Poll: For Men's Liberation do they need to have access to having their own children without a woman

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

The big issue with this of course is the transfer of immunity to the foetus from the mother. It is not just nutrients that the child receives from the mother, the mothers immune system keeps the child alive and increases the child's chances of survival outside the womb. The mothers transfer is not limited to inside or outside the womb, it is a combination of both that help the child survive.

Honestly, that is one of the least difficult technical hurdles to the whole thing.

No, that is not the case at all. The Immune system is far more complicated than that. One of the reasons premature infants are so susceptible is that they had not received enough antibodies from the mother at the time of birth to survive outside the womb. They would need a constant flow of constantly changing antibodies to the infant in order replicate that. Constant changes in environmental factors ALSO impact the mother's antibodies that are being passed, as the immune system is altered by everything the mother eats to what germs and chemicals she comes into contact with every day. It is not as simple as vaccinating a child, as how the mother's immune system responds impacts how the child's immune system develops in the first place.

ALSO you should understand men's and women's immune systems are not the same:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/07/womens-immune-system-genes-operate-differently-from-mens.html

Satinavian:
That will come anyway and i look a bit forward to it.

How? By illegal research only? What EtC is talking about would require research an ethics board wouldn't allow.

Progress stalled a bit after cloning proved to be more difficult than expected but because children are that important people won't stop trying to improve their chances even before birth if the opportunity arises.

That type of 'progress' isn't 'progress' and lack any social, economic, or scientific benefit. It is not only a flagrant waste of money, it is a debasement of all things we seek to uphold as unassailable. That sort of thing warrants terrorism to subvert if a government has lost all capacity to judge in the cause of basic considerations of civil liberty and common justice.

And yeah ... I'd be one of those people preparing to blow up labs if there was such human experimentation against their wishes to create such a society.

The only downside is that the kind of genetic manipulation that will fisrt become available is stuff that already exists in other humans and of which we know the results. Aside from removing hereditary deseases that will mean the availability to modify stuff associated with race. And that will lead to problems.

That's because it's ethical to treat illnesses. We can ascertain the rightand wrong of suffering because we can see it. That isscores different from the human experimentation that may perpetually interfere with humanity's pursuitof happiness and self-ownership. There's an ethical line there, and crossing it is as close to evil as we can recognize.

I have no problem with cybernetics or posthumanism through elective systems of neuroprosthetic integration ... but then again, that places no debt burdens on the unborn. The humans thatcome after us owe us nothing, and we owe them a future. Utilitarianism must prevail when we speak of science and technological innovation.

Technology without morality is insane.

Lil devils x:
No, that is not the case at all.

I didn't want to say that it is easy. Just that it is far easier than the other technological problem that have to be solved to make this fantasy possible. To be honest, i don't thing children without women will be anywhere near possible in the next 50 years, probably even far longer.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
How? By illegal research only? What EtC is talking about would require research an ethics board wouldn't allow.

Illegal ? Not sure it is illegal everywhere. And certainly not sure it stays illegal where it is now when it becomes feasable.

Sure, they probably won't touch humans until the process is refined with custom made animals. But morals change, when genetic manipulation with animals is something normal and manipulation of mamals won't come with increased chances of miscarriage or unintended side effects, the promise to get rid of genetic defects with prove too alluring. What now is deemed unethical will eventually be seen as acceptable. And countries that keep the ban will be seen as backwater antiscience places faliciating unneccessary harm. Especcially as the two groups that are more likely to intervene against that are religious zealots because "you must not temper with God's creation" and racists because of "racial purity and the traits of ancestors must be upheld".

I predict we will see custom modification of humans in the next 30 years. And then it will take at neast another two decades until it is widespread and affordable.

That's because it's ethical to treat illnesses. We can ascertain the rightand wrong of suffering because we can see it. That isscores different from the human experimentation that may perpetually interfere with humanity's pursuitof happiness and self-ownership. There's an ethical line there, and crossing it is as close to evil as we can recognize.

Why would it interfere with pursuit of happyness? Why with the principle of self-ownership ?

altnameJag:
Y'all know that adoption's a thing, right?

Just, like, take a kid. Might have to fight the government if you want to do it alone with with another dude, but still easier than artificial wombs and cloning.

Cripes.

Adoption is taking someone else' kid. What will it take for a man to be as likely to have his own kid as a woman is to be able to have one? Until then, I do not think men are as liberated from needing a woman as they are from needing a man (a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.) Would men even want that? Would women object? From what I'm reading in this thread: 1: No. Men don't want that. 2: Women would object. Interesting so far.

Men who see women as something to be freed from probably should not be having children to begin with.

Satinavian:

Illegal ? Not sure it is illegal everywhere. And certainly not sure it stays illegal where it is now when it becomes feasable.

Feasible, how? What you're talking about is modification at the foetal level.

Sure, they probably won't touch humans until the process is refined with custom made animals. But morals change, when genetic manipulation with animals is something normal and manipulation of mamals won't come with increased chances of miscarriage or unintended side effects, the promise to get rid of genetic defects with prove too alluring.

But it won't involve grown humans, so yeah ... arguably it's adults willing to bring to term living human experiments. People who had no choice in the matter, and people for whom will in the process themselves be rendered infertile because wewould have no cast iron certainties of what it might mean in the future.

There is a massive gap, a massive line in the sand, between animal experimentation and active human experimentation with people who have no say in the matter. Any society willing to go to those lengths is one where the right to life, the core fundamental precept of humans that elevate them above beasts, is completely and utterly overturned.

What now is deemed unethical will eventually be seen as acceptable. And countries that keep the ban will be seen as backwater antiscience places faliciating unneccessary harm. Especcially as the two groups that are more likely to intervene against that are religious zealots because "you must not temper with God's creation" and racists because of "racial purity and the traits of ancestors must be upheld".

But this is not a religious debate, this is a bioethics debate. And there are plenty of less extreme experimentation that wouldn't pass muster now than there is those in the past.

As time has gone on, bioethical debates over the extent of live human experimentation has increased, no decreased. The bioethical standards have increased, not decreased.

So much so that it will be a cold day in Hell when people can replicate even something like the Milgram authority experiments. And the reasons for not allowing those anymore is merely undue emotional trauma and overt psychological manipulation.

I predict we will see custom modification of humans in the next 30 years. And then it will take at neast another two decades until it is widespread and affordable.

I predict the research will be geared at treating illness, not modification for modification sake. Solely because of existing safeguards and existing prohibitions on live human experimentation without consent.

Why would it interfere with pursuit of happyness? Why with the principle of self-ownership ?

Because the extents by which people are talking about run too high a risk of unfairly impinging onthe rights of the unborn that will, by necessity, have to be brought to term and live the consequences of those actions.

Those moral arguments do not exist for treating illness. See, if we have a guarantee a human is going to die or be violently ill and we have experimental means to treat that, then the argument can be made for said genetic modification. There is, however, no argument to be made about designer babies that radically change our relationship to our humanity who will have to live with the consequences in perpetuity.

No such qualms exist with neuroprosthetics because neuroprosthetics aren't infectious nor are destined to carry a shadow over all of humanity's future.

If we start getting governments wholesale thinking live human experimentation without consent is viable for the """progress""" of humanity, it's time to break out the 'Bomb-making for Dummies' manuals and finding suitable targets for regime change.

If you take liberation to refer to anything that increases your options and independence, sure. It's a bit of a stretch to call that 'liberation' though. It seems to suggest that an inability to work biological miracles is a form of unreasonable oppression. It might be possible in time, and I wouldn't neccesarily be opposed to people having babies by themselves. At the moment it seems a bit irrelevant though, since unless I am mistaken, nobody knows how to create a baby with at least some kind of input from two humans of the different sexes.

Ah, damn you error 504, you have tricked me into a double post.

Satinavian:

Thaluikhain:
Yeah, no, statistical on rapes and murders and political suppression would indicate otherwise. Hell, even in common or garden genocides, it's usually men doing it, and statistically most of them would be straight. Plenty of female victims, though.

If you bring that up thrn you should also admit that the majority of victoms in genocides tend also to be male.

Given that the topic was men killing women, I saw no need for "but men suffer too!!!!". Also, I'd have thought gender ratios of genocide victims were more or less 50-50, but I've no hard evidence for that.

Thaluikhain:
Given that the topic was men killing women, I saw no need for "but men suffer too!!!!". Also, I'd have thought gender ratios of genocide victims were more or less 50-50, but I've no hard evidence for that.

This sidetopic was about likelihood of gender based genocide. And i dare say that if in most genocides the primary targets were men and boys, i think a genocide against women alone is less likely than basically any other form of genocide.

Also, no, ratio was rarely 50:50. Quite a number of genocides had excusively male victims and in many others males or male children were tageted first and only after further escalation women were killed too.

The only ones that get near 50:50 are those done via some bizarre bureaucracy making sure to get everyone and those done via poison/desease or mass starvation when the target group is seperated enough.

Has probably something to do with the "threatening other" being male. And maybe there is a hint of "they are after our women."

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Not me. Frankly it would be disastrous and inethical to allow wholesale genetic manipulation of the unborn. Not only are you inviting a whole host of bioethical problems yhat may emerge (such as future planning and problems for public health) ... but also stealing peopld away from actuslly owning themselves completely.

I don't know. I don't think the fiction of self-ownership ever applied to DNA, nor was it ever designed to. You have no choice what you're made of, you have no choice whether you inherit the congenital heart defect your family has died of for hundreds of years, whether you're going to be tall enough to play professional basketball or whether the genetic lottery will give you model features or a face like a squashed potato. You "own" whatever is left once genetics is done with you.

I think the fear here is not losing self-ownership, but the fear of having someone to blame or (more terrifying still) the fear of being responsible and of potentially being blamed for the flaws that previously could have been written off as "acts of God" or for failing to keep up with the ever-changing standards of human aesthetics. It's a risk with any form of scientific control - playing God entails Godlike responsibility. That isn't an excuse to shy away from it.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
But the latent narcissism of said fututistic technological state involved that should see a person utterly divorce themselves from any mollifying hesitation to procreate without active socialization and interpersonal discourse terrifies me to the core.

Weirdly, it doesn't frighten me.

The abuse is already there. It was always there. The family is not a good place. It has never been a good place. I don't think it was a good place in literal nature, and I don't think appeals to nature will make it better. Sure, technology won't make people more moral (at least, not directly) but it also won't make them any worse than they already are. The problem was never technological control, the problem was always us.

Another humanity is possible, and if it isn't.. well then eventually some ape is going to nuke another ape over access to resources or some bullshit and life will come to an abrupt end on this infinitesimally small planet which never really mattered anyway. Even that wouldn't be the worst, I don't think. It was a pretty good run.

evilthecat:

I don't know. I don't think the fiction of self-ownership ever applied to DNA, nor was it ever designed to. You have no choice what you're made of, you have no choice whether you inherit the congenital heart defect your family has died of for hundreds of years, whether you're going to be tall enough to play professional basketball or whether the genetic lottery will give you model features or a face like a squashed potato. You "own" whatever is left once genetics is done with you.

But there is a massive difference between fixing a congenital heart disease and wanting your child to be taller. The reason why I say this is a self-ownership problem is precisely because it runs the risk of 'shortcuts' and human life as a consumer item.

For starters, tailoring human existence right from the womb.

Let's say if you could genetically engineer a human to better withstand the rigours of longterm deep space habitation? Why wouldn't you? But is the occupation of space by developing a caste society worth it? Of course not. The ideal is we develop the technology that allows many of us to sustainably survive in deep space without it.

Like any challenge to human endeavour should be met with the idea we do not forcibly inflict upon the rights of future generations to occupy it or not. We have no right to create a caste society whereby we create a splinter group of humans designed for the express purpose of space travel. That technology should remain tools of our self-elected creativity to endeavour, not shackle us to a society of manufactured differences that those who will come after will suffer for.

I'm not a structuralist, but one can obviously see the ethical, social, and scientific implications of creating such a society can we not?

It is far safer to say the commodification of human value ends at the womb.

Humans should not be reduced to machines nor should our machines fundamentally alter our perception of our collective humanity that those that come afterwards can have no capacity to escape for themselves. All human suffering has a basis in manipulation and apathy to fight it.

The benefits of computers can be best realized by people willingly going without them.

Genetically engineering humans straightof the womb because people wish to reduce them to a consumerable of what is fashionable, or merely what is expedient, is neither good for humanity on a technological front ... but also undermines humanity's very special relatonship to the universe.

Fixing a congenital heart disease allows people to live a better life akin to a collective consciousness of the human condition does not do this. Designer babies for the cause of what is fashionable or expedient is reducing the value of the human experience and reducing it to a consumer good.

It holds no social, technological, or humanitarian value to do so.

Weirdly, it doesn't frighten me.

The abuse is already there. It was always there. The family is not a good place. It has never been a good place. I don't think it was a good place in literal nature, and I don't think appeals to nature will make it better. Sure, technology won't make people more moral (at least, not directly) but it also won't make them any worse than they already are. The problem was never technological control, the problem was always us.

Allowing parents to have more egotistical designs on their children as if they were property rather than responsibilities to love and grant their own ideas of self-empowerment is at the core of the problem. Technology requires morality. The whole 'guns don't kill people' argument is apt even if used in incredibly silly ways.

Scientfically speaking we're better for the fact that something like a Unit 731 existed ... but technologically and socially speaking we're better by its example, and none of us could fault someone for lining them up and having them all promptly shot if history was sufficiently altered (and history was replete with examples of common justice).

As much as I admonish the death penalty ... Unit 731 is where it is far harder to justify admonishing that standard. One of the reasons why I say wanton live human experimentation without consent for the sake of the commodification of human value warrants terrorism to undo. At that point I truly believe apathy to act is a worse attribute that strapping bombs to laboratories and key personnel's private vehicles. For I can perceive no worse form of tyranny than pretending any and all scientific endeavour is amoral.

Technology requires morality for technology to be useful. There is no fundamental good in technological endeavour if it reduces all ofus to guinea pigs or mindlessly robs of us a collective ideal of our equal inheritance to the future and of our humanity.

Science is a tool. It has no essentialist goodness. It espouses no objective truth on its own. Science is valuable because it empowers people to seek out a deeper collective interpretation of ourselves as the universe recognizing itself. But that should only help heighten a scientist's respect for human life.

Science is only good by the intentions of the people that labour in its name, and that tool--like the surgeon's scalpel that can save or inflict--gains its humanity by its application. The 'best' of medicine is not to tell a patient how to live, but allows a patient to live more freely. After all, medicine is not merely governed by understanding the body, but also understanding the dignity of the patient. That is the best that medicine can be, and it's hard to argue otherwise.

What dignity can there be if it is inflicted and seeks only to transform people into commodities of another's ego to control it without consent? Science cannot (should not) be a tool of paternalism of the species, and science can be immoral given it is supplicant to the will of its user... like all aspects of our humanity, it can exist in a state whereby it is deleterious to human dignity precisely because it is a human construct.

The reason why we have ethics boards is because science solely in its name, not in how humans can (should) elect their relationship to its study, is insanity.

The worst crimes in history are on the basis of manipulation and apathy to recognize our collective humanity. Science is a shorthand for hubris if we fail to recognize that. How often do you see people justifying warfare because it spurs on technological innovation? Surely we can't allow ourselves to be so jaded, so dead inside, so utterly divorced of our human beauty, to pretend then that the war itself has merit on those grounds?

Try as hard as we might to ignore it, Oppenheimer had a point in quoting the Bhagavad Gita and a good reason to become so depressed and disillusioned.

We cannot afford science being treated as if amoral on its own. It can leave Earth a tomb and it can shackle humans to living nightmares of their own creation. Science and technology is no less subject to our moral responsibility to implement our foresight to the best of our abilities, and decide whether it is worth it.

When foresight fails us to decide, best to be cautious. There are horrors out there that exist well and truly into perpetuity simply because we failed in this basic aspect of utilitarianism. Soviet/U.S. Bioweapons Program, for instance.

There are exploits of our consciousness that is merely insane... being able to replicate that insanity in a laboratory does not make it better or less insane. Humans will persist quite happily without knowing how to hypothetically double the r0 of smallpox, increase its environmental resistances, and give it a 11 day mortality rate of 90%.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

But there is a massive difference between fixing a congenital heart disease and wanting your child to be taller. The reason why I say this is a self-ownership problem is precisely because it runs the risk of 'shortcuts' and human life as a consumer item.

Size is not that good an example because it depends mostly on other things. But ignoring that, if we have the technology to cure genetic defects we have also the technology to make cosmetic changes. We can't develop one without the other. Which means this whole "immoral research" argument falls flat.

Let's say if you could genetically engineer a human to better withstand the rigours of longterm deep space habitation? Why wouldn't you? But is the occupation of space by developing a caste society worth it? Of course not. The ideal is we develop the technology that allows many of us to sustainably survive in deep space without it.

And the other problem is this. No, i don't see a problem with that. Why should it be immoral to make humans better at tasks that will likely be needed in their life ? Only to uphold the illusions of "everyone has equal opportunities" and "everyone can choose whatever job he/she likes" ? Both are not truly the case as it is. But we pretend otherwise because the idea of inherent unequality is uncomfortable. So much easier to blame the unsuccessfull for their lack of success based on "but they choose their life circumstances".
I can see why we lie to ourselves this way. But to abandon a whole avenue of transhumanism just to uphold this lie ? No, thanks.
And considering again your specific example of longterm deep space habitation, do you really believe that artificial adaption to deep space habitation is limiting peoples choices more than being on a generation ship for their whole life in the first place ?

The reason why we have ethics boards is because science solely in its name, not in how humans can (should) elect their relationship to its study, is insanity.

I have no problem with that. I just don't think genetic modification of humans is inherently unethical. Or that science boards should on principle decide against it if it comes up. The main reason not to do this kind of research is that we are not good enough at genetic modifications just jet and any attempt with animals is prone to produce lots of failures to be discarded. Which would not be acceptable for humans.

Satinavian:

I predict we will see custom modification of humans in the next 30 years. And then it will take at neast another two decades until it is widespread and affordable.

Might be a little optimistic on those timescales, but...

In reality, I think there will be huge opposition to custom modifications (beyond altering clear defects); it will break down because it will end up doable somewhere in some jurisdicrion, and people will travel to use it (much like euthanasia). In the end, restictions will gradually fall away.

Problems with custom-built humans might be more societal, however. Firstly, it will facilitate huge potential advantages for the wealthy wh can afford them, which are going to be intensely resented. Although that said, bear in mind some parents will start getting the idea that the child is their purchased product, rather than an independent human being. Thus the risk of damage to family dynamics may also emerge.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Let's say if you could genetically engineer a human to better withstand the rigours of longterm deep space habitation? Why wouldn't you? But is the occupation of space by developing a caste society worth it? Of course not. The ideal is we develop the technology that allows many of us to sustainably survive in deep space without it.

1) Why assume that physical heterogeneity would result in a caste based society?
2) Why assume that genetic engineering (and physical alteration of the body) will only ever be possible at the level of a single cell? Sure, it's undeniably the easiest, but viral vectors can already be used to introduce new DNA into living organisms, for example.

In the former case, it seems to me entirely up to us whether any form of physical heterogeneity results in a caste based society, or whether such differences are seen as part of the exciting diversity of a (arguably post-) human society which no longer needs to obsess over the peculiarities of heredity because at the end of the day it's all mutable.

Just because our parents sucked doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes, either on the individual or societal level. Just because our society is scarred by racism and built on exploitation doesn't mean we have to keep inventing new forms of racism or new grounds for exploitation. That's a grim view of human potential, and one that probably won't actually protect anyone from the possible excesses of new technology. Anything which can be done to a rat can be done to a human being. The way out of that is not to close our eyes and pretend it isn't true, but to build a society which is kinder and more empathic, perhaps even kinder to rats, and to machines for that matter.

Agema:
Firstly, it will facilitate huge potential advantages for the wealthy wh can afford them, which are going to be intensely resented.

Not if we eat them first.

Satinavian:
Size is not that good an example because it depends mostly on other things. But ignoring that, if we have the technology to cure genetic defects we have also the technology to make cosmetic changes. We can't develop one without the other. Which means this whole "immoral research" argument falls flat.

Unethical... not immoral. There is a difference. One suggests that genetic manipulation is immoral, the prior assumes aspects of it, like any techmology, can be immmoral. And how exactly does one follow the pther? That's ridiculous. One suggests medicine to assist and undertaken clinical trials under the understanding that the cost of inactivity is a lower potential living quality.

The other is unacceptable risks that have no merit in being clinically explored. People don't die if they're born with blue eyes and the parents desperately wanted green.

And the other problem is this. No, i don't see a problem with that. Why should it be immoral to make humans better at tasks that will likely be needed in their life ? Only to uphold the illusions of "everyone has equal opportunities" and "everyone can choose whatever job he/she likes" ? Both are not truly the case as it is. But we pretend otherwise because the idea of inherent unequality is uncomfortable. So much easier to blame the unsuccessfull for their lack of success based on "but they choose their life circumstances".
I can see why we lie to ourselves this way. But to abandon a whole avenue of transhumanism just to uphold this lie?

Or it could be that it's a pathetic notion of transhumanism. Born of idiocy.

No, thanks.
And considering again your specific example of longterm deep space habitation, do you really believe that artificial adaption to deep space habitation is limiting peoples choices more than being on a generation ship for their whole life in the first place ?

Absolutely not. Necessary misdeeds cannot be surpassed. Bad things happen in war that can't be avoided because it's war...

But wanton misdeeds can be. The argument that we should genetically engineer humans solely because we want to put them on a generation ship is a line we shouldn't cross. Moreover generation starships is an extroadinary leap from a more feasible aspect of longterm habitation off-world.

I have no problem with that. I just don't think genetic modification of humans is inherently unethical.

Which would be fine if that's what I wrote. I have no problems with treating illness... what I have a problem with is genetic manipulation for more than ending suffering. It's far more effective and ethical to simply improve our technological capacities to better meet new challenges. Same as always.

We want to go further, we build a bigger rocket.

Humans should have better tools, not be reduced to a tool.

evilthecat:

1) Why assume that physical heterogeneity would result in a caste based society?

Because how wouldn't it? If we're deadset on sending humans to space longterm, we should improve the tools. Not assume the human at birth is too flawed to achieve the milestones that allow that more forgiving technological state to be realized through ingenuity.

If we're chronically manipulating the human form to fulfil a task, it looks little from a feudal state. People manipulated to performing a specific role, and all their offspring carrying that mutational quality for which will carry its own unacceptable risks.

2) Why assume that genetic engineering (and physical alteration of the body) will only ever be possible at the level of a single cell? Sure, it's undeniably the easiest, but viral vectors can already be used to introduce new DNA into living organisms, for example.

Because any radical departure of form is best realized by zygote manipulation. As far as I'm aware, the capacity for targeted genetic manipulation is more effective. After all... not only is it cheaper, more direct, more selective, and easier... gene therapy has limitations and is comprehensively more dangerous.

After all... you can terminate a foetus that is undesireable. Moreover, this discussion started with conception through gene manipulation and designer pregnancy.

In the former case, it seems to me entirely up to us whether any form of physical heterogeneity results in a caste based society, or whether such differences are seen as part of the exciting diversity of a (arguably post-) human society which no longer needs to obsess over the peculiarities of heredity because at the end of the day it's all mutable.

It's a diversity that carries a shadow. Such people of targeted genetic manipulation to such a state will require constant supervision. Moreover likely enforced sterility given how exactly can we trust two or three generations down the line?

People for whom couldn't have adopted for such actions as their antecedents. It may even compound and create illnesses for which exponentially increase costs of treatment, or effectiveness of current treatments. In a way it may be worse than parents choosing not to vaccinate their children... in a sense, either choosing not to have sire their own biologically connected offspring ... or excessive monitoring of unknown quantities.

Moreover, why are we even doing this?

Just because our parents sucked doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes, either on the individual or societal level. Just because our society is scarred by racism and built on exploitation doesn't mean we have to keep inventing new forms of racism or new grounds for exploitation. That's a grim view of human potential, and one that probably won't actually protect anyone from the possible excesses of new technology. Anything which can be done to a rat can be done to a human being. The way out of that is not to close our eyes and pretend it isn't true, but to build a society which is kinder and more empathic, perhaps even kinder to rats, and to machines for that matter.

My idea is 'improve the tools, not reduce the human' ...

Any technological endeavour should be made with the ultimate pursuit of, one day, the 'weakest' of us can take advsntage of a chain of endeavours to benefit all humanity.

Neuroprosthetics, BCI, thusly, in my mind is the only decent pursuit to a transhumsn or hypothetical posthuman state. Things that can be worked on, improved, self-elected, and treat actual suffering while exploring true connrctivity and mastery over the tools of our collective genius is far superior.

Genetic manipulation cannot offer the liberty, or means of continual improvement, or the true self-election of alteration as neuroprosthetics and BCI. Neuroprosthetics will allow you to share sense data with other humans in realtime. Allow you to control machines across the world... simulate entire universes of collective thought.

We can literally fabricate realities with a thought at that hypothetical end point. Genetic manipulation is a dead end.... one with a shadow that is ultimately going to injure people longterm and diminish true excellence of technological achievement.

The idea that we improve the tools of our collective genius, not shackle humanity forever. No shortcuts. No substitute for a true hypothetical posthuman state. And that is far more preferable than designer humans.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Because how wouldn't it? If we're deadset on sending humans to space longterm, we should improve the tools. Not assume the human at birth is too flawed to achieve the milestones that allow that more forgiving technological state to be realized through ingenuity.

Without meaning to get sidetracked on this specific example. Who wants to live in space anyway? Space totally sucks balls. No atmosphere, no gravity, no safe temperature, no oxygen, horrible cosmic radiation, no protection from meteorites and other junk, nothing to eat, no easy access to fuel, a crappy 10km/s barrier which has to be crossed in order to get anywhere which has any of these things. The only good thing in space is rocks, and Earth has loads rocks. Space has a lot of sun too, I guess, but as far as humans are concerned it's the bad kind of sun.

Which is not to say humans won't live in space for weird personal reasons, and in the extreme long term maybe space stations will get so good that they're effectively little earths. But ultimately, no matter how shitty earth gets, it's probably still better than space, no matter how modified you are.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
If we're chronically manipulating the human form to fulfil a task, it looks little from a feudal state. People manipulated to performing a specific role, and all their offspring carrying that mutational quality for which will carry its own unacceptable risks.

Well, if that's the criteria of a feudal state we already live in one, just one we have no control over.

And remember, if we can genetically engineer children, then noone's children need to carry any quality of their parents. The only question here is access, and to a much lesser extent that of meeting the demands of a functioning society, but even that can be worked around to a degree.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Moreover, why are we even doing this?

Why not?

If we cannot own our genetic information, then what can we possibly own in this universe?

In our current world, there are many reasons and not all of them may be nice. People may want to create human beings who are better at being weapons, or better at being labourers, or who are capable of performing all kinds of instrumental cognitive tasks. Again, the problem here is selfishness, the problem here is exploitation, the problem here is the utilitarian view of the individual as a cog in the capitalist machine or the promise of being able to rise to the top in order to become a "worthwhile" life. These are all problems of our society, they're problems which already lead to people being oppressed and brutalized.

Take this society away, and most people, I think, will want the same thing. They will want their children to be happy, to live long and healthy lives and to have the potential to excel at whatever they choose. We cannot guaruntee them that, but we can perhaps help them along the way. Would they hate us so much for that?

evilthecat:

Without meaning to get sidetracked on this specific example. Who wants to live in space anyway? Space totally sucks balls. No atmosphere, no gravity, no safe temperature, no oxygen, horrible cosmic radiation, no protection from meteorites and other junk, nothing to eat, no easy access to fuel, a crappy 10km/s barrier which has to be crossed in order to get anywhere which has any of these things. The only good thing in space is rocks, and Earth has loads rocks. Space has a lot of sun too, I guess, but as far as humans are concerned it's the bad kind of sun.

Which is not to say humans won't live in space for weird personal reasons, and in the extreme long term maybe space stations will get so good that they're effectively little earths. But ultimately, no matter how shitty earth gets, it's probably still better than space, no matter how modified you are.

I agree 100% ... we will likely never find any place as good as Earth even if we journeyed outwards thousands of light years. It would take a catastrophe of significant proportions to make that any different. But the fact remains that many critical civilization-dependent resources exist outside our terrestrial sphere. And assuming there is any barest connection between total consumption and living quality, access to space is crucial.

And when the time lag between Earth and the Moon is 2.7 seconds that becomes a barrier to high-level activity... and that's assuming you're right next to it and facing it. If you're not, you're relying on an increasingly elabourate network of artificial satellites and ground-based communications assets which might double the time lag... and that's assuming no other solar events that might spell problematic issues with connection speed.

And that's just the Moon. Asteroid landings and precision course corrections to retrieve them and bring them closer to Earth is going to require profound degrees of control and the time lag is going to be even worse. And the economic incentive to do it is there because some of these asteroids contain enough rare earths to fuel advanced industry for years on their own.

The U.S. needed observation posts in Australia to broadcast the first Moon landing, for example. It's not like the U.S. didn'thave their own comms assets like Australia's, it was simply because of geography and stellar alignment. Assuming any extensive, multi-entity activity on the Moon is going to require a certain degree of proximity, and persistent proximity at that.

For example, celestial object detection and immediate anti-collision maneuvres to avoid a possible Keppler effect scenario.

Something that is going to require near-instantaneous reaction. Another example is spacewalking for high-precision repairs.

That's not to say I realistically expect humans to land on comets ... but drones, certainly. And regardless of whether they are autonomous or human-guided, connection speed and reliability is always going to be a factor.

Well, if that's the criteria of a feudal state we already live in one, just one we have no control over.

How? Nothing is stopping us having free universities to learn various praxis, technical skills, and foundational knowledge sets.

Gaddafi offered free housing, education (primary to tertiary), universal healthcare, social welfare stipend, and electricity (and internet if I remember correctly?) to all Libyan citizenry. That is everything a person needs and could desire in terms of carving out their own control over life. If you couldn't study something in Libya, the state paid for you to study abroad.

If you wanted desperately to be a farmer, the state operating a land greening and irrigation project second to none, and gave you free land parcels so long as your goods were sold through a centralized authority for distribution.

Now that was Libya (prior NATO bombing it back to Iron Age mythology in support of Saudi-backed mercenaries and Salafists). How exactly is that level of personal control over making your own life a feudal state?

And remember, if we can genetically engineer children, then noone's children need to carry any quality of their parents. The only question here is access, and to a much lesser extent that of meeting the demands of a functioning society, but even that can be worked around to a degree.

No, they'll just be contractually obliged to fulfil a service. A person genetically engineered to put up best with longterm low-gravity exposure is likely to be sent to space in lieu of someone who simply trains their entire life and is willing to risk their bodies in that pursuit.

Is romance and passion so dead?

Why not?

If we cannot own our genetic information, then what can we possibly own in this universe?

Our actions? To put it pointedly, if you were a fabrication of merely your parent's desires, even if only assumed rather than in reality (because genetic manipulation can only go so far, and not as far as romanticised) ... then how much of your personal history do you own?

Nobody wants to achieve a doctorate and spend the rest of their lives assuming (rightfully or not) that it was only because their parents dictated their foetal development through genetic manipulation. Moreover, no one wants to spend their lives living in the public eye of those thinking they don't deserve it.

In our current world, there are many reasons and not all of them may be nice. People may want to create human beings who are better at being weapons, or better at being labourers, or who are capable of performing all kinds of instrumental cognitive tasks. Again, the problem here is selfishness, the problem here is exploitation, the problem here is the utilitarian view of the individual as a cog in the capitalist machine or the promise of being able to rise to the top in order to become a "worthwhile" life. These are all problems of our society, they're problems which already lead to people being oppressed and brutalized.

But selfishness is the only reason why such live human experimentation would occur.

I think you're forgetting about the sheer cost in human suffering that will occur through the pursuit of what can only be a romanticised idea of control over human physiology. Certainly you can point to rocket failures in the pursuit of space exploration, but that isn't 'selfishness' in the same sense as humans being bred to perform a task.

What other motivations are there for doing as such?

Moreover, arguably the extensive degree of genetic manipulations and the benefits that may arise for it are simply not worth that cost that it would demand.

Treating extensive illness carries none of that weight, because quite clearly the person is going to suffer if nothing is done. But if there is no suffering, then by what utilitarian ideal can we subscribe to making it so parentscan have the greenest of green eyed children possible?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
How? Nothing is stopping us having free universities to learn various praxis, technical skills, and foundational knowledge sets.

And nothing would stop a genetically altered person from doing the same, would it?

I feel like, in the struggle to oppose genetic determinism, what you're indulging is an extreme form of technological determinism, that merely having the ability to do something predisposes literally everything about the kind of society that will result.

If physical heterogeny, or even actual real varying degrees of indiviudual physical and cognitive ability, means we live in a feudal state, then we already do. Our "free universities" are already weighted to favour certain groups, we already have self-replicating "castes" organized on the basis of perceived ability or natural competences which are marked by physical differences.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
No, they'll just be contractually obliged to fulfil a service. A person genetically engineered to put up best with longterm low-gravity exposure is likely to be sent to space in lieu of someone who simply trains their entire life and is willing to risk their bodies in that pursuit.

Isn't this the plot of Gattaca, but more silly?

I mean, I love Gattaca, but it's a metaphor. It's a metaphor which allows able bodied people to perceive the social effects of disability through imagining a world in which their own "normal" bodies would be considered disabled. This planet is already full of people who could never have become astronauts, no matter how hard they trained or worked. The people who go to Mars will be intensely, intensely scrutinised down to the cellular level for the slightest abnormality which could threaten the mission. The only difference between this and your scenario is that it comes down to the roll of the dice.

But again, in real terms sending people to space is a dumb idea. People are heavy, soft, breakable components whose minimal utility is eclipsed by the expendable nature of automated alternatives. Genetic engineering won't fix that.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Our actions? To put it pointedly, if you were a fabrication of merely your parent's desires, even if only assumed rather than in reality (because genetic manipulation can only go so far, and not as far as romanticised) ... then how much of your personal history do you own?

The same amount I already do. No more, and no less.

A few decades ago, some random teenagers fucked. I didn't exist yet, so I couldn't say "wait a second, that sperm looks way cooler than this one, I want to be fertilized by that one so I can play professional basketball". The entire process was beyond my control. None of us literally asked to be born. Some of us weren't even planned, just life squooshing against life to make more life, random, chaotic and completely at the mercy of people laughably ill equipped to foresee the magnitude of the consequences.

Being the product of someone else's bad decisions isn't so bad. We all manage it, somehow.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Nobody wants to achieve a doctorate and spend the rest of their lives assuming (rightfully or not) that it was only because their parents dictated their foetal development through genetic manipulation.

And noone has to, any more than they have to assume that the only reason is because their parents read to them every night and paid for a private tutor to get them through that one maths course in high school.

But again, I know plenty of people who could never get doctorates, no matter how hard they studied. There are people who can't tie their own shoelaces. It strikes me as a little insulting to those people to pretend that everything we do is the result of our own hard work, that we're just as deserving as anyone and that nothing contributed to or made possible our success save the things under our control.

evilthecat:

And nothing would stop a genetically altered person from doing the same, would it?

I feel like, in the struggle to oppose genetic determinism, what you're indulging is an extreme form of technological determinism, that merely having the ability to do something predisposes literally everything about the kind of society that will result.

If physical heterogeny, or even actual real varying degrees of indiviudual physical and cognitive ability, means we live in a feudal state, then we already do. Our "free universities" are already weighted to favour certain groups, we already have self-replicating "castes" organized on the basis of perceived ability or natural competences which are marked by physical differences.

What, so all ethical standards and risk avoidance is therefore morally relativistic? I feel like you're skirting over the latter part of my argument because you do have a certain degree of social safeguards for a reason, despite inequal in application.

But selfishness is the only reason why such live human experimentation would occur.

I think you're forgetting about the sheer cost in human suffering that will occur through the pursuit of what can only be a romanticised idea of control over human physiology. Certainly you can point to rocket failures in the pursuit of space exploration, but that isn't 'selfishness' in the same sense as humans being bred to perform a task.

What other motivations are there for doing as such?

Moreover, arguably the extensive degree of genetic manipulations and the benefits that may arise for it are simply not worth that cost that it would demand.

Treating extensive illness carries none of that weight, because quite clearly the person is going to suffer if nothing is done. But if there is no suffering, then by what utilitarian ideal can we subscribe to making it so parents can have the greenest of green eyed children possible?

Isn't this the plot of Gattaca, but more silly?

Not really, because arguably Gattaca didn't predicate itself on an idea of massive suffering for some ridiculous idea of 'greater good' that may emerge by treating something like extensive genetic manipulation as merely amoral pursuit.

But again, in real terms sending people to space is a dumb idea. People are heavy, soft, breakable components whose minimal utility is eclipsed by the expendable nature of automated alternatives. Genetic engineering won't fix that.

Genetic engineering won't do a lot of things people will pretend it will. But sending humans to space isn't a dumb idea, however ... there's only so much you can do from Earth, and we've yet to find an A.I. be able to determine the difference between a doorknob you depress or twist to open.

And despite spending decades trying to confront this very basic problem we've gotten nowhere. Ultimately the supreme complexity of space exploration might make it impossible to totally automate. There is also the argument that we climb mountains simply because they're there. Humans are at their best when they undertake challenges in spite of themselves.

The same amount I already do. No more, and no less.

A few decades ago, some random teenagers fucked. I didn't exist yet, so I couldn't say "wait a second, that sperm looks way cooler than this one, I want to be fertilized by that one so I can play professional basketball". The entire process was beyond my control. None of us literally asked to be born. Some of us weren't even planned, just life squooshing against life to make more life, random, chaotic and completely at the mercy of people laughably ill equipped to foresee the magnitude of the consequences.

Being the product of someone else's bad decisions isn't so bad. We all manage it, somehow.

So the argument is that because humans are completely unplanned and unplannable, the answer to that is foetal manipulation because...? For what reason? To put it pointedly, even if nothing is sacred, there are ethical standards to existence we subscribe to precisely because it makes humanly constructed expectations in life more, not less, consistently applicable.

And noone has to, any more than they have to assume that the only reason is because their parents read to them every night and paid for a private tutor to get them through that one maths course in high school.

But again, I know plenty of people who could never get doctorates, no matter how hard they studied. There are people who can't tie their own shoelaces. It strikes me as a little insulting to those people to pretend that everything we do is the result of our own hard work, that we're just as deserving as anyone and that nothing contributed to or made possible our success save the things under our control.

And ultimately everything is the politics of envy or can simply be written off disingenuously as such. But then again genetic manipulation won't solve that, either. Genetic manipulation won't lead to people with more doctorates, and it won't make them wealthier, it won't make them happier, and it won't make them more powerful. None of the debt burdens of extensive live human experimentation in some false curative angle of the human condition will be suffered by me. Moreover, if your argument merely revolves around some idea of moral relativism, then you need to argue cost burden for live human experimentation.

As I said before, there is a hell of a pricetag just so parents can elect for their kids to be the greenest of green-eyed children.

It won't make people unable totie shoelaces suddenly be able to tie shoelaces.

There's no social benefit, there's no technological benefit, it'd be a cold day in Hell (hopefully) private research entities could get public funding for it.

If you want to boil it down to moral relativism, then let's address cost burdens... when there are simply more deserving pursuits we can elect to perform that do have greater utility and offer real solutions for the human condition.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

What, so all ethical standards and risk avoidance is therefore morally relativistic? I feel like you're skirting over the latter part of my argument because you do have a certain degree of social safeguards for a reason, despite inequal in application.

Not all standards are morally relativistic. But this one obviously is, otherwise you wouldn't disagree with us so much.

All you are doing is basically saying "We should not abandon our principles for such selfish reasons, the sost is too high". But then the problem is that we obviously don't have those principles in common in the first place and don't feel like giving anything up. And that we don't think that there is any significant cost. Which is why your argumentation falls completely flat in the very same way an argument on religious grounds would not reach an atheist.

Not really, because arguably Gattaca didn't predicate itself on an idea of massive suffering for some ridiculous idea of 'greater good' that may emerge by treating something like extensive genetic manipulation as merely amoral pursuit.

Again nebulous "massive suffering" that you inject out of nowhere. Personally i think it matches Gattaca pretty well and the kind of social problems in the film are more or less all the risks that actually are there.

Genetic engineering won't do a lot of things people will pretend it will. But sending humans to space isn't a dumb idea, however ... there's only so much you can do from Earth, and we've yet to find an A.I. be able to determine the difference between a doorknob you depress or twist to open.

And despite spending decades trying to confront this very basic problem we've gotten nowhere. Ultimately the supreme complexity of space exploration might make it impossible to totally automate. There is also the argument that we climb mountains simply because they're there. Humans are at their best when they undertake challenges in spite of themselves.

Automatisation would be far easier and cheaper. Not only is it really difficult to have humans inside spacecraft, it is also that they can't contribute meaningfull there. If you are not interested in actually colonizing other planets, then human space travel is just vanity.

So the argument is that because humans are completely unplanned and unplannable, the answer to that is foetal manipulation because...? For what reason? To put it pointedly, even if nothing is sacred, there are ethical standards to existence we subscribe to precisely because it makes humanly constructed expectations in life more, not less, consistently applicable.

First "sacred" then again nebulous "ethical standards we subscibe too". No we don't actually subscribe to them it seems and don't think it is sacred either.

But then again genetic manipulation won't solve that, either. Genetic manipulation won't lead to people with more doctorates, and it won't make them wealthier, it won't make them happier, and it won't make them more powerful.

No one claimed it would. It i not a panacea.

But then again that actually is one kind of manipulation that might come up and be problematic. One could imagine to find a way to make humans more happy and content and less likely to get depressions. Should one meddle here ? Or is that as bad an idea as not moinitoring psychopharmaca. Is this a way to some lotus eater dystopia ? That is the kind of discussion about actual risks that we should have instead.

As I said before, there is a hell of a pricetag just so parents can elect for their kids to be the greenest of green-eyed children.

Still don't see the pricetag.

If you want to boil it down to moral relativism, then let's address cost burdens... when there are simply more deserving pursuits we can elect to perform that do have greater utility and offer real solutions for the human condition.

So the pricetag is simply "we could do better things with this money" ? It just boils down to opportunity cost ? That is weak.

Satinavian:
Not all standards are morally relativistic. But this one obviously is, otherwise you wouldn't disagree with us so much.

All you are doing is basically saying "We should not abandon our principles for such selfish reasons, the sost is too high". But then the problem is that we obviously don't have those principles in common in the first place and don't feel like giving anything up. And that we don't think that there is any significant cost. Which is why your argumentation falls completely flat in the very same way an argument on religious grounds would not reach an atheist.

But then again, isn't that the whole point? We agree medicine is best when it provides options, not necessarily how effective it is at treating a problem. A person who has lived already for 80 years can (and should) be able to elect to die. They shouldn't feel beholden to spend years suffering chemo or its after effects to possibly live a handful of more years cancer free.

Because medicine should not be concerned merely with end results, but that of human dignity. Even if one were to argue moral relativism due to existing in a universe of no objective truth value statements, then ultimately the moral argument must come from self-election and choosing one's relationship to technology.

There are obvious reasons why we cannot have a society cater to this idea of human dignity and mastery over self-relations. No one chooses their parents, people have to abide by laws or face punitive actions, and people die lonely and often in otherwise utterly un-self elected means. But then again, that's no excusetorob people of their decision making where it can be avoided. And the right of others to a future of their own designs trumps selfish motivations. And even if that ideal of foresight reigning over short-sighted greed cannot be realized in full, that's no excuse to go out of our way to engineer ways we can celebrate shortsighted greed.

Extensive genetic manipulation particularly fails at both greed and in terms of humanly capable foresight. Even if the world is burning, doesn't excuse individuals running around with torches.

Again nebulous "massive suffering" that you inject out of nowhere. Personally i think it matches Gattaca pretty well and the kind of social problems in the film are more or less all the risks that actually are there.

Well I personally think it's a stupid example and have no desire making an argument dancing about it.

Automatisation would be far easier and cheaper. Not only is it really difficult to have humans inside spacecraft, it is also that they can't contribute meaningfull there. If you are not interested in actually colonizing other planets, then human space travel is just vanity.

Automation (specifically) is indeed cheaper for some things, not for others. There is, however, a difference between A.I. and automation. The ISS has automated functions. It doesn't have an A.I. ... arguably it couldn't even house an A.I. capable of doing what a bunch of humans could successfully accommodate.

Also why colonize other planets? Deep space habitation is far more cost effective and open space is where all the really cool shit is (in greater abundance mt by extraction costs and total access).

Plus, you know ... hollow out an asteroid, instant star base and factory.

First "sacred" then again nebulous "ethical standards we subscibe too". No we don't actually subscribe to them it seems and don't think it is sacred either.

Which wasn't what I was arguing.

What I was arguing is things like the ICCPR and the ICESCR is nebulously worded, nebulously ethical standards of social and economic participation. Yet they exist for a reason. Failure to abide by them comes with possible censure, and possiblyeven wide-ranging economic sanctions.

And once again, for a reason.

Through these agreements, nebulous ethical standpoints, desires to create ethical consistency of agency and attempts to guarantee the rights of people in an international fashion. They're nebulous, because no one has the chops (yet) to create an international and all encompassing codex of laws, but people necessarily see the value in such things because they help create the frameworks for consistency of application and help us proceed into a fairer or freer society as a whole.

Sometimes the value of something isn't whether it is truly binding or not, but rather as a statement of value that we sacrifice in order to maintain for others.

No one claimed it would. It i not a panacea.

Then it is pointless beyond treating what it can, which is exceptionally limited.

We can argue what is suffering, and what is merely selfish indulgence that will become afflictive through offspring.

As I said before, there is more deserving pursuits. And those pursuits truly are self-elective and do not impress upon the unborn.

Still don't see the pricetag.

Failed experiments? Paupers paid to carry a foetus to term and under extraordinary supervision to examine possible effects? Forcefully inflicted sterility on the unborn to control the possibility of longterm genetic damages on the species?

If you can't see the price tag, that is the whole reason I push things like the moral weight of foresight. Foresight is the only true moral act of any moral or immoral being.

Blinding oneself to its implementation is not only wrong, but stupid.

So the pricetag is simply "we could do better things with this money" ? It just boils down to opportunity cost ? That is weak.

Not merely money, but money is a big part of it. Money better spent elsewhere if we want true posthuman options.

I have no problems with some megabillionaire self-electing sterility and self-electing to fund such research exclusively in terms of them and them alone carrying the cost burden to see it realized. But that's not how it will look. Inevitably through social ills, entirely innocent people who through no fault of their own have no other options, will be devalued of their humanity in its pursuit.

I've said elsewhere on these forums I'll nominate myself for the first shared sense data trials, because I truly believe in neuropsychology and neuroprosthetics delivering humanity from all its social ills.

I don't need to be part of that group, because I have money. I'll probably break 10 million by the time I'm 40. I'm doing pretty well for myself in the marketplace. But I want to put my body on the line for what I believe in.

I don't want to see paupers who suffer social ills to take that bullet from a place of supreme safety.

Saelune:
Men who see women as something to be freed from probably should not be having children to begin with.

Do you think similar things of women who state they do not want to need men for anything?
If so, you are against the current zeitgeist.
If not, why not?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
There are obvious reasons why we cannot have a society cater to this idea of human dignity and mastery over self-relations. No one chooses their parents, people have to abide by laws or face punitive actions, and people die lonely and often in otherwise utterly un-self elected means. But then again, that's no excusetorob people of their decision making where it can be avoided. And the right of others to a future of their own designs trumps selfish motivations. And even if that ideal of foresight reigning over short-sighted greed cannot be realized in full, that's no excuse to go out of our way to engineer ways we can celebrate shortsighted greed.

Where is this robbing of decision making coming from ? No one can decide over their own genes anyway. Doesn't matter if carefully choosen by someone else or just pure randomness. But all the other life decisions would still be in place the same way as before.

Automation (specifically) is indeed cheaper for some things, not for others. There is, however, a difference between A.I. and automation. The ISS has automated functions. It doesn't have an A.I. ... arguably it couldn't even house an A.I. capable of doing what a bunch of humans could successfully accommodate.

AI is a term that has been stretched beyond recognition anyway. You can't really distinguish between automation and AI in a meaningfull way. But yes, automation is already good enough to replace anything humans could contribute in space.

Also why colonize other planets? Deep space habitation is far more cost effective and open space is where all the really cool shit is (in greater abundance mt by extraction costs and total access).

Because even colonizing Mars is so incredibly easier than building space colonies ? That would also be true for extrasolar planets if not the long distance would demand the technology to build autark moving space colonies to get there anyway.

What I was arguing is things like the ICCPR and the ICESCR is nebulously worded, nebulously ethical standards of social and economic participation. Yet they exist for a reason. Failure to abide by them comes with possible censure, and possiblyeven wide-ranging economic sanctions.

Those don't covor genetic manipulation at all.

If a genemodded person is a violation of self-determination because he/she can't deide over their genes, then every other person is a violation of self-determination for the same reason.

Failed experiments? Paupers paid to carry a foetus to term and under extraordinary supervision to examine possible effects?

Yes, covered that before. This price will already have been paid to cure genetic deseases. And even that won't happen before the process is refined with animals.

Forcefully inflicted sterility on the unborn to control the possibility of longterm genetic damages on the species?

There won't be amy forcefully inflicted sterility. There is litterally no reason to do that.

I've said elsewhere on these forums I'll nominate myself for the first shared sense data trials, because I truly believe in neuropsychology and neuroprosthetics delivering humanity from all its social ills.

I am more sceptical about this stuff. It is invasive chirurgy and most implants provide an additional vector of infection. And that is without harmfull immune reactions. Additionally research into neural interfaces has now nearly stalled for decades. Research into brain function has made progress, but progress of the kind "it is far more complicated than we thaught. Also very individual, so there won't be any application for data transfer into or out of the brain anytime soon, if ever". The only thing they managed was showing that the brains easily learns to use a new sense, if provided with a sensor and a connection to the nervous systom.

Truth be told, i think this stuff might be even more risky.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
What, so all ethical standards and risk avoidance is therefore morally relativistic? I feel like you're skirting over the latter part of my argument because you do have a certain degree of social safeguards for a reason, despite inequal in application.

I simply don't think that there is a direct connection between technological manipulation of DNA, even down to the level of allowing a single woman or two men to have children, and authoritarian social arrangements which will inevitably become widespread as a result.

I can forsee a certain degree of slippery slope. Once you start eradicating genetic diseases and the concept is proved, then the floodgates are in a sense open. Why not edit the immune system to more effectively target cancer cells? Why not make people immune to AIDS? Why not make them more resistant to dementia? Why not slow the rate of ageing? The more normal these procedures become, the stronger the argument that denying them is cruel, and if you're already tampering with human DNA, then what's the argument that human DNA is sacred and can't be tampered with? What's the argument that we can't impose changes on a new generation when all we've imposed on them has been an attempt to bring them happiness. Might they not be far more likely to resent us for not making them immune to cancer than for doing so? What about preventing them from being unusually short, or ugly, or stupid. Isn't it also cruel to deny kids that? Might it not also invite resentment?

Over time, and as use of the technology becomes prevelent (and it will, because in many cases the only arguments against it are religious or pseudo-religious objections to "playing God") the arguments against using it more widely will become weaker and weaker. Eventually, there will be a significant lobby morally objecting to the "imposition" of forcing kids to live with whatever random DNA they are stuck with when a few simple tweaks could potentially give them a better life. There will probably be a sense that opposition to this stems from an inflated sense of self-importance and a desire to vindicate one's own normality rather than putting the interests of the child first. It will be seen as a selfish, reactionary impulse, and in a world where such technology is widespread alarmist proclamations of genetic caste systems and authoritarian governments arising from nothing will probably seem increasingly crazy.

So yes, I am relatively certain it will happen, and that it cannot be stopped. It will of course bring social divisions and abuses, but again, the extent of those abuses depend largely on us and on the kind of society we have built at that point. If it is still a competition focused, neoliberal capitalist society in which the worth of a human is measured by their economic contribution, then "commodification" as you put it will be inevitable. If it is still a society full of xenophobic, nationalist reactionaries living out an animal fear of difference, then conflict is inevitable. However, as far as I can see, neither of those premises is inevitable.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Not really, because arguably Gattaca didn't predicate itself on an idea of massive suffering for some ridiculous idea of 'greater good' that may emerge by treating something like extensive genetic manipulation as merely amoral pursuit.

No. It treated it as deeply tied in with moral questions, which is how new technology will be seen and judged by its users. The problem is that the moral questions will not necessarily default to the answers you think they will.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
And despite spending decades trying to confront this very basic problem we've gotten nowhere. Ultimately the supreme complexity of space exploration might make it impossible to totally automate.

Actually, the reverse is kind of true. Humans have literally never been able to fly spacecraft in space. The first manned spaceflight followed a trajectory calculated on a computer and locked in automatically. The complexities of space are in many ways far more challenging to a human brain than to a machine.

Look at all the places in our solar system humans have been able to visit, then look at all the places visited by probes or unmanned spacecraft. Whatever the failings of present day computers (or even those from previous decades, still used by many unmanned craft), they are utterly, utterly dwarfed by the monumental failings of humans.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
So the argument is that because humans are completely unplanned and unplannable, the answer to that is foetal manipulation because...? For what reason?

Because in most cases there isn't any reason not to. Self ownership already doesn't extend to the level of genetic inheritance, so that isn't really an argument.

There will be huge arguments for why it is a good idea. There will be immense, massive demand for it based on the desire to eliminate human suffering or provide a better life for children than nature can alone. Why should parents not do what they've always done and seek what they perceive is the best opportunities for their children? Maybe they will be wrong. Maybe Jim will give his son Bob a perfect athletic body to vicariously live out his dream of playing sports, but all Bob wants to do is become a theoretical physicist. Why is having expectations that you could fulfil but choose not to better than having expectations which you can never fulfil? How is that greater agency? Jim will still have to come to terms with Bob's choices.

We have held for a long time that genetics are not destiny, but a cursory glance of the world will reveal that they are an opportunity. Why do we have to fear giving people opportunities in some misguided belief that they will magically become destiny? If that's what we think, then it speaks very poorly of our resistance to the idea that genetics already is destiny. Jim was no different to many parents today, ultimately he clearly wanted his son to be happy and successful. Is the problem here really that Bob can bench press half a metric ton, or is the problem that Jim felt so emotionally empty that he confused his own happiness for that of his son? The forces that make us bad parents already exist (although I'm not even sure Jim qualifies as "bad").

Addendum_Forthcoming:
If you want to boil it down to moral relativism, then let's address cost burdens... when there are simply more deserving pursuits we can elect to perform that do have greater utility and offer real solutions for the human condition.

In the time I spent writing this, around 500 people died of cancer.

Again, I don't think the cost burden will be assessed on the criteria you think it will.

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
Andrea Dworkin once posited something I think ridiculous: that if men could do this, particularly through science, they would round up women and commit gendercyde. Are there really women in any substantial number that believe this?

I'm not going to rule out that Dworkin ever said something like that, but it certainly doesn't sound like her, and it contradicts with the vast majority of work she did and statements she made over her life.

Dworkin, for all her problems, understood very well that misogyny is not comparable to anti-semitism. Heterosexual men do not want to exterminate women and Nazis did not want to fuck Jews (although plenty did anyway, of course). Instead, heterosexual men's hatred of women manifests in the desire to control women, in particular to control their sexuality and reproductive ability, and to deny them independent existence outside of the functions they perform for men. Men kill women, overwhelmingly, to assert this control. They kill partners who try to leave them, or who they suspect of cheating. They kill women they desire to "punish" them for not acceding to this desire. They kill women who anger them or don't show them the respect they feel they deserve as men.

There are women out there who genuinely do hate men. What defines these women, overwhelmingly, is that they want nothing to do with men, they seek to rid their lives of men to the greatest extent possible. Men who hate women (including those who consider themselves separatists like MGTOW) coversely, tend to express this hatred as an obsession with gaining control or power over women (again, particularly over women's sexual functioning) without having to give anything in return.

That is why the concept of "men's liberation" never meant liberation from women. Short of some nonsensical Fight Club shit, you can't "liberate" people from their own property. The original men's liberation movement in the 60s was about liberating (heterosexual) men from prescriptive and self-abusive codes of "masculine" behaviour which hurt their relationships with women by relegating women to the status of property, and thus ultimately hurt men themselves. It was born out of the overwhelming realisation that men are happiest when they are able to have mutually caring and emotionally honest relationships with women. Being able to rape their wives with impunity never made men "liberated" or happy. Power over someone else is not liberation.

I look forward to the day when scientific control over the human body allows people of any gender or none to have full reproductive control and to be able to choose to have children on their own terms. However, of the numerous benefits of such an advancement, allowing misanthropic males to raise "redpilled" kids strikes me as overwhelmingly the least important or desirable effect. Compared to the possibility of liberating half of the species from the immense labour burden of repopulating it each generation and of unravelling the deepest origins of patriarchal society itself, it strikes me as a fairly trivial "freedom".

I think that when a MGTOW is "red pilled" he at least thinks he is realizing things that make him not want to own women, but to get away, or be liberated from them. Use masturbation aids and one day, exogenysis.

I don't think an argument can be made that women, today, are "property". If anything, the complaints of the MRA and MGTOW are that with our current divorce laws in the USA, a married man, or one in any kind of long term relationship, is in grave danger of loss of liberty and property. As Turd Flinging Monkey states, a man choosing to get married is a man choosing who his slave owner will be. Even if you can argue that he is wrong, these are his feelings. Whatever liberation used to mean, it does not anymore. Not today.

But I have no idea how many TFMs are out there. And I don't know if TFM himself would want exogenysis for himself. I know he would love its existence but would he personally use it? I don't know.

Gorfias:

Saelune:
Men who see women as something to be freed from probably should not be having children to begin with.

Do you think similar things of women who state they do not want to need men for anything?
If so, you are against the current zeitgeist.
If not, why not?

Women who see men as something to be freed from probably realize the horror of Trump as President.

Let me know when we have a female sex offender as President, then we'll talk.

If the current zeitgist is a rape culture patriarchy, then yes, I am against it. And no, I did not believe that stuff to be real, then Trump became President and suddenly I understood what every feminist was talking about.

Saelune:

Gorfias:

Saelune:
Men who see women as something to be freed from probably should not be having children to begin with.

Do you think similar things of women who state they do not want to need men for anything?
If so, you are against the current zeitgeist.
If not, why not?

Women who see men as something to be freed from probably realize the horror of Trump as President.

Let me know when we have a female sex offender as President, then we'll talk.

If the current zeitgist is a rape culture patriarchy, then yes, I am against it. And no, I did not believe that stuff to be real, then Trump became President and suddenly I understood what every feminist was talking about.

Am I reading you correctly:
A man who wants liberation from women has an unsupportable problem.
Women who want liberty from men are understandable as there are harms and oppression visited upon them by men?

The point of, for instance, the MGTOW, to the extent that the US was ever a Patriarchy, it is now a gynocentric gynocracy to treats men as exploitable, disposable utilities. I think they have issues you may not have contemplated.

Gorfias:

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
Andrea Dworkin once posited something I think ridiculous: that if men could do this, particularly through science, they would round up women and commit gendercyde. Are there really women in any substantial number that believe this?

I'm not going to rule out that Dworkin ever said something like that, but it certainly doesn't sound like her, and it contradicts with the vast majority of work she did and statements she made over her life.

Dworkin, for all her problems, understood very well that misogyny is not comparable to anti-semitism. Heterosexual men do not want to exterminate women and Nazis did not want to fuck Jews (although plenty did anyway, of course). Instead, heterosexual men's hatred of women manifests in the desire to control women, in particular to control their sexuality and reproductive ability, and to deny them independent existence outside of the functions they perform for men. Men kill women, overwhelmingly, to assert this control. They kill partners who try to leave them, or who they suspect of cheating. They kill women they desire to "punish" them for not acceding to this desire. They kill women who anger them or don't show them the respect they feel they deserve as men.

There are women out there who genuinely do hate men. What defines these women, overwhelmingly, is that they want nothing to do with men, they seek to rid their lives of men to the greatest extent possible. Men who hate women (including those who consider themselves separatists like MGTOW) coversely, tend to express this hatred as an obsession with gaining control or power over women (again, particularly over women's sexual functioning) without having to give anything in return.

That is why the concept of "men's liberation" never meant liberation from women. Short of some nonsensical Fight Club shit, you can't "liberate" people from their own property. The original men's liberation movement in the 60s was about liberating (heterosexual) men from prescriptive and self-abusive codes of "masculine" behaviour which hurt their relationships with women by relegating women to the status of property, and thus ultimately hurt men themselves. It was born out of the overwhelming realisation that men are happiest when they are able to have mutually caring and emotionally honest relationships with women. Being able to rape their wives with impunity never made men "liberated" or happy. Power over someone else is not liberation.

I look forward to the day when scientific control over the human body allows people of any gender or none to have full reproductive control and to be able to choose to have children on their own terms. However, of the numerous benefits of such an advancement, allowing misanthropic males to raise "redpilled" kids strikes me as overwhelmingly the least important or desirable effect. Compared to the possibility of liberating half of the species from the immense labour burden of repopulating it each generation and of unravelling the deepest origins of patriarchal society itself, it strikes me as a fairly trivial "freedom".

I think that when a MGTOW is "red pilled" he at least thinks he is realizing things that make him not want to own women, but to get away, or be liberated from them. Use masturbation aids and one day, exogenysis.

I don't think an argument can be made that women, today, are "property". If anything, the complaints of the MRA and MGTOW are that with our current divorce laws in the USA, a married man, or one in any kind of long term relationship, is in grave danger of loss of liberty and property. As Turd Flinging Monkey states, a man choosing to get married is a man choosing who his slave owner will be. Even if you can argue that he is wrong, these are his feelings. Whatever liberation used to mean, it does not anymore. Not today.

But I have no idea how many TFMs are out there. And I don't know if TFM himself would want exogenysis for himself. I know he would love its existence but would he personally use it? I don't know.

Yes, there are plenty of women today that are still "property" and Women are just as much at risk of losing liberty and property if they are the breadwinner. Due to the persistence of wealth inequality between men and women, yes men are still more likely to be the breadwinner. Women do pay alimony when they are the primary income however, It is just still less likely for them o be so. My aunt not only paid my uncle alimony, she also had to keep him on her insurance and keep her payments up to date or be held in contempt of court in addition to him getting their more expensive vehicle and the house. This was due to her being the person who had an affair in the relationship causing the end of the marriage and her being the " breadwinner".

There are numerous factors that are taken into consideration in regards to how these things all play out and of course you can have judge bias that cannot be ruled out as well. That can go either way depending on the situation however.

A man who looks at a woman as his " slave owner" should not be getting married in the first place. Simply because they have these feelings do not mean that their feelings are in any way an accurate representation of reality. Relationships, marriage or otherwise, are give and take and there are plenty of people that are simply too selfish to be in a healthy relationship. It takes a giving person whether male or female to have a good relationship since you have to enjoy your time spent with that person, enjoy caring for that person and not see it as a " chore" to help them but instead a part of a healthy relationship on part of both people.

Liberation for women is being able to be seen as an equal person in a relationship rather than a commodity. That is still very difficult for women to do when you still have men who want to pigeonhole them into roles or view them as "there for sex", the entire premise that you could "satisfy your needs" with sex toys is part of the problem with how they view a relationship. If one, regardless of male or female, thinks they are satisfying their need for a relationship with sex toys is in no condition to have an actual relationship with an actual human being because they are completely missing the point that it is about their love and companionship and sex is only one part of it. If the person they are in a relationship with is not someone who is their friend, partner, teammate, someone they trust more than anyone in the world and have no problem sharing their life and possessions with, they really have no business being in that relationship in the first place.

Sounds more like these people need counseling to help them better understand reality and relationships rather than needing a means to produce children to indoctrinate into some sort of cult promoting ignorance of women and relationships. I see raising children to be indoctrinated in such beliefs just as bad as if they were making some KKK cult town or Branch Davidians.

On a personal note, as a female, I have had men tell me how I should dress, who I am allowed to talk to, try to tell me what work I am allowed to do, where I am allowed to go, scream and yell about things that have nothing to do with me, threaten me, assault me, rape me, try to kidnap me, pick me up and carry me around against my will, grope me, try to kill me and so much more. You are not going to convince me that women are liberated yet or that society has advanced to the point that women have the upper hand here because according to the police officers here, the only way I can stop it from happening to me is if I kill the man before he kills me because there is no one coming to save me except for me in the event they try to do so. If we were liberated, this would not be as rampant as it is nor would women have to worry about the thought of having to fight for their lives just to be able to live their life in peace. We would not have to put electric barbed wire around the shelter for abused women and children to keep the men from coming there to kill them. We would not have to teach our women and girls that they have to walk in groups and to always plan escape routes.

Due to what men have done to me repeatedly in my lifetime, I have to think about my escape route when I find myself alone in a room with a man. Liberated women would not have to even think about that. Today's woman however, does because if they do not they very well could pay dearly for it as I and so many other have already.

Gorfias:
A man who wants liberation from women has an unsupportable problem.
Women who want liberty from men are understandable as there are harms and oppression visited upon them by men?

As previously pointed out, the "liberation" that those men want does not remotely resemble the "liberty" that women want.

And yes, there are any number of serious issues facing men as a gender, only these people claiming they want "liberation" for men are actively opposing dealing with them.

Gorfias:
The point of, for instance, the MGTOW, to the extent that the US was ever a Patriarchy, it is now a gynocentric gynocracy to treats men as exploitable, disposable utilities.

According to the MGTOW, yes. They just happen to be totally and obviously wrong by any worthwhile standard you could name.

People who are oppressing others will invariably claim they are under some terrible threat from the people they are oppressing to justify it. Black people are scary, Jews are undermining society, LGBT people are corrupting our kids and women are erasing maleness or something. This is exactly how things don't work in the real world, but it appeals to a certain mindset.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
A man who wants liberation from women has an unsupportable problem.
Women who want liberty from men are understandable as there are harms and oppression visited upon them by men?

As previously pointed out, the "liberation" that those men want does not remotely resemble the "liberty" that women want.

And yes, there are any number of serious issues facing men as a gender, only these people claiming they want "liberation" for men are actively opposing dealing with them.

Gorfias:
The point of, for instance, the MGTOW, to the extent that the US was ever a Patriarchy, it is now a gynocentric gynocracy to treats men as exploitable, disposable utilities.

According to the MGTOW, yes. They just happen to be totally and obviously wrong by any worthwhile standard you could name.

People who are oppressing others will invariably claim they are under some terrible threat from the people they are oppressing to justify it. Black people are scary, Jews are undermining society, LGBT people are corrupting our kids and women are erasing maleness or something. This is exactly how things don't work in the real world, but it appeals to a certain mindset.

You could be right about men and women wanting different things regarding "liberation". I guess that's why I have this poll. As I wrote earlier, there are those that would love for something like exogenysis to exist. I do not know if they'd ever use it themselves in any large number. I'm too old to know what I'd do presented the opportunity when I was younger. Responses here have been interesting.

As for the rightness or wrongness of the MGTOW, that would make an interesting thread of its own.

evilthecat:

Expecting to be able to live in a normal human society but not have any contact with women is exercising an indirect claim to ownership of women. It's exercising a claim of ownership to public space, right to gatekeep who is allowed in public space and a right to determine unilaterally the space in which women are "allowed" to exist.

I don't know the MGTOW want to control the public space. I doubt it. They want to control their own private space. To find an "ownership of women" by those going their own way is like accusing them of their fear for the future after going their own way: "Neglect Rape".

Moreover, MGTOW, despite the name, are almost universally obsessed with women. Go to any community and you will find countless expressions of bilious misogyny directed against women as a whole. It's the most insincere form of separatism imaginable, like a child pretending to run away from home and then sitting in a bush for a few hours fantasising about how worried their parents are. MGTOW can't seem to actually go their own way, they have to make sure that women constantly know that they're going their own way and that women suffer for whatever real or imagined (mostly imagined) sense of alienation they feel.

There is a lot of rage out there. I do expect MRAs to talk about women and Feminists the way I expect Democrats to talk about Republicans and vice versa. They're the opposing team. Example: We have a Violence Against Women (But Men Do Not Matter) Act . This directs money to women. If MRAs point to CDC and FBI stats demanding, as men are also DV victims of women and want the Act's name changed and a large portion of the funds redirected to them and their interests, you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to know who will likely oppose them.

So firstly, you can't divorce unless you are married. No other long term relationship counts.

Incorrect depending upon the jurisdiction.
But I get your point and I think you get mine. If you have a child with a woman or even a long term relationship with her, you have exposed your assets to her. You have exposed yourself to exploitation. I think, with 75% first US marriages being OK, likely worth the risk. For others? Not so much.

Secondly, when a couple live together and cooperate economically to support a household and raise a family, do you assume that all the material worth of that household belongs to the man, and that he has exclusive right to control over it?

In the past, of course, that was true. When a woman got married, she lost her right to own property in her own name and became merely a legal extension of her husband. This is the basic legal definition of marriage, two individual people become a single legal and economic unit. Of course, nowadays a husband doesn't simply get to own everything. We recognise that both partners make productive contributions to that legal unit, and thus we can't just arbitrarily decide that the man owns everything because he's a big important man.

If you assume the universe should work on the principle that men own everything (including women), this doubtless looks extremely unfair. That doesn't mean it is.

Agreed.
What sounds equitable is that each owns what they had at the start of the relationship. If divorced, split what was earned during the relationship. Some argue that continued support must end. Even with kids: shared custody. No support in either direction.
Plenty of hiccups in that one.
Suppose very wealthy man marries poor woman. During the marriage he is constantly threatening to divorce her and destroy the standard of living to which she is accustomed. Unacceptable tyranny.
Contrast that to, I think it was Janet Jackson. Married a rich dude. If she divorces him under 10 years, she gets ? earnings during the marriage. If she waits 10 years, she gets ? of all the rich dude's money. So she waits 10 years and takes ?, collecting her cash and prizes almost to the day of the 10 years.
Some would say the only way to win is to not play the game.

Lil devils x:

Liberation for women is being able to be seen as an equal person in a relationship rather than a commodity. That is still very difficult for women to do when you still have men who want to pigeonhole them into roles or view them as "there for sex", the entire premise that you could "satisfy your needs" with sex toys is part of the problem with how they view a relationship. If one, regardless of male or female, thinks they are satisfying their need for a relationship with sex toys is in no condition to have an actual relationship with an actual human being because they are completely missing the point that it is about their love and companionship and sex is only one part of it. If the person they are in a relationship with is not someone who is their friend, partner, teammate, someone they trust more than anyone in the world and have no problem sharing their life and possessions with, they really have no business being in that relationship in the first place.

Sounds more like these people need counseling to help them better understand reality and relationships rather than needing a means to produce children to indoctrinate into some sort of cult promoting ignorance of women and relationships. I see raising children to be indoctrinated in such beliefs just as bad as if they were making some KKK cult town or Branch Davidians.

There are men who want to have sex.
There are men who want to have a relationship.
There are men who want to have children.

There are men who fit any combination of he above from none of those to all three. And the very same thing is true for women.
Sex toys are to satisfy a sex drive. They have never been some relationship replacement Also they have nothing to do with the topic is is about men who want to have vhildren but don't want to have a relationship with a woman (or who don't want to have sex with a woman)

On a personal note, as a female, I have had men tell me how I should dress, who I am allowed to talk to, try to tell me what work I am allowed to do, where I am allowed to go, scream and yell about things that have nothing to do with me, threaten me, assault me, rape me, try to kidnap me, pick me up and carry me around against my will, grope me, try to kill me and so much more. You are not going to convince me that women are liberated yet or that society has advanced to the point that women have the upper hand here because according to the police officers here, the only way I can stop it from happening to me is if I kill the man before he kills me because there is no one coming to save me except for me in the event they try to do so. If we were liberated, this would not be as rampant as it is nor would women have to worry about the thought of having to fight for their lives just to be able to live their life in peace. We would not have to put electric barbed wire around the shelter for abused women and children to keep the men from coming there to kill them. We would not have to teach our women and girls that they have to walk in groups and to always plan escape routes.

Due to what men have done to me repeatedly in my lifetime, I have to think about my escape route when I find myself alone in a room with a man. Liberated women would not have to even think about that. Today's woman however, does because if they do not they very well could pay dearly for it as I and so many other have already.

We know that you seem to come from some particularly shitty place in a bad country. Everytime there is some new grotesque surprise. Electric barbed wire around shelters, really? But how is this relevant ? Do you think that is typical for the life of modern western women ?

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

Liberation for women is being able to be seen as an equal person in a relationship rather than a commodity. That is still very difficult for women to do when you still have men who want to pigeonhole them into roles or view them as "there for sex", the entire premise that you could "satisfy your needs" with sex toys is part of the problem with how they view a relationship. If one, regardless of male or female, thinks they are satisfying their need for a relationship with sex toys is in no condition to have an actual relationship with an actual human being because they are completely missing the point that it is about their love and companionship and sex is only one part of it. If the person they are in a relationship with is not someone who is their friend, partner, teammate, someone they trust more than anyone in the world and have no problem sharing their life and possessions with, they really have no business being in that relationship in the first place.

Sounds more like these people need counseling to help them better understand reality and relationships rather than needing a means to produce children to indoctrinate into some sort of cult promoting ignorance of women and relationships. I see raising children to be indoctrinated in such beliefs just as bad as if they were making some KKK cult town or Branch Davidians.

There are men who want to have sex.
There are men who want to have a relationship.
There are men who want to have children.

There are men who fit any combination of he above from none of those to all three. And the very same thing is true for women.
Sex toys are to satisfy a sex drive. They have never been some relationship replacement Also they have nothing to do with the topic is is about men who want to have vhildren but don't want to have a relationship with a woman (or who don't want to have sex with a woman)

On a personal note, as a female, I have had men tell me how I should dress, who I am allowed to talk to, try to tell me what work I am allowed to do, where I am allowed to go, scream and yell about things that have nothing to do with me, threaten me, assault me, rape me, try to kidnap me, pick me up and carry me around against my will, grope me, try to kill me and so much more. You are not going to convince me that women are liberated yet or that society has advanced to the point that women have the upper hand here because according to the police officers here, the only way I can stop it from happening to me is if I kill the man before he kills me because there is no one coming to save me except for me in the event they try to do so. If we were liberated, this would not be as rampant as it is nor would women have to worry about the thought of having to fight for their lives just to be able to live their life in peace. We would not have to put electric barbed wire around the shelter for abused women and children to keep the men from coming there to kill them. We would not have to teach our women and girls that they have to walk in groups and to always plan escape routes.

Due to what men have done to me repeatedly in my lifetime, I have to think about my escape route when I find myself alone in a room with a man. Liberated women would not have to even think about that. Today's woman however, does because if they do not they very well could pay dearly for it as I and so many other have already.

We know that you seem to come from some particularly shitty place in a bad country. Everytime there is some new grotesque surprise. Electric barbed wire around shelters, really? But how is this relevant ? Do you think that is typical for the life of modern western women ?

Typical for women in conservative parts of the US, yes. I have mentioned the barbed wire at the shelter here before mind you, that is far from new. That was not enough however, to keep a woman from being attacked from the man she was there to be protected from and they have had to add an armed guard as well after that attack.

I live in the wealthiest county per sq ft in the state of Texas. This region has more Billionaires than the rest of the state combined. The guy who raped me when I was a kid lived in a home that looked like an actual castle. If this is the shittiest place where is the " good part of town"?
https://www.redfin.com/city/30856/TX/Heath/luxury-homes
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2014/03/25-of-the-worlds-billionaires-call-dallas-fort.html

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here