Your dystopia only exists in science FICTION novels. Try to remember that.
Because, to this day, human genetic engineering has been either unavailable, illegal or not viable.
Hardly. We already screen for many of these diseases and abort when they appear. A very primitive method, but it works.
Also, because we are fairly intelligent, we can think about the possible bad things that might happen and plan to either avoid or mitigate them. For instance, selecting for selfishness would quickly lead to dystopia. Ergo, we would go out of our way to avoid that. Because a society of sociopaths wouldn't function. Google game theory, joker effect and sociopaths.
And finally, I realize that the article is talking about removal of genetic disposition for behaviors, not genetic defects. That's a much squishier argument, and I'm avoiding it at the moment for the sake of simplicity. Mostly because you started with the generic premise that ANY genetic engineering is wrong.
Anyway, we should probably stop here. You will not convince me of the "relativity" of morality and I will not convince you of the contrary.
I suggest you go read up on Huntingtons. If we can prevent that gene from even popping up, we improve lives.
There is NO scenario where being born with Huntington's is a good idea. There is only one "moral" choice here. And while you were tangled in the underpants of semantics, you missed it.
"Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized."
Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage. Enough damage that we, as a society, say you have to clean that milk up before you sell it.
Your argument sounds very close to that of an anti-vaccination nut. You might want to rethink your opinion on that one.
In short, it's a more than adequate replacement. To use your car analogy, the Space Shuttle was an El Camino (with flames) kept long past its prime, and the SpaceX offerings are more like the rental flatbed trucks from the local U-Haul.
Skip CS. You won't be doing any kind of upper level programing for 90% of the engines out there. The controllers in those things are really basic.
For engine management systems, go ME + EE, and fill your choices with control theory classes.
This also gives you a backup plan. If you have to find a job, the EE degree will give you a broader choice of positions. The industrial control systems field is an excellent spot to be looking for work.
Regulation stifling competition is a soundbite, not a fact.
Or do you prefer to having mercury spread by coal fired power plants or lead paint all over your house?
If the new regulation erects a barrier so high that new business cannot compete using the existing process, then usually an entirely new way of doing things will overturn the monopoly.
The only reason Hospitals don't let you "bleed out in the street" is because we have passed laws saying they can't choose to do that. Otherwise, they would. Because people will say or do anything to take care of a problem right now, including making promises they can't keep.
Hospitals would be out of business and bankrupt if they were weren't compensated by the rest of us for all the folks who show up in ER without insurance.
But that is different than how this system works. This particular system is set up such that there is no one else compensating for the lost revenue. You want to be frugal and not pay? Fine, on your head be it.
As for it being inhumane, you are right. Without pity or or compassion. The home owner made that choice. He has to live with it. It is NOT the firefighters fault.
And finally, what happens next? What is the result of changing this policy? Does the counties insurance policy cover them for fighting freebies? Do the firefighters assume personal liability and risk their lives and their families livelihoods for someone who "just forgot" to cough up $75? And the next guy who decides not to pay? Do we take his land when he can't pay the emergency costs? Because liens don't pay the bills, you have to foreclose to get paid.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because, to this day, human genetic engineering has been either unavailable, illegal or not viable.
Hardly.
We already screen for many of these diseases and abort when they appear. A very primitive method, but it works.
Also, because we are fairly intelligent, we can think about the possible bad things that might happen and plan to either avoid or mitigate them. For instance, selecting for selfishness would quickly lead to dystopia. Ergo, we would go out of our way to avoid that. Because a society of sociopaths wouldn't function. Google game theory, joker effect and sociopaths.
And finally, I realize that the article is talking about removal of genetic disposition for behaviors, not genetic defects. That's a much squishier argument, and I'm avoiding it at the moment for the sake of simplicity. Mostly because you started with the generic premise that ANY genetic engineering is wrong.
Anyway, we should probably stop here. You will not convince me of the "relativity" of morality and I will not convince you of the contrary.
I suggest you go read up on Huntingtons.
If we can prevent that gene from even popping up, we improve lives.
There is NO scenario where being born with Huntington's is a good idea. There is only one "moral" choice here. And while you were tangled in the underpants of semantics, you missed it.
Bah. I was logged out for some reason... That's me.
I liked Hudson Hawk you insensitive clod!
Don't let Lindelof get near your script and you might have a chance.
"Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized."
Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage. Enough damage that we, as a society, say you have to clean that milk up before you sell it.
Your argument sounds very close to that of an anti-vaccination nut. You might want to rethink your opinion on that one.
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
You are not making a fair comparison. The dragon capsule is for delivering goods. For delivering "modules" you would use something else.
VEHICLE - PAYLOAD TO LEO
Falcon Heavy - 53,000 kg
Space Shuttle - 24,400 kg
Falcon 9 - 10,450 kg
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php
In short, it's a more than adequate replacement. To use your car analogy, the Space Shuttle was an El Camino (with flames) kept long past its prime, and the SpaceX offerings are more like the rental flatbed trucks from the local U-Haul.
"Tech or GTFO"
Skip CS. You won't be doing any kind of upper level programing for 90% of the engines out there. The controllers in those things are really basic.
For engine management systems, go ME + EE, and fill your choices with control theory classes.
This also gives you a backup plan. If you have to find a job, the EE degree will give you a broader choice of positions. The industrial control systems field is an excellent spot to be looking for work.
Regulation stifling competition is a soundbite, not a fact.
Or do you prefer to having mercury spread by coal fired power plants or lead paint all over your house?
If the new regulation erects a barrier so high that new business cannot compete using the existing process, then usually an entirely new way of doing things will overturn the monopoly.
This is a great suggestion! Wish I had mod points today.
The only reason Hospitals don't let you "bleed out in the street" is because we have passed laws saying they can't choose to do that. Otherwise, they would. Because people will say or do anything to take care of a problem right now, including making promises they can't keep.
Hospitals would be out of business and bankrupt if they were weren't compensated by the rest of us for all the folks who show up in ER without insurance.
But that is different than how this system works. This particular system is set up such that there is no one else compensating for the lost revenue. You want to be frugal and not pay? Fine, on your head be it.
As for it being inhumane, you are right. Without pity or or compassion. The home owner made that choice. He has to live with it. It is NOT the firefighters fault.
And finally, what happens next? What is the result of changing this policy?
Does the counties insurance policy cover them for fighting freebies?
Do the firefighters assume personal liability and risk their lives and their families livelihoods for someone who "just forgot" to cough up $75?
And the next guy who decides not to pay? Do we take his land when he can't pay the emergency costs? Because liens don't pay the bills, you have to foreclose to get paid.
They refused his $75 because on principal.
If they allowed folks to pay them the $75 AFTER the house started burning, no one would pay at all.
As for his pets, those were his fault. They were his responsibility and he failed them.
Wish I had mod points.
Mod parent up, because it's true.
Being a good parent means that sometimes you interfere, even when you don't want to.
Being a good parent means that sometimes you DON'T interfere, even when you DO want to.
Deciding between the two cannot be boiled down to simple rules.