What views do you currently hold that will look outdated to your grandchildren?

The point though is that "literally" now means "literally", but also exactly the opposite. It is correct to use this word in both situations now (thanks to the idiots who were using it incorrectly and allowed the English language to evolve as such)

*raises third eyebrow*
 
We seem to be violently agreeing. You could cut and paste that into the middle of my last reply and it would all flow as one idea.
 
We seem to be violently agreeing. You could cut and paste that into the middle of my last reply and it would all flow as one idea.

It's because what I initially said has nothing to do with what we are discussing now. "Violently agreeing" sounds like it's going to lead to make up pon farr though
 
The reply from warpus in post #2 sums up the obvious things for me as well. I suspect eating meat, or at least meat of the sort many of us eat today (intensively factory-farmed) will seem quaint. Perhaps it will all be lab-grown some day; perhaps you might have pasture-raised or wild-caught meat only a few times a year on major holidays.

A little harder to predict is what the views on sexuality will be in 50 years. I'm skeptical of how being trans is increasingly promoted as a good thing, and in some cases glamorized, without much mention of the negative side effects, including the hazards of moving into it too quickly. If you have the money to pay for it, are old enough to really understand the consequences, and are really sure and have been for a long time, go for it. But I worry that it's being over-promoted among the youth of today, and that could have serious consequences for some who jump into it without really knowing what it means long-term. And I'm not interesting in dating someone who has transitioned.

I also think identity politics and the focus on race is currently overstated. To be sure, there are racial issues in society that need to be addressed, and that has become worse over the past 4 years. But I'd rather focus on economic inequality than slavery reparations. Today it seems like the focus is on the opposite, and although I suspect that will change over time, I could be wrong. But IMO, focusing aid by race will only further drive a wedge between society, and would in fact increase racism among the poor of races that did not receive aid (and would, in that event, in fact be discriminated against racially). Focusing aid based on economic status would be a net benefit to races that are on average disadvantaged today, without encouraging a racist backlash by those who are poor and don't receive aid. That alone won't make everything right - there is also opportunity to better enforce anti-discriminatory statutes already on the books, and likely add a few more targeted regulations where warranted - but my potentially old-fashioned-in-the-future view is that identity politics and overtly favoring certain races in economic aid would only make the situation worse, not better.

In less serious matters, my grandkids would almost certainly find my view that the best way to back up your data is on external hard drives, rather than to the cloud, to be outdated. Along similar lines, my lack of an account on popular social networks and my general lack of use of the Internet on my phone also likely would be seem as outdated. But you could make a good case that those habit are already seen as outdated by people 20 years older than I am today, and there's no need to wait for grandkids for that.
 
In less serious matters, my grandkids would almost certainly find my view that the best way to back up your data is on external hard drives, rather than to the cloud, to be outdated.
I think the view that the internet is a safe and secure place to put your confidential data is the view that will be outdated, but who knows.
 
Oh, if we get lucky on the technology front, the one that might really leap out with 'you should have known' is how meh we are about cryogenic-storage-near-death. Now, they won't care that we let our parents die permanently, because our grandkids won't miss them. But 'you could have saved them' might be part of the zeitgeist.

We tend to not care about losses that happen because of inactivity, though there are some standout exceptions.
 
Oh, if we get lucky on the technology front, the one that might really leap out with 'you should have known' is how meh we are about cryogenic-storage-near-death. Now, they won't care that we let our parents die permanently, because our grandkids won't miss them. But 'you could have saved them' might be part of the zeitgeist.

We tend to not care about losses that happen because of inactivity, though there are some standout exceptions.

The problem is we can't do jack about that now.

We CAN'T save them now. Anyone who goes into Cyronics now is being scammed. They haven't even brought back a rat after a year, much less a decapitated head or brought back cells from the frozen corpses. That is, if there's anything left to reanimate from the slush after the facility goes offline for a while, which was a problem before.

Furthermore, even if we could, would we? Do we really need the spectre of our ancestors literally living alongside us? Already wealth is hoarded and hierachy flaunted; having immortal or near immortal elders may be a detriment to society, not a boon.

Focus and specie would better be spent, IMO, on expanding the healthspan, so that we don't spend 30-50 years of our lives in wheelchairs and deprecated. Age rejuvenation, having a good time rather than a long time, that sort of thing. Before the pandemic, I believe, there was a small breakthrough in this, but I'll look into it.
 
I'm agreeing that it's not yet the time to adopt the technology. BUT, in hindsight, it might seem like it was. We could be the generation that 'let' our parents die.

Literally no one doubts that we could have pushed polio research a couple years earlier than we did and therefore would have saved thousands of lives. But, we also don't really care that we dropped the ball. Schindler only regretted his Rolls Royce after he'd saved thousands of people, but it never occurred to him ahead of time that his Rolls Royce had the opportunity cost of a dozen lives.
 
I had hoped that the view we're governed by evil and stupid people would be outdated. No such luck.

@El_Machinae Our parents, most of them at least, are capable enough to know whether or not they are accepting of dying. Not anyone wants to hand around past their time, especially older people.
Death always wins. Entropy is inescapable. All the transhumanist hopes seem to me but scientific escapism to replace the religious one.
 
Childhood vaccinations are also transhumanist. I think that we're more sad that we failed to vaccinate as early as we could than begruding that so many more young people are "living past their time". The only reason why we tolerated the deaths, historically, was that we had no choice. But, counterpoint to then, we see the failure to vaccinate now as the problem. We're not indifferent, our attitude towards the delay has changed from "deaths are acceptable" to "they're unacceptable".

I'm not here arguing about cryonics. The thread is asking about what views might change in the future, so that will be a retrospective analysis of modern 'backwards' thinking.
 
I just thought of one that looks outdated to most people here: It is not a real emoji if it is not made of ascii characters.
 
Back
Top Bottom