Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

I dunno man, artificial womb technology sounds like an affront to all that is holy and good there will be friction adopting even that as an alternative.  The whole thing will look inhuman, if you get what I mean. 
(I don't feel that way, but there will be people who do.)

[JoshuaFH]

Then the concern may become that there will be a massive influx of orphan children waiting for foster homes that may never come. I think there'd need to be massive investment in orphanages and other services for taking care of all these parentless children; so they don't just grow up to be maladjusted adults.

[Telgin]

One could make the argument that it would allow for governments run by minority extremist groups getting in a lucky vote, but the current system doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of defending against that either eh wot?

We're talking presidential elections?

At least with the American voting system, it increases the odds of someone other than a Democrat or Republican winning from incredibly tiny to a slightly higher number that might almost matter since the electoral college doesn't act as a direct filter.  That in turn also increases the odds of lunatic fringe groups from getting an elected president from zero to merely zero plus epsilon.

In practice, such groups would never get elected anyway since the total number of election events would be so small as for them to not matter, but it would become possible in theory where it basically isn't possible now.  And if people knew it worked this way, it would increase the number of people voting for lunatic fringe candidates for the lulz.

In general I don't think it would be a good idea at all compared to alternatives, but it does have the benefit of helping to remove the deadlock of a two party system.

[smjjames]

One could make the argument that it would allow for governments run by minority extremist groups getting in a lucky vote, but the current system doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of defending against that either eh wot?

We're talking presidential elections?

At least with the American voting system, it increases the odds of someone other than a Democrat or Republican winning from incredibly tiny to a slightly higher number that might almost matter since the electoral college doesn't act as a direct filter. That in turn also increases the odds of lunatic fringe groups from getting an elected president from zero to merely zero plus epsilon.

In practice, such groups would never get elected anyway since the total number of election events would be so small as for them to not matter, but it would become possible in theory where it basically isn't possible now.  And if people knew it worked this way, it would increase the number of people voting for lunatic fringe candidates for the lulz.

In general I don't think it would be a good idea at all compared to alternatives, but it does have the benefit of helping to remove the deadlock of a two party system.

@bolded: From some points of view, one could argue that lunatic fringe groups have already elected a President. Yes, I'm talking about Trump. I know it wasn't exactly lunatic fringe, but as I said, from some points of view it's pretty close.

Also, Kagus's idea sounds to me like taking the choice completely out of voters hands, making the vote not matter. editwhiletyping: A thought occured to me, it seems like it might make vote rigging a hell of a lot easier because it'd be harder to tell rigging from sheer random chance.

[Trekkin]

I am just waiting for artificial womb technology to advance enough to fully sustain a developing fetus from fertilization to full-term.  To me, that will be the point where society has to wake up to the shit pot it has been stirring on this issue.

When that happens, many of the reasons to get an abortion will be completely negated;  Dont want it in your body? Sure-- we will put it in this little tissue filled pouch and feed it nutrient solution for the rest of its gestation. You dont suffer the effects of being pregnant, and the fetus does not need to be terminated. Got pregnant accidentally, but it is not medically safe for you to be pregnant? Same thing! We can put it in a little tissue lined pouch, and you walk out no longer in danger of being killed by the pregnancy. Hooray for science!

I know this is the standard pop science understanding, but suggesting exowombs as a way to advance the reproductive rights debate suffers from the same problem as suggesting space colonization as a solution to overpopulation: they require a solution to the very problems people purport to solve with them in order to be practicable. (There's also a problem with how much more difficult such a procedure would be than a chemically induced abortion, but I've already talked about how thorny that is.)

See, what gets lost in the just-imagine futurism is that exowombs not only open the door to previously impossible kinds of eugenics, they effectively mandate them. I don't mean termination; they allow easier fetal monitoring, to be sure, but emptying the thing into biohazard disposal is just abortion with extra steps anyway. The more fundamental problem is the epigenetic effect of maternal environment on fetal development, because there is no "neutral" setting; the contents of that nutrient solution influence the resultant child in ways we understand, and can therefore manipulate, with more finesse every day. Some of these are relatively benign. It would be relatively unobjectionable to minimize the risk of partly heritable diseases in later life, but other knobs are not so agreeably turned. Cosmetic characteristics, for example, or the biological influences on sexual orientation and gender identity -- which, again, will necessarily be affected somehow, some way, relative to the spectrum of environments available to viviparous babies. Now consider that, for this to be workable on the level of individual patients, it's going to require subsidizing the cost of running an expensive machine for prolonged periods, because poor people cannot afford nine months of cell culture on (metaphorical) steroids, which means that at some level we have to accept de facto government control for at least some portion of exowomb users.

In combination, the result is this: a national debate that will be understood by many as "how LGBT should we make poor people's babies using lots of your tax dollars and our abominate robotic mockeries of humans?"

That's not a debate we are ready to have yet, I think.

[smjjames]

By the time such exowombs are feaseable for the whole 9 months, I think we as a global (and probably multiplanetary by then) society would have dealt with some of those eugenics questions. For now, it remains in the realm of sci-fi and transhumanism philosophy.

In actual political news, Pete Buttiigieg joins the 2020 Democratic primary.

[Enemy post]

On a similar note, Kamala Harris is officially running now.

[scriver]

On a similar note, Kamala Harris is officially running now.

This had to be the least African afto-american in the world. Single drop racism strikes again!

Buttiigieg

I have a new favourite candidate

[PTTG??]

FiveThirtyEight describes her much better.

[Dunamisdeos]

Ok, so there we have the "aligns with all traditional DNC guidelines" candidate.

Basically a far more likable Hillary is what she feels like to me.

[Folly]

Cohen postpones testimony, claiming that Trump and Giuliani are threatening his family.

[Telgin]

I can't decide what to make of that, and for the moment will hold the claim that the president or his lawyer have made direct threats with the same skepticism I held the claim that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress.

On one hand, I fully believe it's something Trump the person would do.  And I fully accept that Trump doesn't care that he's the president when he does things.  But I just can't quite believe that he would be stupid enough to make credible threats against Cohen or his family in his position.  Not even Trump.

But yet, I can't imagine Cohen would say the president or his lawyer made the threats without some evidence.  I sincerely hope he has that evidence if this is true.

[Trekkin]

The only reason I can think of for him to delay is if Trump is dangling a pardon in front of him, but if that's the case, claiming to be threatened by Trump is beyond counterproductive.

[Dunamisdeos]

Option A: It's bull and he's in full-panic delay-the-consequences-at-any-cost mode/crazy person meltdown mode.

Option B: This is a real thing that Trump has done.

[Trekkin]

B seems more likely than A at this point; as I understand it, he doesn't delay his incarceration by delaying his testimony, and it's hard to see what else he would have left to lose that would not have barred him from agreeing to testify in the first place.

Incidentally, Pelosi just kicked Trump out of her House for the State of the Union.