It can also be extremely unfair to the other kids, who get shunted out of the way and feel ignored, as the parents are forced to lavish extra care on the disabled child.
So... as you imply, it's not entirely about the happiness of the *disabled* child. That child also negatively impacts its parents, siblings, other relatives, and society, and does so for a long time before it contributes back to society (IF it is ever able to).
I've known happy, productive disabled people, and I've known disabled people who were nothing but a burden -- if not to themselves, then to everyone around them. How is that any more fair, given the impact on the whole family and on society at large, than the alternative of aborting the child in the first place?
And of course, it's not fair to the disabled kid, who at best knows they're not right and can't be like other kids, and at worst may suffer a great deal (consider chronic conditions like cystic fibrosis) and enjoy very little of their life.
Aside from all these social and familial considerations, I worry about the gene pool. Defective infants used to be exposed (left in a remote place, for the gods to decide their fate). Now, we save them at all costs, and they grow up to perpetuate their genes. What is this short-circuting of natural selection doing to our gene pool in the long run? (As a livestock breeder, I can tell you -- eventually it will be hard to find NORMAL individuals to breed from, and then we're fucked.)
Okay...feedback: I already hate the fact that I have to log in to select more than one symptom. This is going to turn off a lot of people who are embarrassed over whatever condition.
I do like the organ chart -- clever and unique.
I was amused to see this ad copy below the organ chart
Facebook Borne Disease
Wow, so you CAN catch diseases thru social networking!;)
HSUS operates internationally. But they are hardly unique; there are AR outfits worldwide, and some of the most aggressive are in Europe. I think if you investigate further, you'll find that your own country's incident is no more credible than what happened here -- rather, that a very unusual and completely atypical case was exploited by someone with a radical agenda, and was exaggerated to make it sound like an everyday event.
Farmers who treat livestock with malice will quickly go out of business, because their profit margin at the sale barn won't suffice to cover expenses. Stressed livestock lose weight, and livestock are sold by the pound. Same with milk and eggs -- contented animals produce well; stressed animals produce poorly or not at all. -- And that is why in the Real World, there is no such thing as a viable livestock operation that doesn't take at least reasonably good care of its animals. Livestock are expensive to maintain -- if you don't care for them well enough to generate a profit, you'll be out of business within a year.
And don't think the occasional short-term hire that proves to be an idiot is a typical farmer -- no farmer will put up with an employee COSTING HIM MONEY by abusing his livestock, nor will such people keep their jobs for long. That would be exactly like an automobile manufacturer putting up with employees who deliberately break windshields while the cars are on the assembly line. Would you stand for your employees breaking your stuff at your expense? Of course not; neither will a farmer.
And if there is a fence separating the cow from the malicious person, explain to me how said malicious person manages to beat the cow?
The truth is, nearly all of the "abuse" you hear about from animal rights mouthpieces is severely exaggerated, or even totally fabricated. But because the average person has little or no real livestock experience, it sounds plausible -- hence rational people like yourself wind up believing the AR propaganda without reservation -- which means you'll vote for their candidates and legislation, and more to the point, donate to their coffers. (HSUS's current worth is about $125 MILLION dollars, NONE of which is used to actually care for animals.)
Second, having seen a "vicious dog" video that was COMPLETELY STAGED (including letting a little kid get bitten -- this was filmed in some third-world country where street kids are a dime a dozen) I have very small faith in the authenticity of such videos... particularly one that's been held back for several months, no doubt to be "edited for television".
I grew up in cattle country, and I never once saw ANY rancher or feedlot (or anyone else for that matter) abuse livestock. Tell me, do you really believe that some DO beat cattle just for the sheer fun of it?? And do you really think a 1500 pound animal equipped with a short temper is going to just meekly put up with it?? Because that's what your response implies. (I'd like to see someone TRY to abuse a dairy bull... let alone live to tell about it!)
See, that's ALWAYS the problem with the AR arguments. Examples of substandard animal care are in fact extremely rare, but that's not how they tell it -- rather, it's always "some are good guys, but many are not" -- despite being able to produce only isolated incidents. Yeah, there are a few corner cases, but corner cases make bad law and worse regulations, and wind up penalizing the good guys out of business.
Of course, the ARs see no problem with this -- SINCE THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL IS THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ALL ANIMAL USE.
That includes meat, milk, eggs (their Prop 2 did manage to effectively ban egg production in California, but if you follow the money, I'm sure it will lead to Chinese and Phillipino egg exporters), leather, research, many plastics, AND PETS.
"...hit their cattle with sticks" -- have you ever moved cattle? They're neither gentle nor fragile, nor on the whole particularly cooperative. They push and shove and will trample you, each other, and anything else in their way, and if they're in the mood and everything is quiet otherwise, they MIGHT notice that you're tapping them with a stick and take the hint to move along. If they're not in the mood, they may not even *notice* you and your paltry little stick (hence the cattle prod, which is harder to ignore). This is where a good working dog helps tremendously (and why such dogs command 5-figure prices) but you can't use a dog in all situations. And you have to be sure you don't start 'em moving too aggressively, either, because there's not a fence made that can contain a herd that's dead-bent on smashing its way out.
Go work the chutes in a feedlot or on a real ranch for a season, then come back and tell me how easy the job is, and how you never needed to give a cow an unsubtle hint to move along. Or how you (or maybe your partner) never got charged by a rank cow and had to head it off any way you could, before it tramples you. Or how you never got caught between a cow and the chute. Here's a hint: that cow isn't going to back off because you kiss it on the nose. It probably will if you tap it with your stick a few times. But sometimes it won't til you smack it -- hard enough to get the message across, tho not so hard as to panic it.
But to hear the ARs talk, ranchers beat cattle just for the sheer hell of it. Not hardly, unless you WANT a stampede. But sometimes you'll USE that stick, mostly just to keep 'em moving quietly along, but sometimes for sheer self-preservation.
Someone who has no experience has no business telling someone who makes their living in that field how to do their job. ARs in control of animal agriculture is like having the marketing department design your operating system. It may look good on the surface, and it may sell to people who don't know any better, but in practice, it won't work, because the real world just doesn't run that way.
Thought processes like yours are wrong on so many levels, I almost don't know where to start. But here's a stab at it:
Mistreated, stressed, unhappy animals don't produce effectively. REGARDLESS OF SCALE, farmers and ranchers go to considerable lengths to ensure that livestock lead stress-free lives, because that's simple economics: stress reduces sale weight, and meat animals are sold by the pound. As a result, there is NO ONE more concerned about their animals' well-being than the livestock producers and slaughterhouses. And we've come a long way in understanding animals' needs, compared to any prior era.
However, those needs DON'T include being the beloved Flopsys and Bambis that the ARs want us to view them as.
And if you think there is more "mistreatment" now than in the past, you clearly know nothing about the history of meat production, but have drunk the "animal rights" koolaid, fake sweeteners and all. I suggest starting with a visit to http://www.activistcash.com/ -- check out any of the AR groups. Follow the money. It's not about animal welfare at all; it's about enriching themselves while spewing hatred for people.
People always bring up the example of the downer cow moved via forklift. Oooh, cruel. Well, explain to me how YOU would move 1200 pounds of dead weight, or worse yet 1200 pounds of thrashing weight that can kill you with a single kick??
And if you think the bucolic picture of a perfect farm with 6 cows and 20 chickens can feed America, let alone the world, you have no idea of the scale of food production. There are MILLIONS of cattle in the system at any given moment, and when you have that sort of numbers, there will always be a few that get sick or go down AFTER getting into the system. There is no way to prevent this, any more than I can prevent you from coming down with something after you've gone to work this morning.
As to how much meat people eat, that's also simple economics: hunting societies have always had access to daily meat; crop farming societies might not, because of the added expense of pasturage and fodder and the fact that you can't keep livestock and crops together (the former will cheerfully eat the latter). For people outside of either economy (ie. city folk), it's a matter of whether or not they can afford it, not whether they NEED it.
Meat is actually cheaper protein in the long run, compared to the same amount and quality (ie. amino acid balance) of protein from plant sources, but is PERCEIVED as more expensive by people with a "poor mentality" because it costs more by the pound. Poor and uneducated people don't stop to figure out the cost per gram for the daily nutritional requirment of correctly-balanced amino acids, let alone how many extra (wasted in the digestive process, or go to fat) calories they consume in the two pounds or so of plant matter they need for the purpose, while trying to get the same 60 grams of *balanced* amino acids that they'd get from a mere 3 ounces of meat.
Not only that, but grasslands that CANNOT SUPPORT CROPS can very efficiently produce meat protein. We can't eat or convert that grass to usable protein -- but cows can. Do you propose that we forego 60% of our food production acreage (the 2/3rds of the land mass that isn't tillable) because we stop converting grass to meat? Remember, that grassland WON'T produce anything else -- it either lacks sufficient water or can't be effectively tilled, or both.
And as urban sprawl continues to pave over the crop-productive bottomlands (as much as *half* the arable land is already gone in some states), the meat-production capacity of those untillable grasslands will become that much more important to our food supply.
Re:I think Rowling deserves some credit.
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... I'm a mere 10 years older than her, and I remember the Bobbsey Twins... In fact, she should too, since the last one was published in 1979! (Actually, this was one reason why I found Harry Potter unreadable... by the middle of the 2nd book I felt like I was channeling the Twins. It wasn't the content, it was the approach that did it.)
I'd hazard that most fiction is to some degree derivative -- how well it comes off as "new" is up to the skill of the author, as well as to whether it can be made new, as you say, to the current generation.
And, having so far only lightly skimmed Anathem whilst deciding whether to check it out from the library... at first brush it reminds me of A Canticle for Leibowitz (which surely has been an influence for many writers!)
It's one of the Basic Plots: Young man (or rarely, woman) goes forth from a cloistered existence, and becomes a key player in the fate of his universe. What the "cloister" is depends on the scenario, but it will usually be something rather opposite of the rest of the world, so the character contrasts rather than blending into his environment.
Re:Well, then I made the right decision
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 1
I've found that "SF on NYTimes list" usually means "thinly disguised mundania" or "same old shit" which in my ripe old age I find unreadable. The mass of the public doesn't want New and Different; they want Familiar, one way or another. (Don't tell me Harry Potter was "new and different". It was just the Bobbsey Twins recycled, plus broomsticks.)
That said... I could never work up any interest in Stephenson's previous books. But I just got Anathem from the library, and we'll see if I find it readable or not.
"The beginning of the slavery abolition movement was started in the late 1700s, but it took another century for most governments to officially abolish it. The UK beat the US by at least 20 years."
The UK had also been around as a nation for about 800 years. The US was less than 100 years old. Tell me again which one was more precocious?;)
Also, the entire movement had far less to do with human rights than with the industrial revolution, and the economic shift away from human labour. The REAL reason for freeing the slaves in the U.S. was that northern industrialists wanted to cripple the South's economic base, by depriving them of labour (which the South was still heavily dependent upon). But that doesn't sound near as good.
Actually, it IS possible to both reliably control the release of eggs, and to time the event using other biological cues. It's been done routinely with livestock for decades, to maximize conception rates (especially when using irreplaceable frozen semen).
However -- such testing is far beyond the scope of what normal people care to do just so they can get laid at minimal risk of an unwanted pregancy. No one is going to use a glucometer, a deep-probe thermometer, and progesterone tests (which require several blood draws over the course of the "heat cycle" -- and the only accurate ones are expensive laboratory tests to boot) before getting it on!! Likewise, no one is going to pop estrogen pills to reschedule next month's ovulation around planned sex. The whole idea is ridiculous in the framework of human recreational sex.
Without all these tools, you're left with educated guesswork. Admittedly, an experienced livestock person can be just as accurate by eyeball alone. But most other folks lack that level of expertise.
And that is why the Rhythm Method does not work, does not work, does not work...
[/hat]
I've always said that if the "pro-lifers" really mean what they say, they should be researching ways to save all those unused sperm and wasted polar bodies, which after all are every bit as much alive as any embryo, and equally capable of becoming a viable fetus, if rescued and given a second chance!
Not to mention that about 75% of all embryos spontaneously abort in the first 3 weeks -- shouldn't pro-lifers be working on ways to catch and salvage these still-living embryos, which the mother has just murdered with her own body?? After all, her uterus "intentionally" threw it out! (Noting for this discussion that when caught and tested, such embryos have typically proved to have horrendous genetic defects. So Mom's body was just throwing out the trash.)
"WE are paying to build this shit, and then WE will have to pay to abide by it, and WE are the ones going to suffer because of it. And who profits ? Only those who built the system."
That's what I find so amazing about the continuing erosion of our rights -- both here in the USA and over yonder in the UK and elsewhere. Why are we electing and paying people to build a new Iron Curtain, only this time with WE THE PEOPLE behind it?? Doesn't anyone remember what we spent decades trying to tear down, let alone why??
But I think it boils down to something else:
As someone said, "A democracy will exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury."
The side effect is that to have a gov't that "takes care of you", you must also have a gov't that knows everything about you.
And once more than half the voters think that way and vote that way, and have given power to those who want to keep it that way -- there's no going back.
'Cuz you'd never get away with defending your rights like that here in SoCal, er, I mean El Estado Mexicano del Norte de Fascismo...
In Montana, maybe... a neighbour of mine there back-when was regularly harrassed by a deputy. One day he had enough and ran the deputy off with a shotgun. No more trouble!!
And since ~99% of infants are now born in hospitals, they're already conveniently to hand for taking DNA samples before they can disappear into the population at large. As I point out above, cheek cell samples can be taken noninvasively (and/or covertly) and are, um, good enough for gov't work.
I'd guess it would be a lot cheaper to take and store DNA swabs (cheek cells may not be ideal, but can be taken noninvasively and who would know?) than to take and store the footprints of millions of infants.
We use cheek cell swabs for DNA profiling dogs, so it's not like there's no precedent.
I was going to make a similar point -- way back when, government was supposed to keep our "secrets" safe. They've clearly failed at that, by using our "secrets" against us. How is ANY group, comprised of fallible and corruptable humans, supposed to do that much better over the long haul?? doesn't this just shift part of the gov't into the church, the law profession, or whatever group finds itself holding the data?? I count that as an expansion of gov't power, not a safety net!
That said, on the whole I'd trust priests over cops, even tho I'm an atheist.
Interesting.... I know a woman who had two complete sets of interal reproductive organs. I'd speculated that this was the result of a partial twinning early in fetal development.
She has two daughters. Occurs to me that if DNA tests were to show that the two have "different mothers" this would be evidence of a merged (chimera) blastocyte, whereas if they have the same mother, it could be evidence of a failed split equally early in mom's fetal development. (Not definitive for this, tho, since they might by chance have grown in the same uterus.)
Would have been interesting to do DNA testing of each organ set when this woman had a hysterctomy... oh well, too late now!
Slashdot Mirror
"If they were truly looking for "diversity", they would only fund research into disease which every
student has."
Mononucleosis??
"It is precisely this sort of pedantry up with which I will not put!" ;)
Okay then... instead we'll nominate you for "Copyright Rabbi" ;)
It can also be extremely unfair to the other kids, who get shunted out of the way and feel ignored, as the parents are forced to lavish extra care on the disabled child.
So... as you imply, it's not entirely about the happiness of the *disabled* child. That child also negatively impacts its parents, siblings, other relatives, and society, and does so for a long time before it contributes back to society (IF it is ever able to).
I've known happy, productive disabled people, and I've known disabled people who were nothing but a burden -- if not to themselves, then to everyone around them. How is that any more fair, given the impact on the whole family and on society at large, than the alternative of aborting the child in the first place?
And of course, it's not fair to the disabled kid, who at best knows they're not right and can't be like other kids, and at worst may suffer a great deal (consider chronic conditions like cystic fibrosis) and enjoy very little of their life.
Aside from all these social and familial considerations, I worry about the gene pool. Defective infants used to be exposed (left in a remote place, for the gods to decide their fate). Now, we save them at all costs, and they grow up to perpetuate their genes. What is this short-circuting of natural selection doing to our gene pool in the long run? (As a livestock breeder, I can tell you -- eventually it will be hard to find NORMAL individuals to breed from, and then we're fucked.)
Okay...feedback: I already hate the fact that I have to log in to select more than one symptom. This is going to turn off a lot of people who are embarrassed over whatever condition.
I do like the organ chart -- clever and unique.
I was amused to see this ad copy below the organ chart
Facebook Borne Disease
Wow, so you CAN catch diseases thru social networking! ;)
HSUS operates internationally. But they are hardly unique; there are AR outfits worldwide, and some of the most aggressive are in Europe. I think if you investigate further, you'll find that your own country's incident is no more credible than what happened here -- rather, that a very unusual and completely atypical case was exploited by someone with a radical agenda, and was exaggerated to make it sound like an everyday event.
Farmers who treat livestock with malice will quickly go out of business, because their profit margin at the sale barn won't suffice to cover expenses. Stressed livestock lose weight, and livestock are sold by the pound. Same with milk and eggs -- contented animals produce well; stressed animals produce poorly or not at all. -- And that is why in the Real World, there is no such thing as a viable livestock operation that doesn't take at least reasonably good care of its animals. Livestock are expensive to maintain -- if you don't care for them well enough to generate a profit, you'll be out of business within a year.
And don't think the occasional short-term hire that proves to be an idiot is a typical farmer -- no farmer will put up with an employee COSTING HIM MONEY by abusing his livestock, nor will such people keep their jobs for long. That would be exactly like an automobile manufacturer putting up with employees who deliberately break windshields while the cars are on the assembly line. Would you stand for your employees breaking your stuff at your expense? Of course not; neither will a farmer.
And if there is a fence separating the cow from the malicious person, explain to me how said malicious person manages to beat the cow?
The truth is, nearly all of the "abuse" you hear about from animal rights mouthpieces is severely exaggerated, or even totally fabricated. But because the average person has little or no real livestock experience, it sounds plausible -- hence rational people like yourself wind up believing the AR propaganda without reservation -- which means you'll vote for their candidates and legislation, and more to the point, donate to their coffers. (HSUS's current worth is about $125 MILLION dollars, NONE of which is used to actually care for animals.)
The scandal was generated by HSUS, who didn't see fit to report anything AT THE TIME, but waited several months -- until they could make political hay with it. Tell me, was that for the benefit of the cows and the humans who eat them, or for the benefit of HSUS's coffers?? see http://www.activistcash.com/news_detail.cfm?hid=3571 and http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3565 for starters.
Second, having seen a "vicious dog" video that was COMPLETELY STAGED (including letting a little kid get bitten -- this was filmed in some third-world country where street kids are a dime a dozen) I have very small faith in the authenticity of such videos... particularly one that's been held back for several months, no doubt to be "edited for television".
I grew up in cattle country, and I never once saw ANY rancher or feedlot (or anyone else for that matter) abuse livestock. Tell me, do you really believe that some DO beat cattle just for the sheer fun of it?? And do you really think a 1500 pound animal equipped with a short temper is going to just meekly put up with it?? Because that's what your response implies. (I'd like to see someone TRY to abuse a dairy bull... let alone live to tell about it!)
See, that's ALWAYS the problem with the AR arguments. Examples of substandard animal care are in fact extremely rare, but that's not how they tell it -- rather, it's always "some are good guys, but many are not" -- despite being able to produce only isolated incidents. Yeah, there are a few corner cases, but corner cases make bad law and worse regulations, and wind up penalizing the good guys out of business.
Of course, the ARs see no problem with this -- SINCE THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL IS THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ALL ANIMAL USE.
That includes meat, milk, eggs (their Prop 2 did manage to effectively ban egg production in California, but if you follow the money, I'm sure it will lead to Chinese and Phillipino egg exporters), leather, research, many plastics, AND PETS.
"...hit their cattle with sticks" -- have you ever moved cattle? They're neither gentle nor fragile, nor on the whole particularly cooperative. They push and shove and will trample you, each other, and anything else in their way, and if they're in the mood and everything is quiet otherwise, they MIGHT notice that you're tapping them with a stick and take the hint to move along. If they're not in the mood, they may not even *notice* you and your paltry little stick (hence the cattle prod, which is harder to ignore). This is where a good working dog helps tremendously (and why such dogs command 5-figure prices) but you can't use a dog in all situations. And you have to be sure you don't start 'em moving too aggressively, either, because there's not a fence made that can contain a herd that's dead-bent on smashing its way out.
Go work the chutes in a feedlot or on a real ranch for a season, then come back and tell me how easy the job is, and how you never needed to give a cow an unsubtle hint to move along. Or how you (or maybe your partner) never got charged by a rank cow and had to head it off any way you could, before it tramples you. Or how you never got caught between a cow and the chute. Here's a hint: that cow isn't going to back off because you kiss it on the nose. It probably will if you tap it with your stick a few times. But sometimes it won't til you smack it -- hard enough to get the message across, tho not so hard as to panic it.
But to hear the ARs talk, ranchers beat cattle just for the sheer hell of it. Not hardly, unless you WANT a stampede. But sometimes you'll USE that stick, mostly just to keep 'em moving quietly along, but sometimes for sheer self-preservation.
Someone who has no experience has no business telling someone who makes their living in that field how to do their job. ARs in control of animal agriculture is like having the marketing department design your operating system. It may look good on the surface, and it may sell to people who don't know any better, but in practice, it won't work, because the real world just doesn't run that way.
Thought processes like yours are wrong on so many levels, I almost don't know where to start. But here's a stab at it:
Mistreated, stressed, unhappy animals don't produce effectively. REGARDLESS OF SCALE, farmers and ranchers go to considerable lengths to ensure that livestock lead stress-free lives, because that's simple economics: stress reduces sale weight, and meat animals are sold by the pound. As a result, there is NO ONE more concerned about their animals' well-being than the livestock producers and slaughterhouses. And we've come a long way in understanding animals' needs, compared to any prior era.
However, those needs DON'T include being the beloved Flopsys and Bambis that the ARs want us to view them as.
And if you think there is more "mistreatment" now than in the past, you clearly know nothing about the history of meat production, but have drunk the "animal rights" koolaid, fake sweeteners and all. I suggest starting with a visit to http://www.activistcash.com/ -- check out any of the AR groups. Follow the money. It's not about animal welfare at all; it's about enriching themselves while spewing hatred for people.
People always bring up the example of the downer cow moved via forklift. Oooh, cruel. Well, explain to me how YOU would move 1200 pounds of dead weight, or worse yet 1200 pounds of thrashing weight that can kill you with a single kick??
And if you think the bucolic picture of a perfect farm with 6 cows and 20 chickens can feed America, let alone the world, you have no idea of the scale of food production. There are MILLIONS of cattle in the system at any given moment, and when you have that sort of numbers, there will always be a few that get sick or go down AFTER getting into the system. There is no way to prevent this, any more than I can prevent you from coming down with something after you've gone to work this morning.
As to how much meat people eat, that's also simple economics: hunting societies have always had access to daily meat; crop farming societies might not, because of the added expense of pasturage and fodder and the fact that you can't keep livestock and crops together (the former will cheerfully eat the latter). For people outside of either economy (ie. city folk), it's a matter of whether or not they can afford it, not whether they NEED it.
Meat is actually cheaper protein in the long run, compared to the same amount and quality (ie. amino acid balance) of protein from plant sources, but is PERCEIVED as more expensive by people with a "poor mentality" because it costs more by the pound. Poor and uneducated people don't stop to figure out the cost per gram for the daily nutritional requirment of correctly-balanced amino acids, let alone how many extra (wasted in the digestive process, or go to fat) calories they consume in the two pounds or so of plant matter they need for the purpose, while trying to get the same 60 grams of *balanced* amino acids that they'd get from a mere 3 ounces of meat.
Not only that, but grasslands that CANNOT SUPPORT CROPS can very efficiently produce meat protein. We can't eat or convert that grass to usable protein -- but cows can. Do you propose that we forego 60% of our food production acreage (the 2/3rds of the land mass that isn't tillable) because we stop converting grass to meat? Remember, that grassland WON'T produce anything else -- it either lacks sufficient water or can't be effectively tilled, or both.
And as urban sprawl continues to pave over the crop-productive bottomlands (as much as *half* the arable land is already gone in some states), the meat-production capacity of those untillable grasslands will become that much more important to our food supply.
Hmmm... I'm a mere 10 years older than her, and I remember the Bobbsey Twins... In fact, she should too, since the last one was published in 1979! (Actually, this was one reason why I found Harry Potter unreadable ... by the middle of the 2nd book I felt like I was channeling the Twins. It wasn't the content, it was the approach that did it.)
I'd hazard that most fiction is to some degree derivative -- how well it comes off as "new" is up to the skill of the author, as well as to whether it can be made new, as you say, to the current generation.
And, having so far only lightly skimmed Anathem whilst deciding whether to check it out from the library... at first brush it reminds me of A Canticle for Leibowitz (which surely has been an influence for many writers!)
It's not meant to be good lawmaking. It's meant to have the potential to make ANYONE be arrest fodder, should the cops so desire.
Sounds like he spent too much time reading Delany ;)
It's one of the Basic Plots: Young man (or rarely, woman) goes forth from a cloistered existence, and becomes a key player in the fate of his universe. What the "cloister" is depends on the scenario, but it will usually be something rather opposite of the rest of the world, so the character contrasts rather than blending into his environment.
I've found that "SF on NYTimes list" usually means "thinly disguised mundania" or "same old shit" which in my ripe old age I find unreadable. The mass of the public doesn't want New and Different; they want Familiar, one way or another. (Don't tell me Harry Potter was "new and different". It was just the Bobbsey Twins recycled, plus broomsticks.)
That said... I could never work up any interest in Stephenson's previous books. But I just got Anathem from the library, and we'll see if I find it readable or not.
"The beginning of the slavery abolition movement was started in the late 1700s, but it took another century for most governments to officially abolish it. The UK beat the US by at least 20 years."
The UK had also been around as a nation for about 800 years. The US was less than 100 years old. Tell me again which one was more precocious? ;)
Also, the entire movement had far less to do with human rights than with the industrial revolution, and the economic shift away from human labour. The REAL reason for freeing the slaves in the U.S. was that northern industrialists wanted to cripple the South's economic base, by depriving them of labour (which the South was still heavily dependent upon). But that doesn't sound near as good.
[hat type="professional dog breeder"]
Actually, it IS possible to both reliably control the release of eggs, and to time the event using other biological cues. It's been done routinely with livestock for decades, to maximize conception rates (especially when using irreplaceable frozen semen).
However -- such testing is far beyond the scope of what normal people care to do just so they can get laid at minimal risk of an unwanted pregancy. No one is going to use a glucometer, a deep-probe thermometer, and progesterone tests (which require several blood draws over the course of the "heat cycle" -- and the only accurate ones are expensive laboratory tests to boot) before getting it on!! Likewise, no one is going to pop estrogen pills to reschedule next month's ovulation around planned sex. The whole idea is ridiculous in the framework of human recreational sex.
Without all these tools, you're left with educated guesswork. Admittedly, an experienced livestock person can be just as accurate by eyeball alone. But most other folks lack that level of expertise.
And that is why the Rhythm Method does not work, does not work, does not work...
[/hat]
I've always said that if the "pro-lifers" really mean what they say, they should be researching ways to save all those unused sperm and wasted polar bodies, which after all are every bit as much alive as any embryo, and equally capable of becoming a viable fetus, if rescued and given a second chance!
Not to mention that about 75% of all embryos spontaneously abort in the first 3 weeks -- shouldn't pro-lifers be working on ways to catch and salvage these still-living embryos, which the mother has just murdered with her own body?? After all, her uterus "intentionally" threw it out! (Noting for this discussion that when caught and tested, such embryos have typically proved to have horrendous genetic defects. So Mom's body was just throwing out the trash.)
"WE are paying to build this shit, and then WE will have to pay to abide by it, and WE are the ones going to suffer because of it. And who profits ? Only those who built the system."
That's what I find so amazing about the continuing erosion of our rights -- both here in the USA and over yonder in the UK and elsewhere. Why are we electing and paying people to build a new Iron Curtain, only this time with WE THE PEOPLE behind it?? Doesn't anyone remember what we spent decades trying to tear down, let alone why??
But I think it boils down to something else:
As someone said, "A democracy will exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury."
The side effect is that to have a gov't that "takes care of you", you must also have a gov't that knows everything about you.
And once more than half the voters think that way and vote that way, and have given power to those who want to keep it that way -- there's no going back.
Where do you live? I want to move there!
'Cuz you'd never get away with defending your rights like that here in SoCal, er, I mean El Estado Mexicano del Norte de Fascismo...
In Montana, maybe... a neighbour of mine there back-when was regularly harrassed by a deputy. One day he had enough and ran the deputy off with a shotgun. No more trouble!!
And since ~99% of infants are now born in hospitals, they're already conveniently to hand for taking DNA samples before they can disappear into the population at large. As I point out above, cheek cell samples can be taken noninvasively (and/or covertly) and are, um, good enough for gov't work.
Crap, it's enough to turn a person Amish.
I'd guess it would be a lot cheaper to take and store DNA swabs (cheek cells may not be ideal, but can be taken noninvasively and who would know?) than to take and store the footprints of millions of infants.
We use cheek cell swabs for DNA profiling dogs, so it's not like there's no precedent.
I was going to make a similar point -- way back when, government was supposed to keep our "secrets" safe. They've clearly failed at that, by using our "secrets" against us. How is ANY group, comprised of fallible and corruptable humans, supposed to do that much better over the long haul?? doesn't this just shift part of the gov't into the church, the law profession, or whatever group finds itself holding the data?? I count that as an expansion of gov't power, not a safety net!
That said, on the whole I'd trust priests over cops, even tho I'm an atheist.
Interesting.... I know a woman who had two complete sets of interal reproductive organs. I'd speculated that this was the result of a partial twinning early in fetal development.
She has two daughters. Occurs to me that if DNA tests were to show that the two have "different mothers" this would be evidence of a merged (chimera) blastocyte, whereas if they have the same mother, it could be evidence of a failed split equally early in mom's fetal development. (Not definitive for this, tho, since they might by chance have grown in the same uterus.)
Would have been interesting to do DNA testing of each organ set when this woman had a hysterctomy ... oh well, too late now!
Thanks for the fine explanation, which has contributed a great deal of entropy to my brain -- causing this post to be emitted as a waste product.
Since it was underwater, more likely a Rock Lobster.
Having eaten grasshoppers, ants, and mice... gimme that beefsteak! :)
(Actually, roast mouse tastes just like beef... trouble is, it's so damn SMALL...)