Print

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

[wierd]

Well, maybe the "functionally equivalent to terrorist training camp" home tutoring my vietnam vet dad gave me will come in handy.  I hope not, but maybe.

[Kagus]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/14/steve-king-iowa-republican-rape-incest-abortion


IMPECCABLE LOGIC.

[wierd]

(Tongue firmly in cheek)
Well, there IS the statistic that religiously conservative women are unable to orgasm... Surely that's got to color his worldview.
(Consider, all sex between minors is technically statutory rape, since neither can legally consent. Conservatism is most heavily conserved (heh) in isolated and tightly constrained environs (those most likely to produce incest)... And adult conservative women tend to be less gregarious with their sexual exploits. Perhaps the good senator is merely giving voice to a silently understood norm in more conservative culture? )

/s


More seriously, the senator's argument is more in the vein of "there is compelling evidence that everyone alive today has pedigree that descends from a product of rape and or incest."  While this is indisputably true (Neanderthals had such isolated populations that incest was abundantly common, at least as far as we can tell with surviving genetic samples, and unless you live in subsaharan africa, you are between 2 and 12% neanderthal), it is moot.  The question begs the question in ways I am sure the senator does not really want. (There is a field of ethics that concerns itself with the consequences of potential future generations, rather than with the immediate consequences of living persons. This view makes murders especially problematic, as it deprives not only the individual murdered of their life, but also the lives of all persons that would have descended from them had they lived. When you take this into consideration, death penalties for capital offenses become very ethically dubious, and more conservative states like Texas just love their capital punishments.) It is moot, because it is impossible to predict the future in any such capacity, but we can predict and restrict the immediate harm caused by these practices.  One is quite capable of acknowledging simple facts like this, without falling victim to the conceit that our outcome was the best one, or to courting the notion that existing populations should feel indebted to a known deleterious practice.  The simple answer to his question is "Yes, there would have been people, they just would not be us. That would not necessarily be a bad thing."

There is also the possible (but unlikely) reality that the good senator is aware of the Toba Catastrophe theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

The theory posits that human populations were curtailed to near extinction levels, which would have required incest for the human race to be around today, simply due to insufficient numbers of breeding members of the species.

However, this is still moot.  We are not currently suffering from any such catastrophe; Human population is the largest it has ever been. The question still falls victim to the logical trap of being indebted to a known deleterious practice, as justification for permitting (or rather, enforcing the outcome) of that practice in modern times.

Really, the senator is looking for straws to support his position that all pregnancies need to come to term, and is not being especially critical of his own reasoning.

[Frumple]

That's not really his position, though, otherwise you'd see a shitload of support for prenatal care and various other reproductive and women's health services, to further mitigate the possibility of miscarriages and whatnot. Far as I'm aware, the vast majority of abortions (and otherwise pregnancy ending events) are entirely natural, don't require outside assistance as the body handles that itself, and in many cases is preventable by ensuring better conditions and general health for the mother.

You can fucking bet this piece of shit isn't trying to help much on that front, and is probably backing crap that makes some or all of that notably worse.

[McTraveller]

Well, there is one option to save everything, but boy is it jumping right into the unknown.

My problem with theories like MMT - and even Keynes - is that there are two questionable assumptions that everyone today seems to take for granted: 1) the economy must always grow, and 2) you have to have money and trade for the economy to grow.  The entire system we have today is structured to enforce those two things and implemented using the idea that money creation must always be tied to debt.

There is something untoward with a system that collapses if, as Keynes was quoted in that link, everyone shifting from debt spending to savings causes the economy to collapse.  I would be perfectly happy with a system that would allow me to simply maintain my current status quo.  There is something wrong that if I conserve energy at my house and so spend less on something, and choose to save the difference instead of spend it, that the economy will "suffer".

I don't have a good solution - but some thoughts I've had are around making all prices more easily changeable and moving money creation (debt creation) close to the point of origin of debt - even as far as saying that if I buy something from you that is the instant money is created: I don't need to have cash on hand issued by a bank to buy the thing.  In fact, I would reverse the sense of money:  If I buy something from you but don't exchange something for it, debt is created in my account.  If then, later, I provide a good or service to someone else, they could take some of my money or they could delete the money from my account.  This has the interesting effect of making it so that there is no accounting of wealth - there is only ever accounting of debt.

Now, I realize there are practical limitations of such a system, but it is an interesting thought experiment.

[Naturegirl1999]

Well, there is one option to save everything, but boy is it jumping right into the unknown.

My problem with theories like MMT - and even Keynes - is that there are two questionable assumptions that everyone today seems to take for granted: 1) the economy must always grow, and 2) you have to have money and trade for the economy to grow.  The entire system we have today is structured to enforce those two things and implemented using the idea that money creation must always be tied to debt.

There is something untoward with a system that collapses if, as Keynes was quoted in that link, everyone shifting from debt spending to savings causes the economy to collapse.  I would be perfectly happy with a system that would allow me to simply maintain my current status quo.  There is something wrong that if I conserve energy at my house and so spend less on something, and choose to save the difference instead of spend it, that the economy will "suffer".

I don't have a good solution - but some thoughts I've had are around making all prices more easily changeable and moving money creation (debt creation) close to the point of origin of debt - even as far as saying that if I buy something from you that is the instant money is created: I don't need to have cash on hand issued by a bank to buy the thing.  In fact, I would reverse the sense of money:  If I buy something from you but don't exchange something for it, debt is created in my account.  If then, later, I provide a good or service to someone else, they could take some of my money or they could delete the money from my account.  This has the interesting effect of making it so that there is no accounting of wealth - there is only ever accounting of debt.

Now, I realize there are practical limitations of such a system, but it is an interesting thought experiment.

I find it odd that we have a system that relies on growth on a finite planet. Growth simply cannot happen forever. Your idea/thought experiment sounds interesting.

[smjjames]

@wierd: He’s a Representative, not a Senator. Doesn’t make him any less a piece of shit though. It’s like, NOW people call for him to resign? What about all those other times?

[Egan_BW]

Maybe we can have unlimited growth on a finite planet if we keep hurling space rocks down at us. Then both the economy and the planet itself could grow indefinitely!

We're lucky we don't live on one of those "superearth" type planets, where the greater mass would make it much harder to reach orbit or escape velocity. Sure it's expensive now, but it could have been a lot more. ;p

[smjjames]

We're lucky we don't live on one of those "superearth" type planets, where the greater mass would make it much harder to reach orbit or escape velocity. Sure it's expensive now, but it could have been a lot more. ;p

We'd just have to be more creative. Such worlds would have thicker atmospheres which could allow for methods which aren't as feaseable here on Earth.

As to McTravellers point, I wonder what an economic system that takes into account that growth isn't forever/there can be times with slow or even negative growth would look like.

[Naturegirl1999]

We're lucky we don't live on one of those "superearth" type planets, where the greater mass would make it much harder to reach orbit or escape velocity. Sure it's expensive now, but it could have been a lot more. ;p

We'd just have to be more creative. Such worlds would have thicker atmospheres which could allow for methods which aren't as feaseable here on Earth.

As to McTravellers point, I wonder what an economic system that takes into account that growth isn't forever/there can be times with slow or even negative growth would look like.

I wonder this too. Whatever it is, it would be more sustainable than what we have now

[Gentlefish]

We're lucky we don't live on one of those "superearth" type planets, where the greater mass would make it much harder to reach orbit or escape velocity. Sure it's expensive now, but it could have been a lot more. ;p

We'd just have to be more creative. Such worlds would have thicker atmospheres which could allow for methods which aren't as feaseable here on Earth.

As to McTravellers point, I wonder what an economic system that takes into account that growth isn't forever/there can be times with slow or even negative growth would look like.

*Marx intensifies*

You'd be surprised what an economy based on the general population's well-being and not profit-seeking can look like.

[Egan_BW]

We'll all be very surprised whenever that gets around to ever happening, yes.

[wierd]

actual marxist communism requires a sentient species other than current modern humans.

Current modern humans are driven by social competition impulses, which favors the acquisition of wealth and resources as symbols of social status, and thus of desirability. this is why jewelry is universal in all human cultures.

I am not saying it's a bad idea; it's not.  It's just not one existing humans are well suited to, and expecting existing humans to work well with it is not really sensible.  So far, all attempts at such a system have had to come to grips with this in some capacity or other, usually in a "top down, authoritarian" model of some kind, which then defeats the purpose.

Perhaps if some day we get comfortable enough with the idea, and are savvy enough with the technology, to begin altering human psycho-social behaviors through genetic engineering, we could finally do marxist communism the right way.

That is a long ways off though.

[Naturegirl1999]

actual marxist communism requires a sentient species other than current modern humans.

Current modern humans are driven by social competition impulses, which favors the acquisition of wealth and resources as symbols of social status, and thus of desirability. this is why jewelry is universal in all human cultures.

I am not saying it's a bad idea; it's not.  It's just not one existing humans are well suited to, and expecting existing humans to work well with it is not really sensible.  So far, all attempts at such a system have had to come to grips with this in some capacity or other, usually in a "top down, authoritarian" model of some kind, which then defeats the purpose.

Perhaps if some day we get comfortable enough with the idea, and are savvy enough with the technology, to begin altering human psycho-social behaviors through genetic engineering, we could finally do marxist communism the right way.

That is a long ways off though.

Yes. Current humans are too focused on wealth and power. If only people understood that working together was good. It is unfortunate that previous attempts failed, because now people think it will never succeed even if humanity changes.

[Gentlefish]

Heck, we don't even need to go that far immediately.

Actual for-real socialism is much more productive in terms of well-being and environmentalism than Capitalism could ever hope to be.

Worker co-ops keep pricing reasonable, and since every employee is an owner, they all make collective decisions for management and direction. Imagine, hiring your own manager! The manager/worker relationship would be much less, if not at all, inherently antagonistic as everyone would be working towards the same goal.