And telling pregnant people to have abortions isn't offensive? I get that it's a joke but it's a pretty distasteful one. Abortion is a very seriously decision that shouldn't be joked about. There are plenty of other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first world.
Why are you dragging me into this? I was replying to Commodore's offensive speech about how people like me (and other childless-by-choice forum members) are just taking up resources that should be used for people who do have children, and that we shouldn't be allowed to access any social welfare or other government benefits.
Since that's what has enabled me to stay alive for the last 20+ years of my life, and my dad as well,
of course I am offended.
But don't drag me into Ryika's offensive attitude that abortion is merely another form of birth control. I'm pro-choice, but I also think that both parties - both male and female - should be responsible in the first place.
Don't want a kid? Use birth control or some other way of preventing conception. This applies to the men, too. If you (general 'you') don't want to be on the hook for child support, use a condom. Or investigate the various male contraceptives being talked about. Or get surgery.
Did you realize that men can get it just for the asking, but any woman still of childbearing years who says they want surgery so they won't get pregnant (or for some other equally relevant reason) is apt to either be refused outright or given a stern lecture by the doctor that she's doing the wrong thing, the immoral thing, or she's too young to know what she's saying? I had
that conversation with a male doctor once. "Yes, I know pregnancy would be very difficult for you, given your medical history, but I'm not going to even consider this because you might change your mind."
Oh and people worried about food and energy and the future of the enviornment, technology is always coming out with breakthroughs. We'll be off fossil fuels in 50 years tops, some would say this is way too late but I don't think so, and we keep increasing crop outputs, to the chagrin of all those anti gmo naysayer hippies.
You seem to have a lot of faith that everything will mysteriously just work out. How's that going to happen when it's obvious that we should be doing much more research into non-fossil fuel energy but aren't, because governments are dependent on the $$$$$$$$$$ of the fossil fuel companies? Here in Alberta, the nay-sayers are the ones who ridicule solar energy because our winters stretch over 7 months of the year. But I don't remember even one of those days when we don't get at least some hours of sunlight. We're nowhere near the Arctic Circle here, and we could do with a lot more solar power than we're currently using.
As for wind farms, there are some areas of this province where it's
always windy. And no, I don't just mean the Legislature. I mean literally windy.
People might be "poorer" once robots take all our jobs, and we might have to live in tighter spaces as land fills up, but our money will go a lot further, food should just get cheaper, energy should get cheaper, we won't need personal vehicles, health care advances should let us live longer and cheaper, entertainment is already dirt cheap.
So once robots have all the jobs, how are people going to earn all this money to get cheap food, energy, health care, etc.? There's a catch to this Star Trek future and it always comes in the form of "how are people actually
paying for this? Kirk can say they don't use money in the future and Picard can say that people don't work for money, but rather to "better themselves", but that's utter BS.
Every advanced civilization (that's more advanced than hunter/gatherers) has had some kind of economy, even if it was only bartering goods/services in kind. What sort of economy would we have in a society where nobody works because robots do everything? What happens when some people want or demand
more? What happens if the robots break down to the point where there aren't any robots to fix them and the people don't know how?
Yeah and you live like a king compared to people just 100 years ago.
True. But this isn't 100 years ago.
No one can predict the future, there are dozens of things that could disrupt the current world order beyond repair. It hasn't happened before so it won't now isn't a strong argument.
For instance of our electrical grid got knocked out or even internet got knocked out people would be going hungry within a week and probably half would dead within six months.
There was a TV show on a few years ago, called Revolution (there's a thread about it in A&E). The basic premise was that something had caused electrical devices to stop functioning - anything electrical - and indeed, people were going hungry within a week and were already killing each other for food and/or survival gear. People had to relearn basic skills in a hurry. The show itself wasn't very good - had a lot of unlikable characters and the leads just weren't grubby enough; the female lead was nicknamed "Bratniss" by some of the people on the old TWoP forum. But it does show that people are already thinking about "what if this happens". We depend so much on electricity in this part of the world that it's nearly unthinkable to not have it.
I've lived for awhile without electricity - coal oil lamps, getting water from the well or lake and boiling it on a wood stove, there was no TV, and the bathroom was a biffy. But that was at our cabin, and it wasn't permanent - just for a few weeks every summer, and we'd make periodic trips to the nearest city for supplies and would stop in to visit family.
It's amazing how much you value sunlight when it's the only source of light and rain when you need fresh water.