Ben Carson refers to slaves as "Immigrants"

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

Since we are already talking about hypothetical questions, what would we do about the inevitable overpopulation with people not dying at an earlier age because of no birth defects.

How far will we allow Eugenics to go before deciding it's too much? Will it be okay for us to change our baby's height so they can become an NBA All-Star? Rootbeer brought this up in a steam message, if the procedure to do this is expensive, won't this make the rich stay rich and the poor unaffected by the benefits of eugenics.

Are we going to allow government intervention in this?

O boy this is going to be a rabbit hole.

1st. Obviously we should start by trying to cut consumption and waste to extend population viability. (This was actually the topic of a paper I just wrote for my politics of the environment class) next eventually if it's a case of human survival certain measures similar  to the one child policy might be needed. But it's a case where I won't claim to have the best answer. 

3rd. In the case of sports at least we already have laws against performance enhancers and I'd argue it can be considered a performance enhancement depending on the method. Whether it be artificial etc or selective breeding.

Longer answer after work ends in a bit 

[centran 4457]

anyone want to place bets if this will surpass the page count of TMS this month?

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, centran said:

anyone want to place bets if this will surpass the page count of TMS this month?

Talk Mad Philosophy March '17

[krony the brony 1938]

Just now, centran said:

anyone want to place bets if this will surpass the page count of TMS this month?

I will bet $20 on that

 

Come on folks! step it up!

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

O boy this is going to be a rabbit hole.

1st. Obviously we should start by trying to cut consumption and waste to extend population viability. (This was actually the topic of a paper I just wrote for my politics of the environment class) next eventually if it's a case of human survival certain measures similar  to the one child policy might be needed.

Would a one child policy actually work though? Is the government going to start fining couples or forcing women to get abortions? 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

Would a one child policy actually work though? Is the government going to start fining couples or forcing women to get abortions? 

I'm not saying it would work. Only that in the long term unless we invent the magical paste Rootbeer described or enact population control the earth will reach a point where humanity starves itself out. The limits to growth debate is something my class is learning about. Essentually the current rate of expansion will lead to the collapse of civilization because there's simply not enough farmland to feed all of humanity and there's not enough energy reserves to sustain the growing demand for fuel.  If theoretically a one child policy was enacted and it did its job that could be potentially buy us centuries or theoretically forever assuming we allowed our tech to advance in other major areas 

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

I'm not saying it would work. Only that in the long term unless we invent the magical paste Rootbeer described or enact population control the earth will reach a point where humanity starves itself out. The limits to growth debate is something my class is learning about. Essentually the current rate of expansion will lead to the collapse of civilization because there's simply not enough farmland to feed all of humanity and there's not enough energy reserves to sustain the growing demand for fuel.  If theoretically a one child policy was enacted and it did its job that could be potentially buy us centuries or theoretically forever assuming we allowed our tech to advance in other major areas 

Is a one child policy the only law we can enact on order to prevent overpopulation? If that's the case, I would argue it is ultimately immoral to allow for the disappearance of birth defects. A one child policy prevents personal freedom and allows for the government to control ones private life. Do we allow the rights to be taken away in order to allow those who were "supposed" to die early to live longer?

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

Jesus this thread has derailed harder than a youtube comments section 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

Is a one child policy the only law we can enact on order to prevent overpopulation? If that's the case, I would argue it is ultimately immoral to allow for the disappearance of birth defects. A one child policy prevents personal freedom and allows for the government to control ones private life. Do we allow the rights to be taken away in order to allow those who were "supposed" to die early to live longer?

It's the only law that really is practical and dosent directly harm a person directly. We can consider rationing but I'd argue that would potentially be much less popular. Also I'm not talking about starvation of people or regions the limits to growth debate assumes there will be a point where even the richest regions cannot produce enough and the subsequent societal conflict will lead to the collapse of civilization or human extinction. If we want to get sci fi we can try other planets but that's an extremely long term and ultimately impractical situation. In the end there's no way for humanity to sustain itself at current population levels. Either a one child policy or a cultural shift and large scale agreement to not have children on an honor system is the only way. I'm assuming there's a theoretical  point where human survival outstrips personal rights because one could argue disagreement with following government policies meant to save the species can be tantamount to abetting specicide

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV said:

Jesus this thread has derailed harder than a youtube comments section 

The thread is better this way. 

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

It's the only law that really is practical and dosent directly harm a person directly. We can consider rationing but I'd argue that would potentially be much less popular. Also I'm not talking about starvation of people or regions the limits to growth debate assumes there will be a point where even the richest regions cannot produce enough and the subsequent societal conflict will lead to the collapse of civilization or human extinction. If we want to get sci fi we can try other planets but that's an extremely long term and ultimately impractical situation. In the end there's no way for humanity to sustain itself at current population levels. Either a one child policy or a cultural shift and large scale agreement to not have children on an honor system is the only way. I'm assuming there's a theoretical  point where human survival outstrips personal rights because one could argue disagreement with following government policies meant to save the species can be tantamount to abetting specicide

So back to the end of my last post. I would argue it is better to not use eugenics to get rid of birth defects. Would you say it is still worth all this trouble? Is it okay to restrict the rights of many in order to save the lives of people who were naturally supposed to die early on, or deal with any other complicstions with their defect?

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

The thread is better this way. 

So back to the end of my last post. I would argue it is better to not use eugenics to get rid of birth defects. Would you say it is still worth all this trouble? Is it okay to restrict the rights of many in order to save the lives of people who were naturally supposed to die early on, or deal with any other complicstions with their defect?

OK I've been at work 10 hours on 4 hours of sleep please clarify lol. Thought we were talking about long term planet sustainability 

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

OK I've been at work 10 hours on 4 hours of sleep please clarify lol. Thought we were talking about long term planet sustainability 

So the issue at hand is if we eventually get to a point where we can get rid of all genetic disorders, which lowers life expectancy, we will have to deal with overpopulation. So we have a choice now, we either allow all these genetic disorders to be treated but have to deal with overpopulation, which might lead to a one child policy and other restrictive laws, or we don't allow genetic disorders to be treated through CRISPR. 

Are we going to potentially sacrifice the individual rights of the many in order to allow people who would've died early on due to birth defects, live longer lives.

[Renegade 1198]

im·mi·gra·tion

ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: immigration

1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

 

IF YOU WERE SHIPPED HERE AS A SLAVE YOU WERE FORCIBLY IMMIGRATED TO THE U.S.

 

THEREFOR AN IMMIGRANT

 

FIGHT ME FAGGOTS ILL FUCKING MS PAINT DRAW YOU

[trav 6834]

You guys would love this book by the way. If you like this type of philosophical and ethical debate, buy the book and when your friends come over open it and ask a question from it. Simple, easy and always sure to start a great conversation. Had so many long nights up late with friends with this book. 

 

Enjoy:

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-Questions-Revised-Updated/dp/0761177310

 

@Rootbeer @JFK @Yunki @Ordinarygamer96

 

First question in the book for example:

 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

So the issue at hand is if we eventually get to a point where we can get rid of all genetic disorders, which lowers life expectancy, we will have to deal with overpopulation. So we have a choice now, we either allow all these genetic disorders to be treated but have to deal with overpopulation, which might lead to a one child policy and other restrictive laws, or we don't allow genetic disorders to be treated through CRISPR. 

Are we going to potentially sacrifice the individual rights of the many in order to allow people who would've died early on due to birth defects, live longer lives.

Well if we look at it purely from a survival standpoint here is my argument. Removing genetic defects might in the short term increase population but it also could potentially increase the average contribution each member of society can make and the amount of resources they can produce. This is assuming you mean defects that hamper physical or mental development as well as shorten lifespan.So therefore eliminating genetic problems combined with a policy like the one child policy can in a way maximize production and reduce consumption.

This is like I said the survival point of view which is the way humanity eventually will have to think to survive unless some miracle happens. Morally it's ambiguous