Should animals other than humans be given rights?
For the survival of future generations and a healthy environment it might be wise not to reduce the size of wilderness and it is smart to even expand it. Wilderness may become a life saving healthy source of food when technology irresponsibly destroys the health of domesticated animals and plants used as a food source.
Factory farming of domesticated animals should probably be outlawed as cruel and unusual punishment for animals because it causes pain and suffering which is not advisable to introduce into the food chain. Factory farming is unhealthy in the long run because disease and genetically unfavorable mutations are introduced needing antibiotics and other artificial chemicals to maintain health. All these disadvantages are passed on to the humans and pets consuming the food which can be disastrous for overall health in the long duration.
Should we edit our children’s genomes?
If a fetus has a debilitating disease such as Down’s syndrome an abortion of the fetus is the best and most efficient response which prevents the unnecessary burden on the family and society if the parents can’t afford the cost of maintaining an undesirable mutant.
Enhancing a child’s ability with genes that improve memory or intelligence in general, improve the health of the child, and improve physical coordination or looks in general should be conditionally permitted. Since the long duration potential bad effects of gene manipulation are unknown it may be wise for the prospective parents to have to set up an escrow account of a million dollars or more in case the gene alteration results in mental or physical handicaps later in life. Society should not be burdened with genetic mutants which can potentially need monetary support from society if the parents can’t afford to fully pay for the genetic mistakes which they choose unwittingly.
Should we make everyone “normal”?
Chemicals in pill form and genetic alteration can make someone less aggressive, more empathetic, and less dominant and more forgiving.
Pills are already given to aggressive violent criminals in jail and many psychoactive pills prescribed by psychotherapists also make someone less aggressive and more docile. The real question is whether the government should force everyone to medicate themselves so that they are not so aggressive. If done this could result in a docile society unable to rebel against an unjust government and tyranny would become almost absolute on into the foreseeable future.
If individual parents make a choice to have genetically more docile empathetic children then if they can afford it they should be given the right to do so. Eugenics carried out to an extreme by the government was a disaster in Nazi Germany so I don’t think it is a good idea to make offspring more docile or more superior with a government mandate for all.
I don’t like the equality mindset of “normal” to begin with because it stirs up visions of cloned normal humans all looking alike and behaving the same. One of the great strengths of humans is that there is so much genetic diversity which makes humans less vulnerable to total destruction by contagious terminal diseases and makes life interesting with varied looks, varied personalities, and varied abilities in humans. The world would be a very boring place if everyone in the world was “normal”, whatever that really means.
Should we abandon privacy online?
In an age when international drug dealers and criminals frequent the internet it is logical to police the internet for these illegal fraud and scam artists to the maximum. If that means losing your personal internet privacy is the cost then so be it. If you are afraid that your posted illegal drug habits, alcoholism problems, promiscuity, profanity, immorality, thievery, verbal abuse, health problems, etc. will cause future employment problems or insurance rate increases then it will be a just punishment for your transgressions.
If you are leading an illegal life then you should be smart enough not to post your activities on the internet in the first place. I sort of foresee a time when every law abiding citizen will be vetted before they have internet rights in the first place. There is far too much fake information and fake news on the internet today which needs a remedy soon or the internet will become pure insecure chaos.
If you are rich and in positions of authority then you will have or can afford a relatively secure encryption to communicate relatively sensitive corporate and personal information which will not be as vulnerable to criminal observation or theft. For the common human, let’s face it, there is no information which they possess which will be a violation of national security so what they post is their responsibility and they should post responsibly.
Will this make you vulnerable to ruthless advertising ad intrusions into your life? Probably yes, but with time there will be web services which will minimize your exposure to ruthless ads from retailers and other service providers.
If you want to keep secrets then don’t post them on the internet in the first place!
Should we give robots the right to kill?
If you phrase this question into should robots be given the right to kill, maim, or incapacitate humans then the question is really what kind of humans and under what conditions? It is entirely possible that robots could replace swat teams to some extent and non lethally maim or incapacitate all the armed criminal gang members in a hideout.
Where there is a question of kidnappers holding innocent hostages but the identity of the kidnappers is known a robot may be used to save as many hostages as possible and maim or incapacitate the armed kidnappers, preferably with non lethal means.
Robot soldiers going after known terrorists or armed enemy military humans in a secluded jungle or well protected areas is also a valid possibility.
Yes, there is also the possibility of armed police officer robots chasing and apprehending fleeing criminals in a non lethal way. As long as these police officers were not given lethal arms then I would be in favor of it.
Finally robots could be used to kill or harvest invasive animal and plant species in the wilderness with surgical accuracy and probably more efficiently than human hunters and harvesters.
Yes, intelligent robots could be programmed to confront most armed criminals and enemy military soldiers but not in all situations and the right to actually kill but not maim or incapacitate a human should be postponed to very far into the future when robots will be considered to be intelligent and moral enough.
Should we let synthetic lifeforms loose?
It is now possible to genetically engineer microbes and animals and the question is should these new forms be let into the wild or environment? With microbes you could probably say that genetically engineering deadly or contagious strains like e coli bacteria, etc. could have devastating eventual effects on human populations if they were to be released into the environment. Even genetically modified fish released into the oceans could have bad serious long duration impacts such as mass displacement or destruction of natural species.
Genetically modified corn or GMO’s have already polluted organic farmlands and the wilderness could similarly be polluted with other GMO plant life displacing indigenous populations.
Human long duration health is the primary issue and if microbe, animal, or plant life can potentially harm human health then synthetic lifeforms are a serious danger and steps should be taken to ensure that they are not released into the environment.
As a general precaution all genetically modified food for human or domesticated animal consumption should be labeled as such so humans have a right to choose between an organic version and a genetically modified one. I doubt that the US has the wisdom or balls to pass such legislation due to big agribusiness political clout but it is a vital step to ensure the long duration health of the human population worldwide.
Should there be population control?
Western promiscuity, robotization, income inequality, and a relatively easy life are ensuring the destruction of family life and severe reduction in the population. Poverty in third world countries is controlling population to some extent but perhaps birth control measures should be propagandized more and serious attempts at world population control should be made.
The earth has finite resources which pollute the more that they are utilized, so human population growth should definitely be curtailed and any reduction in human population anywhere is a good thing for the planet in the long duration.
Conclusion:
Genetic manipulation is a strong scientific tool to use for good or bad purposes. Theoretically whatever can be used for good can also be used for bad purposes so the future will be plagued with bad uses also. In the long duration, most of humanity will probably survive the bad effects but the environment could potentially be very adversely affected.
If humanity does not survive in the long duration then it may not be such a bad thing because the other remaining lifeforms on earth will be liberated from human intrusion and pollution. Nature is a deceptive and ruthless predator and if humans go too far in their genetic manipulation and pollution they will be punished with death in one form or another.
If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4600 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.
For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.
Enjoy!!!!!!
If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!
uldissprogis 