Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Neutral [chat] Hotel

13468985

Posts

  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot Registered User regular
    A book about a guy who has to make sure the chemical used to treat a chain's fries has the same aroma

    The Smell Word
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    man what if we created a whole population of genetically perfect babies and then a super plague wiped everyone out cuz we eliminated any genetic diversity

    and what if all the perfect babies were named "Cavendish"?
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    man what if we created a whole population of genetically perfect babies and then a super plague wiped everyone out cuz we eliminated any genetic diversity
    finally the beautiful silent world i've always longed for
    Per3th.jpg
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I think unions and socialism need to make a come back right the fuck soon.

    The Tea Party engenders a reaction from the left that spawns The New Deal 2: House Rules: Return of the Happy Warrior: The Search for Keynes's Gold.

    An Aaron Sorkin joint.

    The Occupy movement will totally create a new social democratic zeitgeist for the 2014 midterms.
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    i think if i had a SPECIAL spread irl i'd have like, 15 points tops
    Elendil on
    Per3th.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I think unions and socialism need to make a come back right the fuck soon.

    The Tea Party engenders a reaction from the left that spawns The New Deal 2: House Rules: Return of the Happy Warrior: The Search for Keynes's Gold.

    An Aaron Sorkin joint.

    The Occupy movement will totally create a new social democratic zeitgeist for the 2014 midterms.

    hahahahaha

    hilarious
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I think unions and socialism need to make a come back right the fuck soon.

    The Tea Party engenders a reaction from the left that spawns The New Deal 2: House Rules: Return of the Happy Warrior: The Search for Keynes's Gold.

    An Aaron Sorkin joint.

    The Occupy movement will totally create a new social democratic zeitgeist for the 2014 midterms.

    hahahahaha

    hilarious

    My pot dealer for president 2016.
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck FAK U HODGEHEG Registered User regular
    in my 1x1 with my boss right now she told me she is going to talk shit in our upcoming team meeting and doesn't want me to think it's directed at me, I'm da bes, etc

    thx boss
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Registered User regular
    TehSloth wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Have you guys been following Defense Distributed? Libertarian kid started an organization that develops guns that can be made from 3D printers and then shares the blueprints for free. From this faq:
    WHY GUNS?
    We are informed by the Internet itself. If we truly believe information should be free, that the internet is the last bastion of freedom and knowledge, and that societies that share are superior to societies that censor and withhold, then whynot guns?

    Jesus christ.

    Yawn.

    Zip guns have been a thing forever. I could tell you how to make a gun with materials from Home Depot, but other than being a different method (that's probably a lot more dangerous / less reliable) the 3d printer guns are nothing new or special.

    It's not the easily available homemade guns, the tech isn't important and it was only a matter of time before they started popping up on 3D printers. I can't even care too much, because they're shoddy and break after one shot.

    It's this guy's batshit outlook.

    Their durability is getting pretty impressive. Their AR lower is supposed to be pretty resilient and all the other parts are purchasable online. They just tested a new pistol I think that is completely 3d printed except for the firing pin which is a nail. It's gonna be a while before it can get through an entire magazine though.

    Just a note, the lower on an AR-15 isn't subject to very much pressure. Most of that takes place in the upper and connected bits.
    There's no living with a killing. There's no goin' back from one. Right or wrong, it's a brand... a brand sticks. There's no goin' back. Now you run on home to your mother and tell her... tell her everything's alright. And there aren't any more guns in the valley.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Have you guys been following Defense Distributed? Libertarian kid started an organization that develops guns that can be made from 3D printers and then shares the blueprints for free. From this faq:
    WHY GUNS?
    We are informed by the Internet itself. If we truly believe information should be free, that the internet is the last bastion of freedom and knowledge, and that societies that share are superior to societies that censor and withhold, then whynot guns?

    Jesus christ.

    Yawn.

    Zip guns have been a thing forever. I could tell you how to make a gun with materials from Home Depot, but other than being a different method (that's probably a lot more dangerous / less reliable) the 3d printer guns are nothing new or special.

    Also his 3D printer thing, last I saw, still required you to buy the registered and serial numbered working parts of an AR-15 from Colt or whoever makes them.

    His part of the equation you could as well carve in wood for all I care. It is far from the case where you press print and end up with a weapon. Basically it's a frame so who cares. Just ignore another deluded libertarian kid among the thousands of deluded libertarian kids already best ignored.

    The original thing was an AR-15 lower receiver (which is the part that's tracked for US gun control purposes, everything else you can just buy off the shelf with no checks or tracking).

    This latest one is an entirely 3D printed pistol, save for the firing pin and a chunk of metal to make it detectable.

    No word on accuracy/reliability yet.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    A woman falls endlessly downwards through two parallel portals while a computer makes fun of her weight from the sidelines.

    The Chell Word
    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    It should work like rpg stats you only have so many points to allocate and if you want more you have to dump charisma.

    You can always fix Charisma.

    Cosmetic surgery is where it's at.

    Charisma is more then just appearance. Comeliness is strictly appearance.
    There's no living with a killing. There's no goin' back from one. Right or wrong, it's a brand... a brand sticks. There's no goin' back. Now you run on home to your mother and tell her... tell her everything's alright. And there aren't any more guns in the valley.
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I think unions and socialism need to make a come back right the fuck soon.

    The Tea Party engenders a reaction from the left that spawns The New Deal 2: House Rules: Return of the Happy Warrior: The Search for Keynes's Gold.

    An Aaron Sorkin joint.

    The Occupy movement will totally create a new social democratic zeitgeist for the 2014 midterms.

    hahahahaha

    hilarious

    My pot dealer for president 2016.
    skippy leans over in the line to the voting booth

    hey. hey.

    who are you voting for

    Per3th.jpg
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    The only problem I have with genetic modification is that I'm way too old to benefit properly, having already been born.

    So obviously it's bullshit and unethical or whatever and should be banned.
    Now my whole take on the gay rights issue, especially gay marriage, is... well, let's be honest. If you're against gay marriage, you just don't like gay people- and you want to stick it to them! And I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing if I was presented with similar opportunities. Like, if there was a law up for debate about whether guys who wear tight tshirts and get bottle service in the club should be able to own property I'd be no, fuck those guys! Yeah, ummm, it uh, violates the sanctity of owning property and it says in the Bible they're douchebags! You know, whatever I need to say so that you don't think this is coming from purely a place of hate.
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong and a cast of thousands Registered User regular
    I don't understand why we keep trying to go to mars. It's so goddamned stupid. It would be like, ok, we just built our first canoe. We took it up and down a river for a bit, cool.

    OK NOW LET'S CROSS THE PACIFIC

    We're just not ready. It's a stupid idea, even if it's theoretically possible. We should just be investing in general aerospace stuff to tool around in orbit, clean up busted satellites, which is an actual problem, maybe head to the moon if we see any need to. Work on some clean power sources that operate well in space (and also maybe run water purification plants / communication infrastructure in remote areas).
    dkmouthsig.png
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?
    galt's gulch ON THE MOON
    Per3th.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Registered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    i think if i had a SPECIAL spread irl i'd have like, 15 points tops
    simon

    we've discussed this before
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck FAK U HODGEHEG Registered User regular
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    I think I heard NASA is already outsourcing stuff to SpaceX
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    You think space travel should be private enterprise instead of publicly funded, will?

    I would have no problem with that if it were a workable model, but how are they going to make money?

    Hopefully with a giant gold asteroid.

    Eat shit and die, gold bugs.

    steam_sig.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.
    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    I don't understand why we keep trying to go to mars. It's so goddamned stupid. It would be like, ok, we just built our first canoe. We took it up and down a river for a bit, cool.

    OK NOW LET'S CROSS THE PACIFIC

    We're just not ready. It's a stupid idea, even if it's theoretically possible. We should just be investing in general aerospace stuff to tool around in orbit, clean up busted satellites, which is an actual problem, maybe head to the moon if we see any need to. Work on some clean power sources that operate well in space (and also maybe run water purification plants / communication infrastructure in remote areas).

    It's worse than that, really. When they decided to cross the Pacific all they could do was hope whatever they found on the other side would be similar to where they'd left from. We already know what's on Mars. Nothing worthwhile.
    h1DI1.jpg
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    I suspect that genetic modification to eliminate chronic diseases won't be much of an issue. I suspect genetic modification beyond that point might bring up some bioethics issues. A lot of it will depend on what exactly ends up being feasible.

    Leveling the playing field is one thing.

    But what about giving kids advantages (assuming it becomes possible) ? Why would you not predispose your kid to high IQ/g or to a fast metabolism or to Michael Phelps-esque long limbs and a broad frame for swimming (as an example) ? If the technology becomes practicable, there is eventually literally nothing that will be able to stop (some) people from doing it. Sure, you can make something illegal, but the historical record shows that trying to defeat something with enormous demand through legislation only drives it underground, with potentially worse consequences.

    I think it's more a question of if it's possible. A lot of what you are proposing to tinker with are some very complicated systems. And not all of them can be replicated in test species. I can test muscle improvements in rats but tinkering with brain functions is going to be a nightmare to test.

    I mean, my whole post is 'Bro, wouldn't it be sweet if...' tier.

    But eventually someone will figure it out. The first few beta releases will be buggy (ie. stillborn, die in infancy, come down with weird idiopathic congenital conditions, potentially have weird hidden psychological issues/ticks, etc.). Eventually, though, Science will get better at it and imho within a couple hundred years you'll be able to walk into a doctor's office and customize your baby (and his later adult attributes) with the same level of precision you customize your Skyrim character.

    The ethical implications are, imho, an afterthought. No one really considered the ethical implications of the automobile until people started very recently to make noise about traffic and global warming -- and even given those concerns, cars are just changing, not going away.
    network_sig2.png
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    It seems like there are plenty of ways to make money with a space exploration business once they get a bit more advanced - mining, sure, or expensive tourism, or... probably other things - but right now there doesn't seem to be much.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Brother and GF are still here, but deets have not been imparted to me. Wonder what they decided...
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    Also I imagine if it were focused on scientific research it would end up relying in government funding anyways, as much research does?
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    This may or may not be why my father may or may not be always on the lookout for accurate BAR schematics.
    h1DI1.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    Rainbow 6 was a cautionary tale.
    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    Well luckily we'll have you there to lead us into a glorious conservative future.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck FAK U HODGEHEG Registered User regular
  • TavTav Registered User regular
    my plans for getting food have fallen through

    feck
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    in my 1x1 with my boss right now she told me she is going to talk shit in our upcoming team meeting and doesn't want me to think it's directed at me, I'm da bes, etc

    thx boss

    Five bucks says she had that exact conversation with everyone else on the team.
    network_sig2.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    Also I imagine if it were focused on scientific research it would end up relying in government funding anyways, as much research does?

    "private space exploration" is a red herring because of this. Whether NASA or Space Co. INC are facilitating the project, it will be heavily funded by taxpayer money.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    Yay, i have beaten a second level of Demon's Souls.

    Now to head to level 2-1.
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck FAK U HODGEHEG Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    in my 1x1 with my boss right now she told me she is going to talk shit in our upcoming team meeting and doesn't want me to think it's directed at me, I'm da bes, etc

    thx boss

    Five bucks says she had that exact conversation with everyone else on the team.

    doubtful
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    you can buy/find online plenty of information to make your own homemade gun

    which is of course illegal unless you submit it for ATF inspection
    Mental midgets kill my inner child.
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    Sayng that progressives are for that is just as intellectually dishonest as saying that conservatives are for establishing a literal theocracy.

    Sure, a few people on the fringe might be like that, but you can hardly generalize a massive group based on the looney fringe.
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Also worth noting that you could probably produce a workable metal AR-15 lower receiver on any of a number of consumer-level desktop CNC mills without too much difficulty.

    Hell, looking at it you could probably do it by hand with a manual milling machine if you took your time over it.

    Yes, this is a thing that people do now. The law allows it for private use. Selling it runs into a bunch of potential issues.
    There's no living with a killing. There's no goin' back from one. Right or wrong, it's a brand... a brand sticks. There's no goin' back. Now you run on home to your mother and tell her... tell her everything's alright. And there aren't any more guns in the valley.
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong and a cast of thousands Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polyamory.

    Genetic modification, especially of the human body and most especially for selecting / designing children in utero.

    Biotech augmentation of the body, esp. embedded computing.

    These are all things today's progressives will find a bridge too far.

    I would be up for biotech augmentation and embedded computing.

    Genetic modification for certain things is a good idea for and if I have kids. I have Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and this is all tied to a genetic autoimmune disease. Which also have a few other things that could show up down the line.

    I would be up for genetic modification in the womb so my children would never have the chance to suffer through these chronic genetic diseases.

    Beyond repairing "flaws", I believe progressives of today will be opposed to augmenting the body to make it better or genetically modifying babies in utero to be "better".

    Also, the issue of equality and fairness will lead today's progressives to oppose technological augmentation that give the rich a competitive advantage in the marketplace that is insurmountable by 'natural' humans and is unavailable except at a high price.

    Social justice progressives who oppose space exploration (because we should spend that money on the poor) will also find themselves on the wrong side of the argument in the coming decades.

    it's not obvious to me that genetic enhancement will break along party lines. if anything, i'd guess that conservatives will tend to oppose it out of the traditional right-wing troika of "religious objections," "fear of change" and "general orneriness."

    the left-wing objection would be that it gives those who can afford it an even larger advantage. it's worth noting that these sorts of ideals haven't really done anything to influence politics since, like 1910.

    publicly funded space exploration will continue to be a stupid waste of a money-pit and will be eliminated as soon as private exploration makes some minor strides and the big defense companies see the writing on the wall and stop lobbying their republican congresspeople for space funding.

    I think today's conservatives won't oppose tech-oriented body modification in 30 years - we're pretty comfortable with technology and with body modification - and neither will our children, but tomorrow's progressives will oppose it on fairness and equality grounds. I don't know how much traction it'll get but I think more than in the past because inequality of wealth won't have the same visceral rejection factor as purchased inequality of the body / genes. Today's progressives are already often on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to "natural" things - India's salvation in the form of dwarf wheat was vigorously opposed by progressives worried about overpopulation.

    In fact the entire issue of "overpopulation" is going to find progressives in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we should let a lot of people die so we can save the planet for organisms that are not us.

    I think you're pretty off-base here. Progressivism isn't about stopping people from excelling on principle. It's about making sure people don't excel at the direct expense of others. It's about making sure people don't create massive power structures that oppress blocks of people. It's about making sure that everyone has a fair chance at a decent life.

    There's nothing inherently in progressivism that says you can't genetically modify your children to have an IQ of 200. All progressivism is interested in is making sure that your genius kids don't use their intelligence to effectively enslave people. And maybe if the disparity in the population becomes too great, progressivism will tax your genius billionaires to supply genetic engineering resources to everyone.

    It's about pulling people up, not stomping everyone down.
    dkmouthsig.png
This discussion has been closed.