Artificial Evolution: A Dissenting Term?

Verbatim · August 21, 2015, 03:41:58 PM

Quote from: ⁭⁭⁭⁭ on August 21, 2015, 03:28:52 PM

Convince people to stop giving birth? Not asking for a whole lot? Okay. Flip the table.

Is a Christain asking you to put your faith in God asking for a whole lot? I'd wager to you it would be.

only because there is no god, so I mean
that's not a great comparison

Quote

And 100%? Yeah, we would. Because if you don't have 100% concensus there's holdouts. There's opposition. There's active resistance. For example.

there are already laws in china that say you can't have more than, like, two kids
and i'm sure there's people who disagree with that law, but generally speaking, most people abide by it

Sandtrap · August 21, 2015, 03:50:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 21, 2015, 03:41:58 PM

Quote from: ⁭⁭⁭⁭ on August 21, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
Convince people to stop giving birth? Not asking for a whole lot? Okay. Flip the table.

Is a Christain asking you to put your faith in God asking for a whole lot? I'd wager to you it would be.
only because there is no god, so I mean
that's not a great comparison

Quote
And 100%? Yeah, we would. Because if you don't have 100% concensus there's holdouts. There's opposition. There's active resistance. For example.
there are already laws in china that say you can't have more than, like, two kids
and i'm sure there's people who disagree with that law, but generally speaking, most people abide by it

It is actually a good comparison because to a Christian's point of view there is a god and asking somebody to put their faith in said god isn't a big deal. Which was what I was trying to explain. Disparity in point of views. They exist everywhere. Take even the most affluent religion in history or the world currently. Still don't have 100% supporters. Far from it.

And China is China Verb. That's a mindset among a different culture. They're largely accepting of their government and it's dealings, if you haven't noticed. Mainly because their government seriously doesn't joke around.

You try to run a law like that in a country that actively can question or resist their government? And it won't fly. Having less kids makes sense because of overpopulation issues.

Having no kids is a big, BIG fucking jump to try explaining to people. Let alone enforcing that law in remote parts of the world. There's still tribes of "primitive" people that exist today Verb, that have had no outside contact with technology or even people.

Anti-Natalism is one of those things that has trouble the more variables you throw at it. As anything would. You have to think of it as an equation. If your equation can't be inserted into the larger bundle of code without any hitch-ups to almost 99.9% then it will never work.

Ásgeirr · August 21, 2015, 04:12:22 PM

Dont see anything wrong with it.

when i grow up, im gonna be a silicon based life form.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · August 22, 2015, 12:20:23 AM

I would like to point out that I never argued against improving current drugs or implied that you should be happy with what we currently have available; all I said is that there is no such thing as a perfect drug. Ibuprofen, a drug which hundreds of thousands of people use ever day, has possible side-effects that involve headache, nausea, bleeding, vomiting, et cetera. Until I just googled it, I had no idea that taking an Advil could give you a headache, or make you bleed. That's how rare that side-effect is.

If all drugs had side-effects that occured at that same likeliness, it would be fantastic. And if those side-effects weren't even a thing? Even better. But that's not what's currently happening, and I accept that. I don't think it should stay that way, gOD no, but am I not allowed to speak in terms of the present? In the future, I'd love to see hereditary conditions phased out by advanced genetic screening during before a child is born; I'd love to see someone who has lost their legs have new legs, whether they be artificial tissue and muscle or cybernetic, and even more amazingly a total upgrade from normal legs; I'd love to see surgeries and drugs that assist in living a healthier and/or more "pure" life. But that's what I want, not what I have.

That's not saying that it isn't important to work for the change we want to see. I just don't think saying, "I'm not happy with the current state" means much. I don't think anybody who doesn't profit from it is happy with the state of the medical industry. It just strikes me as either redundant or an absurdly overemotional response to the situation, and Verb generally isn't the kind of person to speak redundantly. That was my issue with your argument.

Verbatim · August 22, 2015, 09:36:11 PM

Quote from: Prime Quinx on August 22, 2015, 12:20:23 AM

I would like to point out that I never argued against improving current drugs or implied that you should be happy with what we currently have available; all I said is that there is no such thing as a perfect drug. Ibuprofen, a drug which hundreds of thousands of people use ever day, has possible side-effects that involve headache, nausea, bleeding, vomiting, et cetera. Until I just googled it, I had no idea that taking an Advil could give you a headache, or make you bleed. That's how rare that side-effect is.

If all drugs had side-effects that occured at that same likeliness, it would be fantastic. And if those side-effects weren't even a thing? Even better. But that's not what's currently happening, and I accept that. I don't think it should stay that way, gOD no, but am I not allowed to speak in terms of the present? In the future, I'd love to see hereditary conditions phased out by advanced genetic screening during before a child is born; I'd love to see someone who has lost their legs have new legs, whether they be artificial tissue and muscle or cybernetic, and even more amazingly a total upgrade from normal legs; I'd love to see surgeries and drugs that assist in living a healthier and/or more "pure" life. But that's what I want, not what I have.

That's not saying that it isn't important to work for the change we want to see. I just don't think saying, "I'm not happy with the current state" means much. I don't think anybody who doesn't profit from it is happy with the state of the medical industry. It just strikes me as either redundant or an absurdly overemotional response to the situation, and Verb generally isn't the kind of person to speak redundantly. That was my issue with your argument.

Hey, fair enough. As usual, we're not actually disagreeing here--we just have a different take on the issue, and that's okay.

Really, I was just trying to poke you into elaborating there. I know you weren't actually trying to say all that.

I just thought it was unfair for you to say that I'm gonna have an unhappy existence unless I, well, change my view to something that looks more like yours--which, of course, is an appeal to emotion in itself. Because, yeah, I know I'm unhappy. So when you said that, it was just like... "Um, thanks? What is this, an ultimatum? What are you trying to say here?" I just didn't like your tone.

That said, I still don't think it's impossible for us to create the perfect drug. I concede fully that there's many things we should be able to do, but can't--but making the perfect drug? I think it's too early to make any calls there.

I think with diligent testing, we could mitigate the side-effects to a point where they are either negligible, extremely rare, or harmless. I'm not saying it's gonna happen tomorrow--but who's to say it can't ever happen?

More Than Mortal · August 22, 2015, 10:46:31 PM

Big fan of transhumanism.

Verbatim · August 22, 2015, 10:48:47 PM

what are you

a LIBERAL?

🍁 Aria 🔮 · August 22, 2015, 10:54:32 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 22, 2015, 09:36:11 PM

I think with diligent testing, we could mitigate the side-effects to a point where they are either negligible, extremely rare, or harmless.

That was essentially my point. There will always be side-effects; all you can do is make them as non-maleficial and infrequent as possible.

Sandtrap · August 23, 2015, 12:03:08 AM

Quote from: Prime Quinx on August 22, 2015, 10:54:32 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 22, 2015, 09:36:11 PM
I think with diligent testing, we could mitigate the side-effects to a point where they are either negligible, extremely rare, or harmless.
That was essentially my point. There will always be side-effects; all you can do is make them as maleficial and infrequent as possible.

This brings up something interesting. What if they could switch the polarity on side effects? Unexpected side benefits.

I'm aware of the complexity of engineering drugs and all that. But I actually wonder. Has there never been any single drug out there that had a positive side effect that wasn't part of the intended reaction?

Verbatim · August 23, 2015, 12:15:05 AM

Oh, definitely. That's basically how drugs are made.

Chakas · August 26, 2015, 06:40:00 PM

I don't know about this. I'm too offended by the concept of breeding humans to be better. Like something along the lines of having an assigned reproductive partner or group of people you are permitted to do it with. This seems more or less understandable, but when it comes to things like genocide or the mass sterilization of those with undesirable traits, I am completely against it.