|
On August 23 2014 06:43 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'll let this be my last post in your thread, since I see this will go nowhere.
Firstly, let me be clear, I understand all the biology quite well. Now onto your post:
Killing innocent lives by not letting people have kids? Are you serious? That's the equivalent of me killing innocent lives by choosing to not have children. The only difference is in one, the individual decided, and in the other, the society decided. There you have your difference between socialism and individualism. I'm more left wing than most people on teamliquid, but government already prevents retarded people from having kids, so hey, they do play a role, also I'm pro-abortion.
And again, you probably haven't read what I wrote because I clearly stated not killing anyone, just don't let them have children. I am fully aware that DNA mutates, I'm not suggesting it as a one time solution, it's not like this will make cancer deaths go to zero, just greatly reduce them.
Idea is simple, if from looking at the genes or by looking at family history that you are very susceptible to whatever disease, we don't allow you to have kids. Now of course, some people will go undetected, or some peoples' genes will mutate, then once it arises, they you prevent them from having kids, and it'll simply be integrated into society. They'd still be allowed to have sex, they can raise a child, they adopt children etc. After a few decades it would feel normal to the population. This isn't a one time wave thing.
And no need to get hostile, I live in Canada, we spend only 1.3% of our GDP on military. It's quite reasonable, healthcare poses a much greater risk to government spending. Also some military spending is necessary in our world. Also, an interesting tidbit of information for you, the United States spends 4x as much on healthcare as it does on all of its military spending, rather interesting, no?
Anyway, all the best to you!
The US has also, with its spending, proved to be one of the worlds flagships when it comes to curing diseases - because of their spending. When Obama says he'll donate for whoever challenges him, you know what side the President of the United States is on this.
You might call yourself left wing, I'd say you're extremely right wing. To let society govern and 'perfectionize' the DNA in order to "greatly reduce" the number of cases by diseases. You know, there was one infamous leader, he lost a world war of course, but he was on the same tracks there with some of your thoughts.
I really hope you don't get into a position of power because I wouldn't wanna live in a world with your ideology.
|
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests.
|
You're also wanting a pure DNA. I've managed to see two ideologies be in place, one left sided and one right sided, so cut the crap about me being used to live in one ideology. My interests are to save lives, yours are to take lives away, that's one hell of a difference between you and me and most of the rest of the world considering the fact that you, yourself, brought up how much we spend on healthcare.
|
Your thinking is absurd. No lives are being taken away.
I don't understand what you mean by save lives? Are you going to go have 10 kids now to save the lives that potentially could have been? geez. Nobody is dying in what I suggested.
I am trying (well more like I want, because I'm not taking action, rather speculating) to make the best life for the people that are here. Did China take lives with the one child policy? You might argue yes, I think they were simply trying to improve the lives of the people that lived in their land.
|
On August 23 2014 07:13 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Your thinking is absurd. No lives are being taken away.
I don't understand what you mean by save lives? Are you going to go have 10 kids now to save the lives that potentially could have been? geez. Nobody is dying in what I suggested.
I am trying to make the best life for the people that are here. Did China take lives with the one child policy? You might argue yes, I think they were simply trying to improve the lives of the people that lived in their land.
Save lives as in cure the diseases rather than prevent "the flawed" DNA to continue. We've cured diseases before, we can - and we will do it again.
|
How would this work? Just because someone is at risk of producing offspring that inherits a hereditary disease we say no? That individual can still contribute a lot to society. Anyways, nobody is being forced to donate here. It's simply raising awareness. Your strong opinions are unjustified. Maybe when you are at the stage of your life where you want to have kids you'll think differently. Some people end up living only for their kids.
|
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist
|
On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist
I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here.
On August 23 2014 07:19 Xyik wrote:
How would this work? Just because someone is at risk of producing offspring that inherits a hereditary disease we say no? That individual can still contribute a lot to society. Anyways, nobody is being forced to donate here. It's simply raising awareness. Your strong opinions are unjustified. Maybe when you are at the stage of your life where you want to have kids you'll think differently. Some people end up living only for their kids.
I am actually just a couple years away from wanting to have kids, and I do want them.
Anyway, like I said in my intial posts, I don't think the ALS challenge is bad, I just don't think it's the best way of doing it. In no way do I have any problem with the ALS challenge, I agree it's better than nothing, it raises awareness, gets people together, gets them involved, etc. I just wanted to provide my view on the larger picture.
This will inevitably become an issue in the coming years, so I'm curious how it is dealt with. Maybe we will make some great new strides in medicine, time will tell, but like I argued before, as of now, I don't believe it's the best long term solution to many diseases.
|
On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here.
yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing.
Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time.
Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it.
Its the same thing here
|
On August 23 2014 07:30 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing. Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time. Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it. Its the same thing here
I'm sorry I didn't get across what I wanted across to you. I personally don't think you are giving it enough thinking and not being open minded enough, but whatever.
If I may ask a simple question, I find the responses rather interesting.
Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
|
On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here.
Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own.
|
On August 23 2014 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:30 Paljas wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing. Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time. Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it. Its the same thing here I'm sorry I didn't get across what I wanted across to you. I personally don't think you are giving it enough thinking and not being open minded enough, but whatever. If I may ask a simple question, I find the responses rather interesting. Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
Take your idealistic solutions and put yourself in the bucket that's faced with the restrictions. The reason 'for the greater good' is seen as evil is because there is no empathy in it. You propose and accept these ideas because you have no idea what it would feel like if you're not the one suffering. This is an old argument.
|
On August 23 2014 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:30 Paljas wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing. Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time. Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it. Its the same thing here I'm sorry I didn't get across what I wanted across to you. I personally don't think you are giving it enough thinking and not being open minded enough, but whatever. If I may ask a simple question, I find the responses rather interesting. Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
Believe me, i gave it enough of time. And like every person, i also have a not mainstream opinion on some issues and think that change needs to happen there. But your relativism is nothing but intellectual laziness. You are basically defending every opinion possible, no matter how stupid it is.
on your strange question, 15 billion probably means that we are already fucked. and economic benefits would be preferable of course. but i think that the problem of overpopulation is mostly due to the way we use the ressources we have, and not the number of people.
oh, and PM me if we you want to discuss this further, dont wanna derail this thread anymore
sorry Wake
|
On August 23 2014 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
Great, now you're pushing out scenarios that tries to implicate on our resources and an overpopulated world. Most families in welfare countries don't want to have 3-5 kids, Sweden for an example is at a decline when it comes to children, if it wasn't for immigration our population would degrade. Look at yourself, you have to make up a scenario when our population is twice as big as it is now in order to even rationalize "a humane way" - but you always seem to miss the most important thing that so many value. Empathy.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests.
dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post:
On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own.
Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol.
|
On August 23 2014 20:09 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests. dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post: Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own. Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol.
The one child policy was very successful. Of course there were some people that had a kid whether accidentally or intentionally and wanted to keep them, but it's not like every second person was doing it.
If you do some research about it, you will know it was incredibly successful. Not really a fan of using "heard stories" as evidence. Anyway, the rest of your post I addressed before, so I wont attempt that, and lastly just adding before, my ideology isn't "crazy" or "stupid" just because you and a majority of the population disagree with it.
There are lots of "crazy" laws about sex, having children, and parenting around the world, ones that people still see as normal, or come to accept. (even though some aren't very strictly enforced). What I'm proposing is far from the worst (if looking through it in your perspective). Look online for some, you might be surprised. 
|
Haven't read any comments, good to hear you enjoy the extra awareness. My only gripe against it is that we're wasting probably 5L of water a person, which is an insane waste. I'd rather we do something less wasteful to raise awareness, like jump in a river or roll through mud.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 26 2014 12:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 20:09 BigFan wrote:On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests. dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post: On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own. Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol. The one child policy was very successful. Of course there were some people that had a kid whether accidentally or intentionally and wanted to keep them, but it's not like every second person was doing it. If you do some research about it, you will know it was incredibly successful. Not really a fan of using "heard stories" as evidence. Anyway, the rest of your post I addressed before, so I wont attempt that, and lastly just adding before, my ideology isn't "crazy" or "stupid" just because you and a majority of the population disagree with it. There are lots of "crazy" laws about sex, having children, and parenting around the world, ones that people still see as normal, or come to accept. (even though some aren't very strictly enforced). What I'm proposing is far from the worst (if looking through it in your perspective). Look online for some, you might be surprised.
There's a difference between being able to at least have a child versus none at all because you're lucky enough to have 'bad' genes. Not sure why you brought up the China point in the first place since it doesn't relate to your idea. Very successful? People follow it because they are forced to and even then those stories I heard show that some people don't like the idea but again, at least they get to have a child if they so desire which is still not the same thing.
I'm sorry but I disagree. I'm not saying it's stupid because I understand where you're trying to come from but it's definitely "crazy" imo because you pretty much ignore the idea of freedom and think what you are doing is eliminating diseases when that'll never be the case. Anyways, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
|
On August 26 2014 13:03 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 12:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 20:09 BigFan wrote:On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests. dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post: On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own. Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol. The one child policy was very successful. Of course there were some people that had a kid whether accidentally or intentionally and wanted to keep them, but it's not like every second person was doing it. If you do some research about it, you will know it was incredibly successful. Not really a fan of using "heard stories" as evidence. Anyway, the rest of your post I addressed before, so I wont attempt that, and lastly just adding before, my ideology isn't "crazy" or "stupid" just because you and a majority of the population disagree with it. There are lots of "crazy" laws about sex, having children, and parenting around the world, ones that people still see as normal, or come to accept. (even though some aren't very strictly enforced). What I'm proposing is far from the worst (if looking through it in your perspective). Look online for some, you might be surprised. There's a difference between being able to at least have a child versus none at all because you're lucky enough to have 'bad' genes. Not sure why you brought up the China point in the first place since it doesn't relate to your idea. Very successful? People follow it because they are forced to and even then those stories I heard show that some people don't like the idea but again, at least they get to have a child if they so desire which is still not the same thing. I'm sorry but I disagree. I'm not saying it's stupid because I understand where you're trying to come from but it's definitely "crazy" imo because you pretty much ignore the idea of freedom and think what you are doing is eliminating diseases when that'll never be the case. Anyways, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Alright, fair enough, we can leave it at that.
I just did want to add a finishing comment though, I never claimed it would completely eliminate disease. It would reduce disease related deaths by I'd say 50%-70% in 70 years (or people would still get heart disease, but 10-20 years later in their life). But long term, as more and more genes get mixed with whatever defects we treat with medicine nowadays, I think it could easily prevent 90% of deaths from disease in a 200-250 year range, as well as increase the average lifespan by 15-25 years in that time frame (as I expect that in developed countries for life expectancy to be stagnating, and slowly decreasing in the next few decades).
It's very possible I'm thinking of the world in too much of a static sense, and not accounting for all the future developments in medicine and etc, as I am under a belief that rate of technology increase derives from the rate of collaboration between the world, and safety in the world. Just like how technology didn't improve much in the middle ages due to stagnation of empires, then it stagnated during the renaissance, and so-forth. And now we spend a lot of money in research, and we have most of the worlds population involved (North America and Europe, China and large parts of Asia), and we are reaching a point where a human must be schooled until he's 30 to be able to understand what he's going to be doing to make a research contribution... Sorry, kind of having trouble explaining it, but I think the developments in technology will stagnate (I'm sure many people thought that in the past too, haha)...
But anyway, I have trouble seeing the health industry be able to keep up with the aging population with more genetic defects as time goes on, and that's why I think some regulations will be need to be in place eventually.
They are big thoughts that are tough to predict the future of, so maybe I shouldn't be trying, although I've had some professors express that concern to me, and it logically made sense to me, I did some readings myself, and it does seem as an eventual risk that inevitable, but whether it's 50 years or 1000 years from now can be difficult to pinpoint.
|
On August 26 2014 12:48 Blisse wrote:
Haven't read any comments, good to hear you enjoy the extra awareness. My only gripe against it is that we're wasting probably 5L of water a person, which is an insane waste. I'd rather we do something less wasteful to raise awareness, like jump in a river or roll through mud.
Sorry, but I just wanted to point out that the average shower uses 200 liters of water, so 5 liters per person really is not very much. And just because it's not going into the drain doesn't mean it's being wasted. The water finds its way into the aquifer and into a water source eventually (water cycle).
But really, I can't even express how little 5L of water is. I drink around 2L of water a day on average, washing machine uses 100 liters, car wash is 230 liters, and don't even get me started about how much hundreds of liters you'll use watering your lawn.
It's possibly the worst concern you can have about this challenge. The food you eat to get the energy to lift the ice bucket over your head leaves a stronger environmental impact than the 5 liters of water wasted doing this challenge.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5d8Jiv6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hqlHB8G.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
