Here's a thought...

Stephen · 04-19-2012, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howard the Duck

i think in the future, people will solve the mystery of an afterlife or just life ending just like that

we actually become soundwaves when we die

LOL. Why do I imagine our bodies deflating in a flatulent emission from some undiscovered sphincter that acts as a portal to eternal life.

ladyislingering · 04-21-2012, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvwubs

criminalization of drugs
Organized religion
Allowing oil to monopolize certain aspects of the energy market
Not having regulation for reproduction
preventing medical research due to outdated moral concerns or to prevent competition for less effective, but more profitable and manageable medicines/practices
etc.

all of this.

We can understand today why certain drugs are very, very bad. But society needs to learn to heal the addicts and counsel the dealers to keep the "hard" drugs (meth, cocaine, heroin, etc.) away from people whose lives are destroyed by these substances. There is no sense in criminalizing people with addiction.

Do you mean, "regulation of reproduction" will someday be regarded as foolish? Because I agree, fully, damn the government for thinking they have any right to regulate what goes on with women. It isn't their damn business. My opinion is, if you want children, have 'em. If you don't, abort 'em and learn your lesson. Abortion is not to be used as regular birth control but it shouldn't be illegal either. Besides, I have successfully destroyed unwanted intruders without abortion before. Women should be allowed to control their reproductive organs. Not a government run by a bunch of male chauvinists that want to control women.

I love how you mentioned discarding old school "morals" for the sake of medical research. Society needs to get its stuff together so we can find a cure for cancer, at the expense of the expendable. I fully believe this.

Also I wonder if eugenics will ever be considered an acceptable process.

Guybrush · 04-21-2012, 05:08 AM

Criminalization of drugs does make sense. After all, if someone who would otherwise become an addict lives in a society where there are no drugs, then he or she would not become a drug addict and keeping drugs away from society could then be cheaper on society in many aspects than rehabilitating addicts would be.

It only fails when "anti societal" forces make drugs available despite prohibition. I call them anti societal because the best thing would be for society to be drug free (at least of hard drugs), yet they make that optimal solution a near impossibility for their selfish want to make money on drugs.

Perhaps keeping society drug free in the future will be more viable than it is today.

anticipation · 04-21-2012, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Criminalization of drugs does make sense. After all, if someone who would otherwise become an addict lives in a society where there are no drugs, then he or she would not become a drug addict and keeping drugs away from society could then be cheaper on society in many aspects than rehabilitating addicts would be.

It only fails when "anti societal" forces make drugs available despite prohibition. I call them anti societal because the best thing would be for society to be drug free (at least of hard drugs), yet they make that optimal solution a near impossibility for their selfish want to make money on drugs.

Perhaps keeping society drug free in the future will be more viable than it is today.

This is one of the most asinine and completely unrealistic statements I've ever heard. Prohibition works in theory, but never in practice? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?

Guybrush · 04-21-2012, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

This is one of the most asinine and completely unrealistic statements I've ever heard. Prohibition works in theory, but never in practice? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?

Hurr durr

Howard the Duck · 04-21-2012, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyislingering

Do you mean, "regulation of reproduction" will someday be regarded as foolish? Because I agree, fully, damn the government for thinking they have any right to regulate what goes on with women. It isn't their damn business. My opinion is, if you want children, have 'em. If you don't, abort 'em and learn your lesson. Abortion is not to be used as regular birth control but it shouldn't be illegal either. Besides, I have successfully destroyed unwanted intruders without abortion before. Women should be allowed to control their reproductive organs. Not a government run by a bunch of male chauvinists that want to control women.

I love how you mentioned discarding old school "morals" for the sake of medical research. Society needs to get its stuff together so we can find a cure for cancer, at the expense of the expendable. I fully believe this.

Also I wonder if eugenics will ever be considered an acceptable process.

abortion and probably euthanasia won't be much of an issue in the future, I believe, with the human over-population

neither will using live subjects for medical and scientific research, if they were gonna die anyway

Lilja · 04-21-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exoskeletal

Does anybody think that we as a society are doing things and believing in things that will be frowned upon and shamed in the future?

For example...

Our people used to own slaves.
Women couldn't vote.
Homosexuality was COMPLETELY not allowed.
Even when slavery was abolished there was little civil rights.
Prohibition.

As a society we eventually came to our sense on these subjects but the way human history works is that it will never end. In 50 years we're going to look back and go "Wow were we in the wrong on that".

My question is what do you think that'll be?

I would think that what would be more frowned upon in the future are the societies that refuse to admit that most of the subjects mentioned go on somewhere in the world (or maybe in their own backyard..such as the slave trade. )or perhaps acknowledge it but little to nothing is done because it is thought of in the terms "that is their problem, they need to deal with it..it doesn't affect us really." Just a thought.

The Fascinating Turnip · 04-21-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

This is one of the most asinine and completely unrealistic statements I've ever heard. Prohibition works in theory, but never in practice? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?

Does this mean that you think prohibition works in practice? Or are you just up for cheap insults?

Howard the Duck · 04-21-2012, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unchained Ballad

Does this mean that you think prohibition works in practice? Or are you just up for cheap insults?

anticipation and tore are having some sort of feud

it started in the "Official Funny Picture Thread" over some scientific matter (of all things)

Guybrush · 04-21-2012, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howard the Duck

anticipation and tore are having some sort of feud

it started in the "Official Funny Picture Thread" over some scientific matter (of all things)

Yeah. I thought it ended in that thread, but it seems it didn't.

04-21-2012, 05:08 AM	#23 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	Criminalization of drugs does make sense. After all, if someone who would otherwise become an addict lives in a society where there are no drugs, then he or she would not become a drug addict and keeping drugs away from society could then be cheaper on society in many aspects than rehabilitating addicts would be. It only fails when "anti societal" forces make drugs available despite prohibition. I call them anti societal because the best thing would be for society to be drug free (at least of hard drugs), yet they make that optimal solution a near impossibility for their selfish want to make money on drugs. Perhaps keeping society drug free in the future will be more viable than it is today. __________________ Something Completely Different