Here's a thought that just came to me: modern technology is NOT good for the gene pool. 2,500 years ago weak infants would be discarded by the Spartans, which is horrible in a lot of ways, but now while we can save sickly children into becoming adults that contribute in ways that Athenians and Romans would appreciate, we are also saving jackarses who shouldn't breed. Back then, if you were enough of an idiot and you screw around, it'll likely take you out of the gene pool. Now, you can catch a bunch of idiots ending up in the ER and live long enough to breed...and possibly enough of a scumbag to not care for the child enough that it grows up into another ******.
Case in point - there was a meth addict here a few years ago who sliced off his own member then put it in a pickle jar or something, sitting long enough so the doctors can't reattach it. Now imagine if the family found him like that sooner, and the doctors were able to reattach it (something only made possible a few decades ago on digits) - that means that someone with the genes that have a predisposition for addiction will survive and make babies. Worse, he might be enough of a scumbag to not do his part raising that child, increasing the risks of the child - essentially, that child is genetically risky, then will be "raised" in a high-risk environment. BAAAAAD.
Heck the mere fact that I am alive is no wonder of science. It can treat diabetes and cancer, and heck my own Dad was saved from polio at the right time, but I'm also at risk for diabetes, cancer, and suffering gout at 29. I and my brother have opted to not contribute to the gene pool. Problem is, there are still too many people who won't think of the collective good - the mere fact that they can't afford childbirth doesn't deter them from knocking people up (then blaming government when quality healthcare for their sickly kid isn't free).
Originally Posted by Double-A
First off, good job on the tape on your cameras . . . I do the same thing. Second of all, I never said that we should get rid of all of these new technologies. All I'm saying is that with the good that comes with these technological advances (and don't get me wrong there is good that comes with said technological advances) there's also great evil that comes with them. I certainly do not think that our modern day technologies should be disposed of . . . I only wish that the governments of the countries in this world would be less corrupt/more responsible and not use these technologies to spy on their citizens. They use terrorism as an excuse to do this but the real reason they do this is so they can tighten their grips on their citizens and keep them subservient.
Yes, of course - my concern is that now I have too many people who are otherwise in "normal" society but espousing what amounts to be the current iteration of the tinfoil hat crowd, and I have to deal with these people everyday. They think that my devices are proof positive that I'm either ignorant about privacy issues (and they think that "vigilance" is total disconnection, to the point that you can't reach them in an emergency unless you have the same resources as whoever Ethan Hunt works for) or they whip that quote from Benjamin Franklin all too quickly. When they do the latter I tell them to tell that to the crime victims or their families who had the bad guys, stolen property, or the victims tracked by all this "perpetually wired" technology infrastructure. It's so much easier for Will Smith and Gene Hackman, plus Sandra Bullock if we'd go that far, to cause fear with one movie than for all the crime shows (drama or docus) every night showing how useful technology can be.
Just recently I saw some kind of internet meme saying that ironically snail mail is now more secure. For the love of God, how the heck did they get to that conclusion?! Snowden comes up and now everyone seems to have forgotten they have to shred the contents of their mailbox, and depending on how accessible that box is, you wouldn't even know if one envelope was stolen already and the info on it already being used against you. Over here because of cheap labor many households have housekeepers, so the middle class can march off to work and someone at home can receive stuff like credit cards. Then I visit my brother in the US and find FedEx leaving hundreds of dollars worth of stuff on the door step when I stepped out to smoke, when I was right freakin' there watching TV in the living room the whole day waiting for that package. What if that had been a credit card or other similar info slipped into the mailbox? Any crafty locksmith can pick that before anyone walks past the crook tinkering with the box, given the population density in an American suburb.
Originally Posted by Double-A
EDIT: It's just like how some people in the U.S. Government would like to ban guns. They say that this is because doing this would decrease gun killings but really it's because then the Government's control over the American people would be complete. Any government that has absolute power is absolutely corrupt. I would like to ask this question of the U.S. Government: should we ban motor vehicles as well because lots of people die from motor vehicle crashes every year?
That's because it's proven to be effective in the past, assuming you can actually execute it right. Hideyoshi banned movement through the social castes, then Ieyasu banned swords in the hands of anyone that isn't a samurai, as well as all guns - and since he was the Shogun, Samurai were expected to swear an oath of loyalty to the Shogun through their Daimyo's oath (any Ronin were slowly put to work under the Shogunate, or if they had been bandits, they were eventually hunted down). Japan stayed in relative peace for 300 years. I imagine that in modern society where people won't just give up rights easily, and are also not privy to a hundred years of civil war, would give up their guns - and government forcing such a measure might actually ignite civil war. Of course, it's easy to see that it also made it possible for the technolgy gap that Commodore Perry took advantage of when he sailed into Edo Bay, and at that time they haven't really figured out Vietnam and Afghanistan (Soviet and US-coalition invasions); add to that the plan for the Shogunate to get the tech and use it to take the fight to the foreigners (with the Meiji doing the same, and fanaticism being what it is, they did so with more disastrous results for all Asia).
Gun control is just too annoyingly extremist in my view. On one hand you have pro-big government using feminist critiques to target guns, when all their buy-back programs did was to subsidize the purchase of newer guns (sometimes I think the Democrats are the ones in the NRA's payroll) since the bad guys aren't likely to give up the main source of their livelihood (or more accurately, life in da hood). On the other hand, the pro-gun argument goes that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" ignores errors or disputes between legally "good" people - the Hatfields and McCoys weren't criminals, and all guns did was allow the feud to escalate instead of people suing and countersuing. Neither of them makes a good case about school shootings in the US vis a vis China's school stabbings. Yes, people kill people, but the problem with the pro-gun side is that they're against funding social programs that seek to minimize children's developmental exposure to risk. Contraceptives? That's sin! Feed your child? Not with my taxes! Crack ho's kid grows up a criminal - we have a God-given right to shoot that bastard! So why not just try to keep people from getting pregnant?! It's not like government will march into a Lexus dealership and force the owners to stop competing with the baby mills on international TV; it's just going to encourage people to remember that if they don't have the money to buy condoms, they sure as hell can't feed children.
Originally Posted by Double-A
EDIT: Also, if the primary reason that these people wanted to ban guns was that lots of people die because of them then you'd think that they would be seeking to ban abortion because abortion claims a lot of lives as well but no they aren't.
See my post above regarding the problem with Democrats and Republicans going at it over gun control and abortion. It is precisely that abortion (and personally I prefer subsidized contraceptives) are not as widely in use that makes it necessary to shoot people.