but what i can not tolerate is the death defying leap into stupidity represented by people who believe iran is after only nuclear power and not after nuclear weapons
i can think of plenty of physical abuse worse than penetration against my will. getting a digit lopped off or an organ removed, for example
but i guess i'm a horrible uptight prude with no imagination, because i believe the question was about examples of economic exploitation, not physical abuse, worse than penetration against your will. not many people are employed as full time kidney donors or whipping posts, exotic carnival freak shows aside
however, if we are going to bring up the subject matter of physical abuse, plenty of poor women are indeed coerced into situations where physical abuse like branding and whipping are employed in order to keep them working as unwilling meat
so either you are an idiot because you can't understand the question, or you are purposefully changing the subject matter because you're not intellectually honest enough to concede a simple point
actually, it is among the worst. sexual penetration or no food/ no shelter/ physical abuse: tell me these hypothetical exploitation of yours that are worse
and thank you, for not promoting a hare brained ideology or having a psychological problem that results in the need to indulge interpersonal conflict. you simply contributed positively. incredibly rare
to own an idea is something which is completely contrived
you're talking about something very real and physical: the oldest profession, often involving trafficking and disease and abuse and economic exploitation. not that prostitution should be illegal, but that if it is going to exist, it needs to be heavily regulated to prevent the very real problems that often accompany it. do you deny these problems?
as long as economic exploitation is a problem, people are going to have a problem with prostitution since it can very easily be an egregious form of exploitation
so you better find a way to make the exploitation is minimized. if you can't, or you just want to find a reason to rationalize why you shouldn't try, you're not going to find many takers. not many people are this callous when it comes to society's policies
To speak in in the vernacular of the only Austrian whom Americans can think of.
We can also think of the Julie Andrews (by way of the Sound of Music) and Mozart. After that the next name on the list would be Crocodile Dundee, and then the discussion turns to an Internet meme started by a president who asked, "is our childrens learning?"
i am not a prude. but if there were a way to REGULATE (yes, this would have to be a highly regulated business, my libertarian friends) prostitution heavily, then i have no problem with it
so prostitutes would have to get regular screening. and the kind of human trafficking you see attached to the skin trade would have to be closely monitored and cracked down on. europe has legal prostitution. now ask europe about it's human trafficking problems. this is not a glamorous and lucrative and carefree industry, it never was. it is very easily and very often abusive and miserable. heavy regulation has to predominate
the problem with selling sex is that it is not just sexually adventurous carefree libertines. it often and easily turns into a particularly vile form of economic exploitation. so if prostitution would ever be made legal, it would have to be regulated heavily
Yes, see the link: of all the noble gases we've studied, it is the most chemically active, we've created many more compounds with xenon than any other noble gas. It's the most reactive.
Radon is heavier and has more complex electron shells and therefore is probably more reactive, theoretically. But it is also radioactive, so it isn't more chemically active when we take into account the concept the idea of sticking around and staying in the compound.
So xenon is the most chemically active noble gas, period.
so go live in somalia. no functional government. you will be a happy person. all you need is the biggest gun and a legion of men with you
oppression comes from natural limitations (water, food, shelter, weather, etc) and from other people (warlike, insane, hotheaded, criminal, transgressive, etc.) way more than it comes from the government. a well-functioning government might do something like impose water restrictions or what you can carry on your person on an airplane. in a good society, those limitations are to preserve you from being oppressed by hotheaded idiots or insane people, or because of limited resources. but this won't stop morons from whining about being oppressed by the government, when what you are really dealing with are minor inconveniences to save you from the real oppressions of dumb or crazy people, or natural resource limitations. for example: speed limits. oh what a horrible oppressive imposition on your natural freedoms. of course, the only people who think like that, that all government regulations are automatically evil, are mostly irresponsible selfish assholes who wind up speeding and killing some innocent guy who had the bad luck of sharing the road with you. of course, there are indeed bad regulations. in societies that rule by consent and your vote (rather than force and fear, aka real oppression), you have plenty of avenues to get those regulations overturned. if nobody agrees with you though, maybe the regulation is actually a good one for a good reason and you're just an idiot or a crank
sure, there are oppressive governments in this world and in history. but in modern western liberal democracies, the oppression usually only exists in the mind of some cranky morons. if you don't believe me, move to your utopian dreamland of somalia. no government. go ahead, educate yourself about how all oppression supposedly comes from government, move to somalia
i think you'll find the oppression of well-armed hotheads with no social obligations to you a lot more oppressive than whatever minor inconveniences to a ignorant whiny dolt that you consider a horrible oppression
i can murder anyone i want, at any time. if i do so, society will incarcerate me or execute me. that's the only way the idea of a right to life exists: by actively enforcing negative consequences for actions that society considers a transgression of something it calls a right. it is a completely artificial effort
without society, say pre-civilization or anarchy, there is nothing preventing me from murdering someone without any consequences. only because society says there is a right to life, and actively enforces the concept, does the concept of a right have any meaning
of course, there is a natural revulsion at the idea of openly murdering someone, and in fact those values which overlap with our natural empathies have the greatest chance of being called rights. but repugnance at the idea of something does not translate directly into an agreed upon right. it requires humans in groups to define, agree upon, and actively enforce the idea of a right for the concept to function. without society, without civilization, there are absolutely no such things as rights, just various muddy empathies and vague repulsions, some with natural psychological roots, but all of them highly dependent on habitual social contexts that might not actually evolve in ways you consider second nature. a lot of things you consider natural and automatic are actually dependent upon the way you were raised
i am saying it is possible to raise a child to consider murder perfectly normal, to consider murder a right. no revulsion at all, not a flicker of concern, in opposition to what we consider natural empathies. we are a very social species: give me a child and a controlled environment and some time and i can make a monster, or a society of monsters
of course, such a society would also be a very poor and unhappy society, and that's why we don't see any modern monstrous societies like that. but go back in history and you can see things like slavery, romans being entertained by gladiatorial death, aztecs sacrificing captives, etc. all perfectly reasonable and normal within the context of that society and that time. we don't see those societies any more because they were simply outcompeted by better ideas. monstrous societies are simply evolved away from or outcompeted
and we are still evolving. we evolve even more rights. if society says it is your right to have a cellphone, or a car, or a helicopter, or a pecan tree: whatever. it is a completely unnatural construct, and anything is possible. all that is required for the right to become a major part of society is that what is defined as a right results in more happiness and productivity. then such a society simply outcompetes all others and other societies adapt those rights as well or fade away
to a roman or an aztec, rights you consider extremely important are alien to them. just as a future society with rights to exotic ideas will be alien to you
as internet connectivity becomes more and more essential to our daily lives in a highly technological society, it is not odd at all to consider connectivity an essential right in some future society. you may look down strangely at the idea. but you are a primitive compared to that future society. just like a roman or an aztec might look down strangely on you because you don't freely rape and enslave those weaker than you
logic and truth are of course the guiding principles we use as we define and refine our values
but there's a certain arrogance going on if you think one brilliant person or even a group of exceptionally intelligent people can adequately model the social interactions going on in a complex evolving society and pick perfect values. what i am saying is there a life within tte society's interaction of rules and values that is beyond anyone's control, or even understanding. not that we shouldn't try, but yes: just being smart and logical is not the whole story about what is going on when one society's values become what they are and why they win out over another's
you don't need to study biology, you can describe everything as chemistry. you don't need to study chemistry, you can describe everything as physics. you don't need to study physics, you can describe everything as math
or at some point, you talk about chemistry, or biology, in its own right as a valid study
likewise, you can also talk about memetics in the same way, the interaction of social ideas, above and beyond genetics. it's perfectly valid, just as valid as chemistry compared to physics
and of course we reason about our values. but there's a lot going on that is beyond our understanding or prediction. you think the bill of rights is perfect and requires no further modification as society evolves? so there's founding father fundamentalists out there who see our excellent founding documents as unquestionable, like the bible? kind of a weird way to champion reasoning and arguing
and yes, your respiratory system is perfectly logical. how bees get to flowers optimally or how ant trails work is also logical. i guess you think "looks like a mechanical device" is how to define logical
the real oppression is natural: not enough water. the government's quota is a clumsy reaction, but bullets aren't going to get you more water, they just get you into gunfights with other hotheads wanting more water, further strengthening the average citizen's call for the government to have water quotas to save them from hotheads trying to get control of the water supply
in fact, the ultimate source of the oppression is runaway population growth. but if you institute quotas on how many children you can have, even more hotheads will grab guns so they can have more kids, leading to more chaos and more oppression in the form of hotheads with guns and twelve children
oppression is usually from natural reasons, or oppression is from individuals, such as hotheads with guns, rather than government
not that government can't oppress you, they frequently do
but the idea that in the scenario outlined: that an attempt to ration a limited water supply is oppression, and the right reaction is to start shooting, suggests people who think like you are more oppressive than the government's clumsy attempt to keep the peace
everything else is made up by our heads. we have, and will, make up some really nutty and exotic values in various societies. if those values play out in such a way that the society is more successful than another society with a different set of values, then one succeeds where another fails, and the losing society fades or changes by adapting the set of values that work better
that's the only dynamic in play
think of it as natural selection, but operating on ideas about society rather than genetic programming in living organisms
in this light, your words "What if there were a logical basis from which human rights can be deduced?" is to society's values, like creationism is to evolution
you don't plan and deduce what is best, you simply try out different and almost counterintuitive and random values. because no person is smart enough to think through how it all works. you just have to see how things play out. in retrospect, sure, some of those values seem "logical", just like our circulatory and respiratory system seem logical. but planning them out is not how those biological systems arrived at existence. same with society's values. there are natural "mutations", subtle variations in ideas. and if those subtle changes work better, then they become the new dominant value. there's also no one fixed point of right or wrong. it is all relative, in terms of improvement works. it can also be static for a long time, then experience sudden and rapid change. it's very complicated and way beyond the understanding of one smart person or even a few smart people
sure, that doesn't exclude the value of logical deduction, you can think up some good ideas based on logical thinking, and in fact people do: such as saying mobile broadband should be a right
a government can say that everyone has a right to a pink house. a government can say everyone has a right to a daily meatball sandwich. it doesn't matter
but if that thing called a right results in a happier and more productive society, that's the only metric that matters. because then that society will outcompete other societies, and they will be beaten or change to also include that right out envy or outright necessity due to dire economic reasons or social cohesion reasons
in other words, the idea you need to go to shooting government troops before something is considered a right is not a necessary step. that step might be necessary, and might be taken, in societies that rule by fear and force rather than consent (which is a pretty important right to make a happy and productive society right there)
but going to guns is not the only metric involved in establishing a right, no
for example, the right of gays to marry will probably not ever involve a revolution or civil war or even a large shooting spree. but it can be considered a basic human right in a just society nonetheless
you want science journalists to magically impart college level science knowledge to their audience in 10 minutes time? you expect the impossible
in real life you cut corners and dumb things down to preserve interest and excitement, and that's fine. if the person is more interested, they will learn the real truths, just as you describe your own experience. furthermore, if that excitement and interest wasn't preserved by dumbing things down, maybe less people would be interested enough to make the journey to better scientific understanding
you're really quite wrongheaded in your approach. science is not an ivory tower. it needs to be accessible. but what you want would make it dry, boring, legalistic and would turn children and otherwise motivated layfolk away from it
there's merely values a society holds dear. the success or failure of that society is based on what those values are and how dearly the society holds those values
if it holds those values so fervently that it calls them natural human rights and fights and dies for such so-called rights, then that society will succeed if those rights indeed help the society thrive better than other societies with a different set of values. the human rights the USA holds dearly i think enriches the happiness and productivity of society enough that the USA succeeds as well as it does
some other societies hold other values to the point of fighting to the death, which i will not name, but a review of current events will reveal what i am talking about. it is my assertion that those values those other societies will fight to the death for doom those societies to less happiness and less productivity and therefore the dustbin of history, eventually, as they are simply out competed
as for mobile broadband, i can see a just society handing out cell phones to homeless and poor people to guarantee a baseline of voting rights and access to health records and financial abilities. but it will take time before cell phones reach that level of indisputable necessity and ubiquity. but we are definitely headed in that direction
in other words: not yet, but someday, when your cell phone is your credit card, id, bank account, patient records, etc., you will need such access to be called a right
Slashdot Mirror
which is fine, this is life
but what i can not tolerate is the death defying leap into stupidity represented by people who believe iran is after only nuclear power and not after nuclear weapons
i can think of plenty of physical abuse worse than penetration against my will. getting a digit lopped off or an organ removed, for example
but i guess i'm a horrible uptight prude with no imagination, because i believe the question was about examples of economic exploitation, not physical abuse, worse than penetration against your will. not many people are employed as full time kidney donors or whipping posts, exotic carnival freak shows aside
however, if we are going to bring up the subject matter of physical abuse, plenty of poor women are indeed coerced into situations where physical abuse like branding and whipping are employed in order to keep them working as unwilling meat
so either you are an idiot because you can't understand the question, or you are purposefully changing the subject matter because you're not intellectually honest enough to concede a simple point
mod parent up
common sense defeating ideological crack pot
make a list of forms of economic exploitation that are worse to you than being penetrated against your will
go ahead, i'm waiting
i'm not being a prude. you're being an idiot about what sex against your will really means
actually, it is among the worst. sexual penetration or no food/ no shelter/ physical abuse: tell me these hypothetical exploitation of yours that are worse
and thank you, for not promoting a hare brained ideology or having a psychological problem that results in the need to indulge interpersonal conflict. you simply contributed positively. incredibly rare
free market fundamentalists are about as dangerous to the world of reason as religious fundamentalists at this point in our nation's history
Abuse, disease and trafficking need to be regulated. Prostitution is irrelevant in these matters.
(jaw hangs open, stops reading)
to own an idea is something which is completely contrived
you're talking about something very real and physical: the oldest profession, often involving trafficking and disease and abuse and economic exploitation. not that prostitution should be illegal, but that if it is going to exist, it needs to be heavily regulated to prevent the very real problems that often accompany it. do you deny these problems?
please try to troll more intelligently. thanks
as long as economic exploitation is a problem, people are going to have a problem with prostitution since it can very easily be an egregious form of exploitation
so you better find a way to make the exploitation is minimized. if you can't, or you just want to find a reason to rationalize why you shouldn't try, you're not going to find many takers. not many people are this callous when it comes to society's policies
So ah, I guess, fuck you.
No, properly it's "Hasta la vista, baby."
To speak in in the vernacular of the only Austrian whom Americans can think of.
We can also think of the Julie Andrews (by way of the Sound of Music) and Mozart. After that the next name on the list would be Crocodile Dundee, and then the discussion turns to an Internet meme started by a president who asked, "is our childrens learning?"
red bull started by an austrian taking an interest in a thai drink on a vacation. so it all makes sense in the end
i am not a prude. but if there were a way to REGULATE (yes, this would have to be a highly regulated business, my libertarian friends) prostitution heavily, then i have no problem with it
so prostitutes would have to get regular screening. and the kind of human trafficking you see attached to the skin trade would have to be closely monitored and cracked down on. europe has legal prostitution. now ask europe about it's human trafficking problems. this is not a glamorous and lucrative and carefree industry, it never was. it is very easily and very often abusive and miserable. heavy regulation has to predominate
the problem with selling sex is that it is not just sexually adventurous carefree libertines. it often and easily turns into a particularly vile form of economic exploitation. so if prostitution would ever be made legal, it would have to be regulated heavily
regulate it heavily, i have no problem with it
the xenon could be trapped in the crust, unlike any other noble gas, CHEMICALLY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon#Compounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas_compound
Yes, see the link: of all the noble gases we've studied, it is the most chemically active, we've created many more compounds with xenon than any other noble gas. It's the most reactive.
Radon is heavier and has more complex electron shells and therefore is probably more reactive, theoretically. But it is also radioactive, so it isn't more chemically active when we take into account the concept the idea of sticking around and staying in the compound.
So xenon is the most chemically active noble gas, period.
you keep talking of things as if they have a force all their own, when they only exist as aspects of society
bizarre
so go live in somalia. no functional government. you will be a happy person. all you need is the biggest gun and a legion of men with you
oppression comes from natural limitations (water, food, shelter, weather, etc) and from other people (warlike, insane, hotheaded, criminal, transgressive, etc.) way more than it comes from the government. a well-functioning government might do something like impose water restrictions or what you can carry on your person on an airplane. in a good society, those limitations are to preserve you from being oppressed by hotheaded idiots or insane people, or because of limited resources. but this won't stop morons from whining about being oppressed by the government, when what you are really dealing with are minor inconveniences to save you from the real oppressions of dumb or crazy people, or natural resource limitations. for example: speed limits. oh what a horrible oppressive imposition on your natural freedoms. of course, the only people who think like that, that all government regulations are automatically evil, are mostly irresponsible selfish assholes who wind up speeding and killing some innocent guy who had the bad luck of sharing the road with you. of course, there are indeed bad regulations. in societies that rule by consent and your vote (rather than force and fear, aka real oppression), you have plenty of avenues to get those regulations overturned. if nobody agrees with you though, maybe the regulation is actually a good one for a good reason and you're just an idiot or a crank
sure, there are oppressive governments in this world and in history. but in modern western liberal democracies, the oppression usually only exists in the mind of some cranky morons. if you don't believe me, move to your utopian dreamland of somalia. no government. go ahead, educate yourself about how all oppression supposedly comes from government, move to somalia
i think you'll find the oppression of well-armed hotheads with no social obligations to you a lot more oppressive than whatever minor inconveniences to a ignorant whiny dolt that you consider a horrible oppression
i can murder anyone i want, at any time. if i do so, society will incarcerate me or execute me. that's the only way the idea of a right to life exists: by actively enforcing negative consequences for actions that society considers a transgression of something it calls a right. it is a completely artificial effort
without society, say pre-civilization or anarchy, there is nothing preventing me from murdering someone without any consequences. only because society says there is a right to life, and actively enforces the concept, does the concept of a right have any meaning
of course, there is a natural revulsion at the idea of openly murdering someone, and in fact those values which overlap with our natural empathies have the greatest chance of being called rights. but repugnance at the idea of something does not translate directly into an agreed upon right. it requires humans in groups to define, agree upon, and actively enforce the idea of a right for the concept to function. without society, without civilization, there are absolutely no such things as rights, just various muddy empathies and vague repulsions, some with natural psychological roots, but all of them highly dependent on habitual social contexts that might not actually evolve in ways you consider second nature. a lot of things you consider natural and automatic are actually dependent upon the way you were raised
i am saying it is possible to raise a child to consider murder perfectly normal, to consider murder a right. no revulsion at all, not a flicker of concern, in opposition to what we consider natural empathies. we are a very social species: give me a child and a controlled environment and some time and i can make a monster, or a society of monsters
of course, such a society would also be a very poor and unhappy society, and that's why we don't see any modern monstrous societies like that. but go back in history and you can see things like slavery, romans being entertained by gladiatorial death, aztecs sacrificing captives, etc. all perfectly reasonable and normal within the context of that society and that time. we don't see those societies any more because they were simply outcompeted by better ideas. monstrous societies are simply evolved away from or outcompeted
and we are still evolving. we evolve even more rights. if society says it is your right to have a cellphone, or a car, or a helicopter, or a pecan tree: whatever. it is a completely unnatural construct, and anything is possible. all that is required for the right to become a major part of society is that what is defined as a right results in more happiness and productivity. then such a society simply outcompetes all others and other societies adapt those rights as well or fade away
to a roman or an aztec, rights you consider extremely important are alien to them. just as a future society with rights to exotic ideas will be alien to you
as internet connectivity becomes more and more essential to our daily lives in a highly technological society, it is not odd at all to consider connectivity an essential right in some future society. you may look down strangely at the idea. but you are a primitive compared to that future society. just like a roman or an aztec might look down strangely on you because you don't freely rape and enslave those weaker than you
logic and truth are of course the guiding principles we use as we define and refine our values
but there's a certain arrogance going on if you think one brilliant person or even a group of exceptionally intelligent people can adequately model the social interactions going on in a complex evolving society and pick perfect values. what i am saying is there a life within tte society's interaction of rules and values that is beyond anyone's control, or even understanding. not that we shouldn't try, but yes: just being smart and logical is not the whole story about what is going on when one society's values become what they are and why they win out over another's
you don't need to study biology, you can describe everything as chemistry. you don't need to study chemistry, you can describe everything as physics. you don't need to study physics, you can describe everything as math
or at some point, you talk about chemistry, or biology, in its own right as a valid study
likewise, you can also talk about memetics in the same way, the interaction of social ideas, above and beyond genetics. it's perfectly valid, just as valid as chemistry compared to physics
and of course we reason about our values. but there's a lot going on that is beyond our understanding or prediction. you think the bill of rights is perfect and requires no further modification as society evolves? so there's founding father fundamentalists out there who see our excellent founding documents as unquestionable, like the bible? kind of a weird way to champion reasoning and arguing
and yes, your respiratory system is perfectly logical. how bees get to flowers optimally or how ant trails work is also logical. i guess you think "looks like a mechanical device" is how to define logical
the real oppression is natural: not enough water. the government's quota is a clumsy reaction, but bullets aren't going to get you more water, they just get you into gunfights with other hotheads wanting more water, further strengthening the average citizen's call for the government to have water quotas to save them from hotheads trying to get control of the water supply
in fact, the ultimate source of the oppression is runaway population growth. but if you institute quotas on how many children you can have, even more hotheads will grab guns so they can have more kids, leading to more chaos and more oppression in the form of hotheads with guns and twelve children
oppression is usually from natural reasons, or oppression is from individuals, such as hotheads with guns, rather than government
not that government can't oppress you, they frequently do
but the idea that in the scenario outlined: that an attempt to ration a limited water supply is oppression, and the right reaction is to start shooting, suggests people who think like you are more oppressive than the government's clumsy attempt to keep the peace
the only rules are genetic and psychological
everything else is made up by our heads. we have, and will, make up some really nutty and exotic values in various societies. if those values play out in such a way that the society is more successful than another society with a different set of values, then one succeeds where another fails, and the losing society fades or changes by adapting the set of values that work better
that's the only dynamic in play
think of it as natural selection, but operating on ideas about society rather than genetic programming in living organisms
it's called memetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
in this light, your words "What if there were a logical basis from which human rights can be deduced?" is to society's values, like creationism is to evolution
you don't plan and deduce what is best, you simply try out different and almost counterintuitive and random values. because no person is smart enough to think through how it all works. you just have to see how things play out. in retrospect, sure, some of those values seem "logical", just like our circulatory and respiratory system seem logical. but planning them out is not how those biological systems arrived at existence. same with society's values. there are natural "mutations", subtle variations in ideas. and if those subtle changes work better, then they become the new dominant value. there's also no one fixed point of right or wrong. it is all relative, in terms of improvement works. it can also be static for a long time, then experience sudden and rapid change. it's very complicated and way beyond the understanding of one smart person or even a few smart people
sure, that doesn't exclude the value of logical deduction, you can think up some good ideas based on logical thinking, and in fact people do: such as saying mobile broadband should be a right
a government can say that everyone has a right to a pink house. a government can say everyone has a right to a daily meatball sandwich. it doesn't matter
but if that thing called a right results in a happier and more productive society, that's the only metric that matters. because then that society will outcompete other societies, and they will be beaten or change to also include that right out envy or outright necessity due to dire economic reasons or social cohesion reasons
in other words, the idea you need to go to shooting government troops before something is considered a right is not a necessary step. that step might be necessary, and might be taken, in societies that rule by fear and force rather than consent (which is a pretty important right to make a happy and productive society right there)
but going to guns is not the only metric involved in establishing a right, no
for example, the right of gays to marry will probably not ever involve a revolution or civil war or even a large shooting spree. but it can be considered a basic human right in a just society nonetheless
you want science journalists to magically impart college level science knowledge to their audience in 10 minutes time? you expect the impossible
in real life you cut corners and dumb things down to preserve interest and excitement, and that's fine. if the person is more interested, they will learn the real truths, just as you describe your own experience. furthermore, if that excitement and interest wasn't preserved by dumbing things down, maybe less people would be interested enough to make the journey to better scientific understanding
you're really quite wrongheaded in your approach. science is not an ivory tower. it needs to be accessible. but what you want would make it dry, boring, legalistic and would turn children and otherwise motivated layfolk away from it
there's merely values a society holds dear. the success or failure of that society is based on what those values are and how dearly the society holds those values
if it holds those values so fervently that it calls them natural human rights and fights and dies for such so-called rights, then that society will succeed if those rights indeed help the society thrive better than other societies with a different set of values. the human rights the USA holds dearly i think enriches the happiness and productivity of society enough that the USA succeeds as well as it does
some other societies hold other values to the point of fighting to the death, which i will not name, but a review of current events will reveal what i am talking about. it is my assertion that those values those other societies will fight to the death for doom those societies to less happiness and less productivity and therefore the dustbin of history, eventually, as they are simply out competed
as for mobile broadband, i can see a just society handing out cell phones to homeless and poor people to guarantee a baseline of voting rights and access to health records and financial abilities. but it will take time before cell phones reach that level of indisputable necessity and ubiquity. but we are definitely headed in that direction
in other words: not yet, but someday, when your cell phone is your credit card, id, bank account, patient records, etc., you will need such access to be called a right