hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 586 of 615 FirstFirst ... 86486536576583584585586587588589596 ... LastLast
Results 11,701 to 11,720 of 12288

Thread: (UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

  1. #11701
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,966
    The issue that many struggle with when it comes to peoples' political grips is the difference between the macro and the micro.

    Take immigration.

    At the macro level of Government and the Economy it only has positives. A growing population means more economic activity and more tax payers. It is also addressing the demographic issue of an aging population. It allows the economy to avoid paying for the upbringing and education of skilled immigrants. It allows access to skills lacking in the current population. It means more consumers spending more money. It can stop shortage driven wage inflation.

    Of course there are negatives but the politicians and business leaders are insulated from the downsides.

    On the micro level of the individual citizen it is more of a mixed bag. Immigrants need housing, and if housing stocks fail to keep up with population growth house prices and rents increase, particularly in urban areas. More people means more congestion on the roads and more people on public transport. The ability to bring in skilled migrants has reduced the need for business to train employees and reduces upwards movement. Skilled migrants reduces the need for Government to boost funding to universities. Wages are flat and tend to remain flat until unemployment reaches around 4% (depends on the country), This impacts unskilled workers more than the skilled.

    Of course there are great benefits that come from immigration but they are harder to see from the individual POV than from the top.

    And the downsides of immigration can be addressed but it requires Governments to invest in housing, public transport, education and infrastructure, an many don't.

    Then it becomes easy to point at the outsider and blame them for the individual's problems, while it is always the Government's mismanagement that is at fault.

  2. #11702

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    No prevention => no eugenics.
    Not sure the group being engineered out of the gene pool because they are deemed inferior would agree, but ok. Everyone can have their Ford as long as they like it in black.

  3. #11703
    Yankunytjatjara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    No prevention => no eugenics.
    Not sure the group being engineered out of the gene pool because they are deemed inferior would agree, but ok. Everyone can have their Ford as long as they like it in black.
    The group doesn't have a consciousness. Members of the group having kids with properties which the members themselves consider improved isn't eugenics.

    Someone else forcing the matter would of course bring it all back to eugenics, but then the problem is not in the method - be it CRISPR or a secret selective breeding plan of ninety generations to produce the Kwisatz Haderach, the one the spice will awaken.
    My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude!
    Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors

  4. #11704
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,666
    Discussing eugenics is completely retarded because you have to jump through some major hoops to justify it in terms of solving any important problems that exist in reality.

    And if it isn't solving any problems then what is the fucking point?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  5. #11705
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,966
    In Australia atm we are having the Disability Royal Commission which is looking into treatment of the disabled.

    Inevitably the issue of children with genetic disabilities has come up. There are campaigners who believe that genetic problems detected in utero should not be grounds for an abortion. Part of the complaint is that doctors will normally advise a mother to have an abortion rather than carry a child with Downs Syndrome or Spina bifida to term.

    Of course this brings up the concept of a woman's right to choose. And it also brings up the cost to society because such children will most likely require far greater expenditure on the part of the State.

    It also brings up the "not discussed" practices of sex selection via IVF or by abortion. Then the whole slippery-slope of once you allow a to occur people will start pushing for b.

    It is an ugly problem. I personally know a couple who are both carriers of a gene that - if the fetus gets both copies - leads to terrible genetic disabilities. They have one child who has only one copy but have aborted an unknown number. They want child two and are using IVF to eliminate double-carrier embryos.
    Last edited by Maximillian; February 19 2020 at 03:22:18 PM.

  6. #11706
    Movember 2012 Stoffl's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The original viennese waffle
    Posts
    22,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Discussing eugenics is completely retarded because you have to jump through some major hoops to justify it in terms of solving any important problems that exist in reality.

    And if it isn't solving any problems then what is the fucking point?
    UBERMENSCH

    MI8m8

  7. #11707
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    And it also brings up the cost to society because such children will most likely require far greater expenditure on the part of the State.
    This is the real framing of the issue in neoliberal policy making, everything else is used as a moral smokescreen. The idea that you can quantitatively measure everyone's contribution to society and this determines moral worth is ultimately what will shape the decision making process.

    And that's why I refuse to engage with the issue on anything beyond an individual, personal level.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  8. #11708
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    Yep. It should only ever be engaged with on an individual and personal level. Sounds like most parents make the choice not to raise a kid with down syndrome, and that should be acceptable to everyone.

  9. #11709
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    And it also brings up the cost to society because such children will most likely require far greater expenditure on the part of the State.
    This is the real framing of the issue in neoliberal policy making, everything else is used as a moral smokescreen. The idea that you can quantitatively measure everyone's contribution to society and this determines moral worth is ultimately what will shape the decision making process.

    And that's why I refuse to engage with the issue on anything beyond an individual, personal level.
    No it is a genuine issue. Bring a child into the world who will require millions in medical and care costs, while never being able to directly contribute back is an issue in a society with limited resources. Every modern society has ever increasing demands being placed on its medical systems due to aging and the ability to treat a ever-expanding range of medical conditions.

    You can put more resources into the hospitals and disabled care by that addition has to come from somewhere - taxes, other programs, borrowing.

    It's not like a person who has an accident and winds up disabled. In the case of a child with a genetic abnormality that is detected in utero then it is an issue not just for mother.

    Currently we allow the mother to choose. Activists want to take that away, either forcing or preventing such abortions.

    I am not saying that the above is right. But as the Government expands its reach into every aspect of peoples' lives the Government is going to start having a say if it is paying the bills.
    Last edited by Maximillian; February 19 2020 at 03:47:07 PM.

  10. #11710
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,666
    The trouble there is treating (and designing) the government as some sort of benevolent mega corporation treating citizens as fungible units of labour.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  11. #11711
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    And it also brings up the cost to society because such children will most likely require far greater expenditure on the part of the State.
    This is the real framing of the issue in neoliberal policy making, everything else is used as a moral smokescreen. The idea that you can quantitatively measure everyone's contribution to society and this determines moral worth is ultimately what will shape the decision making process.

    And that's why I refuse to engage with the issue on anything beyond an individual, personal level.
    No it is a genuine issue. Bring a child into the world who will require millions in medical and care costs, while never being able to directly contribute back is an issue in a society with limited resources. Every modern society has ever increasing demands being placed on its medical systems due to aging and the ability to treat a ever-expanding range of medical conditions.

    You can put more resources into the hospitals and disabled care by that addition has to come from somewhere - taxes, other programs, borrowing.

    It's not like a person who has an accident and winds up disabled. In the case of a child with a genetic abnormality that is detected in utero then it is an issue not just for mother.

    Currently we allow the mother to choose. Activists want to take that away, either forcing or preventing such abortions.

    I am not saying that the above is right. But as the Government expands its reach into every aspect of peoples' lives the Government is going to start having a say if it is paying the bills.
    Not important.

    You could make similar arguments for other personal choices that balloon healthcare spending.

    It's any country's responsibility to cover these people, no questions asked. If you buy into this healthcare-costs-are-a-choice framing, then there's all kinds of coercive and intrusive measures that could be theoretically adopted to cut costs.

    There's already insurance plans in the US that dole out Fitbits and similar devices to "encourage" employees to exercise more.

  12. #11712

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    So fixing genetic predisposition to stuff like cancer or degenerative diseases is eugenics?
    Where on the slope do we stop and how is it different from not letting certain groups of people procreate naturally? Hereditary heart conditions? Autism? Myopia? Gingers?
    On the contrary, not only doesn't it prevent procreation. It even doesn't work if a couple hasn't already decided to procreate. And pretty strongly - fertility clinics are not for casuals...

    Example. Say that your gingers provocation happens to become true. That group wouldn't - even then - be being prevented from reproducing; rather, the group would be changing itself by altering its reproduction mechanisms. Not so different than certain athletes expressly choosing partners for breeding. No prevention => no eugenics. Of course when you apply a social media lens we need to be a bit more cautious, fads might induce group thinking so much that you could speak of trend induced eugenics, but that's varying so far from the nazi kind as to probably need a new word. Eugmoronics? Eumemics? Eumemics seems spot on actually.
    There are prenatal screenings for down syndromes that lead to abortions for example. There may be prenatal testing for autism coming down the pipeline, that would likely lead to abortions of those fetuses too.

  13. #11713
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,666
    We've been vaccinating embryos?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  14. #11714
    Yankunytjatjara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    It is an ugly problem. I personally know a couple who are both carriers of a gene that - if the fetus gets both copies - leads to terrible genetic disabilities. They have one child who has only one copy but have aborted an unknown number. They want child two and are using IVF to eliminate double-carrier embryos.
    Agreed, and that is a truly terrible example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Then the whole slippery-slope of once you allow a to occur people will start pushing for b.
    The point I'm making is that the slope starts only well past the "allow a" part. If you were to put in question allowing then you'd be suggesting to police ethics - prohibitionism - which you probably aren't. Pushing for b, on the other hand, does present the risks that you raise, but the finesse of getting it right on the scale that goes from "don't inbreed" to ethnic cleansing goes well beyond what failheap allows. Or any internet forum tbf.
    My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude!
    Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors

  15. #11715

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    5,673
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    So fixing genetic predisposition to stuff like cancer or degenerative diseases is eugenics?
    Where on the slope do we stop and how is it different from not letting certain groups of people procreate naturally? Hereditary heart conditions? Autism? Myopia? Gingers?
    On the contrary, not only doesn't it prevent procreation. It even doesn't work if a couple hasn't already decided to procreate. And pretty strongly - fertility clinics are not for casuals...

    Example. Say that your gingers provocation happens to become true. That group wouldn't - even then - be being prevented from reproducing; rather, the group would be changing itself by altering its reproduction mechanisms. Not so different than certain athletes expressly choosing partners for breeding. No prevention => no eugenics. Of course when you apply a social media lens we need to be a bit more cautious, fads might induce group thinking so much that you could speak of trend induced eugenics, but that's varying so far from the nazi kind as to probably need a new word. Eugmoronics? Eumemics? Eumemics seems spot on actually.
    There are prenatal screenings for down syndromes that lead to abortions for example. There may be prenatal testing for autism coming down the pipeline, that would likely lead to abortions of those fetuses too.
    No more autists being born would spell the eventual demise of FHC.

  16. #11716
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post

    No more autists being born would spell the eventual demise of FHC.
    Is it already happening?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  17. #11717
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    The trouble there is treating (and designing) the government as some sort of benevolent mega corporation treating citizens as fungible units of labour.
    It doesn't matter how the Government views its citizens - as fungible units of labour or individually distinct citizens with inalienable rights - it still has limited resources that it must allocate across all citizens or labour units. It can do that fairly or unfairly.

    The question is does any individual have the right to impose a burden on the Government that will force it to shift the allocation of resources away from other citizens to that individual citizen.

    It is a utilitarian argument more than a Neoliberal one. A socialist society would face the same questions.

    In this case I think the status quo was working - a mother who had the tests got to decide (an many don't have the tests which is another issue) whether to give birth to a disabled child, and the Government provided some support. But as soon as some parents demand far more support it opened up the issue as the Royal Commission will accept submissions and some of those are coming from groups who want to insert themselves into an already fraught situation.

    There are also activists pushing against the provision of cochlear implants for deaf children as it threatens the deaf community.

  18. #11718
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,825
    At what stage in a pregnancy are these conditions detectable?

  19. #11719
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    5,328
    Does like all of Scandinavia have scans for genetic abnormalities which has resulted in pretty much everyone who detects one to decide to have an abortion and try again? By choice?

    Sent from my Potato using my fingers

  20. #11720
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    The trouble there is treating (and designing) the government as some sort of benevolent mega corporation treating citizens as fungible units of labour.
    It doesn't matter how the Government views its citizens - as fungible units of labour or individually distinct citizens with inalienable rights - it still has limited resources that it must allocate across all citizens or labour units. It can do that fairly or unfairly.

    The question is does any individual have the right to impose a burden on the Government that will force it to shift the allocation of resources away from other citizens to that individual citizen.

    It is a utilitarian argument more than a Neoliberal one. A socialist society would face the same questions.

    In this case I think the status quo was working - a mother who had the tests got to decide (an many don't have the tests which is another issue) whether to give birth to a disabled child, and the Government provided some support. But as soon as some parents demand far more support it opened up the issue as the Royal Commission will accept submissions and some of those are coming from groups who want to insert themselves into an already fraught situation.

    There are also activists pushing against the provision of cochlear implants for deaf children as it threatens the deaf community.
    When discussing having a baby with my ex we talked about screening, choices if an abnormality was detected etc. Neither of us wanted a child with Down's Syndrome (or any sort of severe disability) and she had to go for some extra testing after one of the scans. IIRC the chance of her carrying a Down's child was on the order of 1/200 and the chance of a complication from the test was 1/1000 (or some similar order of magnitude difference).

    There seems to be a big subsector of the 'Pro Choice' movement who are ok with abortion unless you choose to abort a child with a disability or terminal illness.


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •