to his instead. I said I couldn't.
My boss was stunned...
Well... I had just read a book about explosives. Learning stuff is fun!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 19, 2017, 06:13:28 PM
Educated yes, intelligent, no. Many intelligent people never get a chance to even finish high school.
But you didn't answer my question about Chalker...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 05:52:22 AM
But you didn't answer my question about Chalker...
I've recently read all the Well of Souls books in order. I read the Soul Rider series last winter. I have the River of Dancing Gods series on the shelf. Currently reading the Quintara Marathon.
So, no, never heard of him.
Quote from: Coveny on September 15, 2017, 06:55:32 PM
So do you think the benefits of genetically modified humans outweigh the negatives?
So long as the genetic modification is simply to remove life threatening diseases, I don't see a problem.
If, on the other hand, a parent wants to genetically modify a child to be straight instead of gay, then I will have a problem because homosexuality is not a life threatening disease no matter how much one's prejudice toward gay people makes them think it is.
Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 08:17:50 AM
So long as the genetic modification is simply to remove life threatening diseases, I don't see a problem.
If, on the other hand, a parent wants to genetically modify a child to be straight instead of gay, then I will have a problem because homosexuality is not a life threatening disease no matter how much one's prejudice toward gay people makes them think it is.
The people in power will draw the lines.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 23, 2017, 08:27:37 AM
The people in power will draw the lines.
We are the People. We control who is in power. We may chose leaders for some reason or another, but we choose.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 08:40:40 AM
We are the People. We control who is in power. We may chose leaders for some reason or another, but we choose.
Oh yeah? Who won the last election?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 23, 2017, 08:49:46 AM
Oh yeah? Who won the last election?
The People, in the Several States, through the Electoral College, decided. I didn't like the results. Them's the rules. But the people voted.
Let's change that Electoral college. And in a generation, you might want that old Electoral College... Beware of making changes based on the results of today.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 09:02:11 AM
The People, in the Several States, through the Electoral College, decided. I didn't like the results. Them's the rules. But the people voted.
Let's change that Electoral college. And in a generation, you might want that old Electoral College... Beware of making changes based on the results of today.
The Electoral college decided the election, not the people.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 23, 2017, 09:12:19 AM
The Electoral college decided the election, not the people.
OK, I've too far in support of an idea. Mostly I support majority voting. But I'm not ready to throw the Electoral College over board just yet. Let's see what happens in the next election. If it is Trump again, I'll say its time to change.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 09:48:41 AM
OK, I've too far in support of an idea. Mostly I support majority voting. But I'm not ready to throw the Electoral College over board just yet. Let's see what happens in the next election. If it is Trump again, I'll say its time to change.
And it might be too late by then. I suspect the Grim Old Party will try to make elections moot in the future.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 23, 2017, 10:23:02 AM
And it might be too late by then. I suspect the Grim Old Party will try to make elections moot in the future.
You DO reflect my deepest fears sometimes... But I suspect the Grim Old Party is splitting. And split parties lose elections as voters come back to balance.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 10:27:04 AM
You DO reflect my deepest fears sometimes... But I suspect the Grim Old Party is splitting. And split parties lose elections as voters come back to balance.
They will lose only if the FUD generation system fails them, no matter how badly they act before the elections.
Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 08:17:50 AM
So long as the genetic modification is simply to remove life threatening diseases, I don't see a problem.
If, on the other hand, a parent wants to genetically modify a child to be straight instead of gay, then I will have a problem because homosexuality is not a life threatening disease no matter how much one's prejudice toward gay people makes them think it is.
Yeah, there the life threatening part comes from bigotry, not genetics. Now, if there was a bigotry (and, for that matter, a fundamentalism) gene that could be edited out...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 09:02:11 AM
The People, in the Several States, through the Electoral College, decided. I didn't like the results. Them's the rules. But the people voted.
Let's change that Electoral college. And in a generation, you might want that old Electoral College... Beware of making changes based on the results of today.
I have to agree. Or we can just have a one party dictatorship, and just let The Party decide ;-(
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 23, 2017, 09:12:19 AM
The Electoral college decided the election, not the people.
The Supreme Court decided all future elections, in 2000 ;-(
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 23, 2017, 10:23:02 AM
And it might be too late by then. I suspect the Grim Old Party will try to make elections moot in the future.
Elections have been moot since the Constitutional Convention of 1787. That was a coup.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 10:27:04 AM
You DO reflect my deepest fears sometimes... But I suspect the Grim Old Party is splitting. And split parties lose elections as voters come back to balance.
Your guarded optimism seems to be happening .. couldn't happen to a better bunch of bastards.
Quote from: trdsf on September 23, 2017, 10:45:53 AM
Yeah, there the life threatening part comes from bigotry, not genetics. Now, if there was a bigotry (and, for that matter, a fundamentalism) gene that could be edited out...
Don't ask, don't tell. They will go for the gay gene first ... some people here will be deleted. With SJW though, they will be retro and use whiteout.
Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 08:17:50 AM
So long as the genetic modification is simply to remove life threatening diseases, I don't see a problem.
If, on the other hand, a parent wants to genetically modify a child to be straight instead of gay, then I will have a problem because homosexuality is not a life threatening disease no matter how much one's prejudice toward gay people makes them think it is.
Politics is THE life threatening disease. You will be a sterile female worker in the future, just like in Cloud Atlas.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 08:40:40 AM
We are the People. We control who is in power. We may chose leaders for some reason or another, but we choose.
Delusion. Edward Bernays. You are Eloi ... or Morlock.
Quote from: trdsf on September 23, 2017, 10:45:53 AM
Yeah, there the life threatening part comes from bigotry, not genetics. Now, if there was a bigotry (and, for that matter, a fundamentalism) gene that could be edited out...
Genetic health makes sense to me. I see it like getting a vaccine only better. Its the other possibilities that worry me. I read a short story once where all the children on a newly-colonized planet looke exactly like the colony's pregnancy manager.
Oops...
Problems exist.
Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 11:04:05 AM
Politics is THE life threatening disease. You will be a sterile female worker in the future, just like in Cloud Atlas.
There is always a sting in the system. Humans will always muddle through most problems on their way to "somewhere".
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 09:48:41 AM
OK, I've too far in support of an idea. Mostly I support majority voting. But I'm not ready to throw the Electoral College over board just yet. Let's see what happens in the next election. If it is Trump again, I'll say its time to change.
Ironically, the Electoral College was put in by the framers of the Constitution to
prevent a Trump from happening. Also, it's now twice in the last five elections that the EC has overturned the majority vote -- Gore won the popular vote in '00. I bet he wouldn't have ignored that memo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US).
No, there's a better reason to get rid of the Electoral College. It's anti-democratic. It's the tyrrany of the minority.
Let’s take all the states that have 3, 4, or 5 EVs: Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming have 3 each; Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have 4; and Nebraska, New Mexico and West Virginia each have five, and have a total of 59 electoral votes between them. So we should be looking at a total population comparable to California’s 55.
And we’re not.
The total population of those 16 states is about 21.5 million, compared to California’s 39.1 million.
So let’s keep adding states until we reach close enough to 39.1 million. Conveniently enough, that’s all six states that have six electoral votes: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada and Utah, for a total of 39.3 million. Close enough.
And for that 39.3 million population, they get 95 electoral votes to California’s 55 for their 39.1 million. Of these 22 states, you might notice something about the party they tend to vote for, as well. There are 23 reliably Democratic EVs here. The other 72 include 17 swing, and 55 reliably Republican. They have a built-in California-sized chunk of the Electoral College that requires
far fewer votes to attain -- states that they can ignore, that they don't have to spend money or time in -- plus an option on 17 more that they can reasonably target.
National popular vote -- eliminating the electoral college entirely -- means that even in the reddest of red states, your blue vote matters, and in the bluest of blue states, your red vote matters. It means that losing a state 55-45 is better than losing it 60-40, so it becomes worth it to campaign in the other party’s ‘firewall’ states. It means winning a state 55-45 is better than winning it 51-49, so it becomes worth it to campaign in a party’s own firewalls.
Quote from: trdsf on September 23, 2017, 11:54:38 AM
Ironically, the Electoral College was put in by the framers of the Constitution to prevent a Trump from happening. Also, it's now twice in the last five elections that the EC has overturned the majority vote -- Gore won the popular vote in '00. I bet he wouldn't have ignored that memo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US).
No, there's a better reason to get rid of the Electoral College. It's anti-democratic. It's the tyrrany of the minority.
Let’s take all the states that have 3, 4, or 5 EVs: Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming have 3 each; Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have 4; and Nebraska, New Mexico and West Virginia each have five, and have a total of 59 electoral votes between them. So we should be looking at a total population comparable to California’s 55.
And we’re not.
The total population of those 16 states is about 21.5 million, compared to California’s 39.1 million.
So let’s keep adding states until we reach close enough to 39.1 million. Conveniently enough, that’s all six states that have six electoral votes: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada and Utah, for a total of 39.3 million. Close enough.
And for that 39.3 million population, they get 95 electoral votes to California’s 55 for their 39.1 million. Of these 22 states, you might notice something about the party they tend to vote for, as well. There are 23 reliably Democratic EVs here. The other 72 include 17 swing, and 55 reliably Republican. They have a built-in California-sized chunk of the Electoral College that requires far fewer votes to attain -- states that they can ignore, that they don't have to spend money or time in -- plus an option on 17 more that they can reasonably target.
National popular vote -- eliminating the electoral college entirely -- means that even in the reddest of red states, your blue vote matters, and in the bluest of blue states, your red vote matters. It means that losing a state 55-45 is better than losing it 60-40, so it becomes worth it to campaign in the other party’s ‘firewall’ states. It means winning a state 55-45 is better than winning it 51-49, so it becomes worth it to campaign in a party’s own firewalls.
I agree very much. But the Electoral College ALSO means that only a few States can't decide who is President. Checks and Balances can be really annoying, but sometimes they work.
US history is replete with examples the ebb and flow of power among the Branches. I'll trust it to "balance" out... For a while.
When I read Atwood, "The Handmaides Tale" I thought it was a pretty good read of what could happen. It seems more and more possible these days, and that is scary. Already I have seen life long associates whom I have always thought to be reasonable and socially conscious devolve into racsist, super-patriotic bullshit spewing nut jobs. Enough to realize we could be in real trouble if Trump doesn't get the luxury of a timely natural, health related demise. (note to FBI...I suggested a natural health related demise....no threat here.....but yeah, I would hide the shooter....)
Quote from: aitm on September 23, 2017, 03:28:42 PM
When I read Atwood, "The Handmaides Tale" I thought it was a pretty good read of what could happen. It seems more and more possible these days, and that is scary. Already I have seen life long associates whom I have always thought to be reasonable and socially conscious devolve into racsist, super-patriotic bullshit spewing nut jobs. Enough to realize we could be in real trouble if Trump doesn't get the luxury of a timely natural, health related demise. (note to FBI...I suggested a natural health related demise....no threat here.....but yeah, I would hide the shooter....)
There's a television show related to that book. It has great ratings and reviews, but I haven't yet geared myself up to actually watch it.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 11:24:36 AM
Genetic health makes sense to me. I see it like getting a vaccine only better. Its the other possibilities that worry me. I read a short story once where all the children on a newly-colonized planet looke exactly like the colony's pregnancy manager.
Oops...
Problems exist.
Traditional genetic manipulation. Early man didn't know where babies came from genetically. When used goat salesmen arrived form the Middle East to bring the Neolithic to Europe, the goat salesmen were diddling the cave women while the cave men were out hunting. Think of the used goat salesmen as like Woody Allen. That is why at one point most of the people in W Europe ended up looking like used goat salesmen. Who knew? Our Kurgan ancestors swept in with their fancy Bronze Age hot rods (chariots) and got all the Neolithic girls pregnant in the back of the chariot. Probably best we don't all look like Woody Allen or Fred Flintstone. Much more like Conan. I'll be back!
Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 03:31:19 PM
There's a television show related to that book. It has great ratings and reviews, but I haven't yet geared myself up to actually watch it.
No way I would watch it either. Maybe for different reasons though.
Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 03:31:19 PM
There's a television show related to that book. It has great ratings and reviews, but I haven't yet geared myself up to actually watch it.
Netflix.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 12:04:23 PM
I agree very much. But the Electoral College ALSO means that only a few States can't decide who is President. Checks and Balances can be really annoying, but sometimes they work.
US history is replete with examples the ebb and flow of power among the Branches. I'll trust it to "balance" out... For a while.
The Electoral College can really only serve to
overturn the decision of the people. We don't notice when it validates the popular vote, of course -- and that's what it usually does.
In fact, the four times the Electoral College has overturned the popular vote since the Democrats and Republicans became the two dominant parties,
every single time it has selected a Republican over a majority or plurality-winning Democrat:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Presidents_-_PartyVotes_%282016_election_update%29.png)
Yes, I know, the Democrats and Republicans of the late 1800s aren't the same as the parties today, but it does seem to suggest something structural. I think the data is in, it needs to go.
Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 08:17:50 AM
So long as the genetic modification is simply to remove life threatening diseases, I don't see a problem.
If, on the other hand, a parent wants to genetically modify a child to be straight instead of gay, then I will have a problem because homosexuality is not a life threatening disease no matter how much one's prejudice toward gay people makes them think it is.
One hundred years for now, or whenever genetic modifications become the norm, I doubt that people will be holding the same prejudices we have today. Homophobia will seen in the same light as racism soon, I'm sure. I mean, it already is to most people, but it'll just take a little time for the dumber people of today to die out and be replaced.
Quote from: trdsf on September 24, 2017, 03:51:31 PM
The Electoral College can really only serve to overturn the decision of the people. We don't notice when it validates the popular vote, of course -- and that's what it usually does.
In fact, the four times the Electoral College has overturned the popular vote since the Democrats and Republicans became the two dominant parties, every single time it has selected a Republican over a majority or plurality-winning Democrat:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Presidents_-_PartyVotes_%282016_election_update%29.png)
Yes, I know, the Democrats and Republicans of the late 1800s aren't the same as the parties today, but it does seem to suggest something structural. I think the data is in, it needs to go.
So? The people shouldn't be able to vote, unless they vote as their betters tell them to!
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 24, 2017, 04:15:52 PM
One hundred years for now, or whenever genetic modifications become the norm, I doubt that people will be holding the same prejudices we have today. Homophobia will seen in the same light as racism soon, I'm sure. I mean, it already is to most people, but it'll just take a little time for the dumber people of today to die out and be replaced.
Homophobia kind of already is seen in the same light as racism. The stunning turnaround on equal marriage in just the last ten years... well. I really didn't think I would see it in my lifetime.
Quote from: trdsf on September 25, 2017, 12:27:10 AM
Homophobia kind of already is seen in the same light as racism. The stunning turnaround on equal marriage in just the last ten years... well. I really didn't think I would see it in my lifetime.
We're not quite at the finished line yet. Homophobes still have too much power. It'll be shamed into obscurity soon, as long as we don't elect too many Trumps, but a significant portion of the older population will probably have to die out first.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 25, 2017, 01:51:23 AM
We're not quite at the finished line yet. Homophobes still have too much power. It'll be shamed into obscurity soon, as long as we don't elect too many Trumps, but a significant portion of the older population will probably have to die out first.
Dying off happens every year. Don't ask for whom the bell tolls ... and the young in turn become the old, and around it goes ...
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 25, 2017, 01:51:23 AM
We're not quite at the finished line yet. Homophobes still have too much power. It'll be shamed into obscurity soon, as long as we don't elect too many Trumps, but a significant portion of the older population will probably have to die out first.
Oh, certainly. I mean, generally speaking, even young Republicans are more supportive of marriage equality than the old guard and powers-that-be in the party. Not necessarily actually supportive, just moreso than their party elders.
the dodarts like Trump would fill their diapers if they understood choosing to be gay or lesbian is protected by the first ammendment freedom of religion.
In 100 years the monsters of Greek mythology will be living in the zoo. Genetic science is farther along than people want to know. It wouldn't surprise me if they start giving the option to change the color of the skin or eyes of a test tube baby in the next 3-5 years. Maybe 10-15 years before an adult can change their skin color.
The electoral college doesn't work because it was sabbotaged. In the beginning every elector was supposed to choose their own vote. None of this B.S. requirement to vote for the winner of the state. We dont even have dividing the votes by percentage among the candidates.
I been opposed to the whole concept of the electoral college since the first time I heard about it in H.S.. I cant imagine what good old George and uncle Tom were thinking when they made the electoral college. I like to think that most of the rest of the Constitution was finished and they went on a bender when they wrote this part; celebrating a bit early
George and Tom didn't trust the great unwashed to make intelligent decisions about who should run the country. They had good reason, I think. A bunch of malcontents had talked most of the country into rebelling against a government that was really pretty slack.
Removing hereditary diseases seems sensible, at least. Can't really comment on the other stuff.
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
Quote from: Sal1981 on September 26, 2017, 03:59:26 PM
Removing hereditary diseases seems sensible, at least. Can't really comment on the other stuff.
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
Misogynists consider the X chromosome to be an inheritable disease ;-(
Quote from: trdsf on September 24, 2017, 03:51:31 PM
The Electoral College can really only serve to overturn the decision of the people. We don't notice when it validates the popular vote, of course -- and that's what it usually does.
In fact, the four times the Electoral College has overturned the popular vote since the Democrats and Republicans became the two dominant parties, every single time it has selected a Republican over a majority or plurality-winning Democrat:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Presidents_-_PartyVotes_%282016_election_update%29.png)
Yes, I know, the Democrats and Republicans of the late 1800s aren't the same as the parties today, but it does seem to suggest something structural. I think the data is in, it needs to go.
Great chart! I have saved it to examine in detail later. It is hard to read sideways, so I want to print it out on legal size paper and look at it that way.