An EV proportional system would, through rounding, delete a lot of people's votes. Nearly 500,000 votes in 2000, for example.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election
- Thread starter Lacius
- Start date
- Views 257,364
- Replies 3,721
- Likes 7
It doesn't delete your vote in the state contest - I think that alone would go a long way to increasing voter turnout
I know I would be a lot more enthusiastic knowing my vote doesn't go to Donald Trump in my state no matter what I do
muh PuTiN is a cope for the people that still cannot accept that Trump won in 2016
Since state popular vote totals would be rounded to meet a state's electoral votes, some people's votes are going to be deleted.
For terminating unborn life, I found it repulsive that anyone would defend such an action. I highly doubt the 51,000 unborn children that are slaughtered per month in the USA are all done "legally, safe and with rarity". I also highly doubt a large percentage were done to simply save the mother as most are done because the mother, father or both simply don't want the child. It really ticks me off that the Liberal news media values some microorganisms in Venus's clouds more than they do valid human being or what it to shortly become a full fledged human being.
I also don't believe in abandoning the child once it's born. While it's not my responsibility to pay or raise other peoples kids, it solely lies on the biological female and male that brought the human being into this world. I would want the child to be raised by a biological women and male, the same two that created it and they should be responsible enough to provide housing, food, clothing, medical care and anything else the child needs (not wants, NEEDS). The child should then be provided with a proper education, minus the indoctrination crap and be allowed to choose for himself of what he or she wants to be when they grow up (as in there's no socialism/communism where the child has no choice or say in the matter).
I don't believe the child should have to grow up in an orphanage or go hungry because the two people who created it are lousy pieces of shit. I'm also sorry I turned this thread into an abortion related discussion. I just meant to highlight the evilness coming from the Left with a couple of extreme examples of what some of them stand for, support, overlook and/or allow to take place.
Back on topic (for me at least):
I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college, but I find what @omgcat proposal of increasing the number of representatives logical and interesting. Of course, the number of representatives should be proportional to the number of legal USA citizens (not illegals).
Finally, the entire deal between Trump filling a vacant seat is not even comparable to an extremely radical thing like adding 3 more Judges to the Supreme Court. There's a stark difference between the two, regardless of how hypocritical either side is being. I wouldn't agree with Trump adding 3 more after whomever he nominates takes the bench. There is a vacant seat and it does need to be filled, and even though @Lacius is glad I admit I could care less if the Conservatives are being hypocritical in a hypothetical situation they currently are not as there was and still is certain criteria that is different between back in 2016 and now in 2020.
I also don't believe in abandoning the child once it's born. While it's not my responsibility to pay or raise other peoples kids, it solely lies on the biological female and male that brought the human being into this world. I would want the child to be raised by a biological women and male, the same two that created it and they should be responsible enough to provide housing, food, clothing, medical care and anything else the child needs (not wants, NEEDS). The child should then be provided with a proper education, minus the indoctrination crap and be allowed to choose for himself of what he or she wants to be when they grow up (as in there's no socialism/communism where the child has no choice or say in the matter).
I don't believe the child should have to grow up in an orphanage or go hungry because the two people who created it are lousy pieces of shit. I'm also sorry I turned this thread into an abortion related discussion. I just meant to highlight the evilness coming from the Left with a couple of extreme examples of what some of them stand for, support, overlook and/or allow to take place.
Back on topic (for me at least):
I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college, but I find what @omgcat proposal of increasing the number of representatives logical and interesting. Of course, the number of representatives should be proportional to the number of legal USA citizens (not illegals).
Finally, the entire deal between Trump filling a vacant seat is not even comparable to an extremely radical thing like adding 3 more Judges to the Supreme Court. There's a stark difference between the two, regardless of how hypocritical either side is being. I wouldn't agree with Trump adding 3 more after whomever he nominates takes the bench. There is a vacant seat and it does need to be filled, and even though @Lacius is glad I admit I could care less if the Conservatives are being hypocritical in a hypothetical situation they currently are not as there was and still is certain criteria that is different between back in 2016 and now in 2020.
Last edited by gregory-samba,
Look, I'm pro-choice, but a fetus does start to develop sentience as it's brain and central nervous system begins to form, which happens at the beginning of the 2nd trimester (month 4). It does have a brain for at least half of the length of an average pregnancy. It's not fully developed, but if you want to get technical I'm not sure the human brain becomes fully developed until around 25 years of age.
Clearly, it's best if abortions are performed before the second trimester for multiple reason (less trauma for patient getting abortion, etc). These are all things that psychology has taught us. Regardless of any of this, I still don't want to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body. No matter how much some people don't want to hear it, that baby is functionally a parasitic organism until it's born. If someone generally feels like that can't cope with the pregnancy, their choice should be respected. If we stop doing this, it will just result in back alley clinics (butchers) like we used to have before it was legal. More people will die if abortion is made illegal.
A fetus shows first signs of brain development is the 3rd-4th week, by the 5th week it has distinguishable sections and by the 6th you can measure first electrical activity - they grow pretty fast.
Considering physical birth as the moment a fetus becomes a person with their own distinct right to bodily autonomy, i.e. the magical vagina theory, is wholly inconsistent with science. I do not believe that there is a meaningful difference between killing a baby 5 minutes before it is "born" versus 5 minutes after, and by the way, neither do you, because that would be colossaly stupid, on top of morally repugnant.
Bodily autonomy does not refer to how autonomous the baby becomes in regards to the mother - it doesn't become fully autonomous until it can fend for itself, but we're not aborting 5 year olds. The term refers to the right to retain your bodily integrity, self-govern and self-determine. You have rights in regards to your body, not another's body, and if the two intersect then we have a problem. I'm sorry to all the mothers temporarily inconvenienced by poor life choices. Once again, perhaps we can come up with a cut-off point that minimises loss and/or suffering of sentient human life, but "5 minutes before birth" ain't it, chief.
I fully understand that you can reason yourself into a position like this based on personal principles or beliefs. That's perfectly acceptable, but if your view on the matter is fundamentalist, don't present it as anything else. I hope you're aware that your position is just as unscientific as magic holy book hocus pocus. In fact, in this scenario, magical hocus pocus appears to be closer to the truth, if only by accident.
If you want to be this nihilistic, I can just as easily say that you and I are in fact mere clumps of cells with meat-calculators inside our skulls that create the illusion of personhood to make us feel good and grant us imaginary rights when in reality we're only reacting to stimuli - that's perfectly plausible and makes the entire discussion of who is or is not a person completely moot.
The crackpot theories promoting moderater discovered he can use the word 'science' as a magical property noun.
You cant be all that dumb to not have gotten the gist of this conversation after the 15th thread, where someone cried in effing world pain 'listn to moi' anger, that someone should stop killing them babies.
The argument is multi layered - but all in all means, that people who have serious emotional problems when thinking of other peoples babies will never get what they want - which is a male patriarchy state more or less.
Also eff you for trying.
-
Here is the argument layed out.
- Women will do abortions. Women will go through extraordinary lengths not to have a thing develop within them, if they dont want it. So you have to find a remedy for that. Because they are killing themselves as well at extended rates if you make it illegal. (Internal bleedings, ....) But at this point all the freaking nutters cheer, because eff those women, they were 'sinners'. What a fun concept.
- If you make it illegal, the practice doesnt go away, it only gets limited to 'folks with money' who will do it anyways (higher 'cost for the family' if you are also monitoring reputation)
- You have to give women a sensible timeframe for when abortion is allowed, that includes 'I was unsure if I was pregnant for two months' and then some buffer (to contemplate the decision), because otherwise you are really showing emotional cruelty and hicking up the despair factor. Which probably would increase the wish to get an abortion anyhow.
- Abortions are needed as a fallback for when contraception doesnt work, other wise you are literally guilt tripping women into being more abstinent 'in case something goes wrong'. You especially need them, because women in the workforce (productivity increase ('best brains' across genders)) are mandatory for your societies to function, since the invention of the pill. Basically, if you turn it back, you'll crash the economy.
- On a philosophical level, showing 'humanity' needs a human counterpart, a fetus is not human, if it hasnt developed all needed facilities for being human (self realization, abstract thinking...) the fetus is not able to live independently, which makes the 'magic vagina' (resign your moderator position, do it today) position actually viable, because you are not 'saving' their live without significantly impacting the life and the independence to decide, of their host. Legislating into 'that' (sovereignty over your body) is highly problematic. But we still do it, in the last trimester.
- A baby, once born is not able to live independently. Which means all you have to do to 'get rid of it', is to do nothing. If you want to create more pathologic outcomes, where women will first bind themselfs into tight cloths, and then abandon their babies, without caring for them, youd ban abortion. Which would lead to them actually becoming murderers in societies eyes. So although you'd probably reduce occurrences, you'd increase pathological outcomes.
- For that not to happen too often, nature baked in an emotion for 'child schemata' if something looks like a baby - it becomes 'cute' and you get lovey dovey about it, thats the thing that makes you care. For some people this emotion is so overbearing, that they want to regulate into other peoples bodies, just so they can save lovey dovey babies.
- Even plants feel 'pain' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...onic-scream-stems-cut-water-short-supply.html (yellow press)), although its certainly a different kind, as they lack 'brain functionality'. But as a reaction to stimulus, it serves a function.
- Thought experiment. If someone didn't know what life is, conceptually, how cruel would it be to take it away. Lets say, they feel pain, and everything - how cruel would it be to take it away. Not how illegal, how cruel.
- The real mindfuck is how on earth you end up with the notion that all life is sacred. Its even in the sentence, sacred. Whatever the law uses as justification for 'killing somone should be illegal' never uses a concept of sacred, and there are exceptions (f.e. self defense, survival, ...).
--
So in the end, you end up with a concept that, in essence you will never be able to end in practice. You might reduce casecount, but doing so would severely increase harm for the remaining people. Pretending, that you'd end the practice, would seriously harm womens standing in life societally (Once they become pregnant - they now have ONE societal duty, so if you want a career, you better dont.). And you would destroy your societies ability to function as well economically (Productivity decrease (more women falling out of the workplace at inopportune times, women having more children in general, ...).)
Children not dying early (women having more children), also is a man made issue to some extent, because we should be pretty good by now to prevent early childhood mortality. The better we get there, the more children a mother statistically has over her lifetime. Think about all the babies! So much babies zafed! So at some point, you are simply over optimizing from a societal standpoint.
And if your only solution to all this is chastity - go eff yourself? (Humans acting against natural urges, kind of never was a model for success. Look at your priests. (Practice there ensures, that the church attains more wealth over time, and serves as a reminder to your sheepish flock, that chastity is possible! In the olden days you basically did this, to not have vendattas, and blood fudes all over the place.))And on top of that, there is pretty much an overpopulation issue we are dealing with, if you are looking at this world wide.
Or simply said, if you are stuck on the emotional feedback level of 'baby cute, must save baby' - you can pretty much be a moron for the rest of your life - society will accept that in this case, but you havent understood the first thing about anything. Seriously.
Bigger picture: You will never get what you want. People will play with your emotions politically, but you will NEVER get what you want.
Which btw - is what? Save all the babies?
In the US currently you have 1.46 abortions for every 100 people. Is that too much? What would be a 'better figure'?
Last edited by notimp,
First of all, the British of the 19th century were comparatively very chaste and extremely successful. The priest example is a bad one because chastity is naturally more of a thing for women. Men have a biological interest to spread their seed and women have a biological interest to vet their sexual partners so that they don´t end up raising the children alone.
Also, the priest example is bad for other reasons.
Chastity does not mean not having sex. It means you think before you have a "one-night stand". It means a woman needs to know her body (e.g. when she cannot get pregnant). If this is too much to ask, then you have a serious issue with balancing goods (not killing millions of unborn children vs a bit less degeneracy in society).
Btw it might be against the rules of the forum to constantly say "eff you" to somebody, you a-hole (see how that does not make it much better?)
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
You seem to have completely missed the point of the mental exercise, @notimp. The point, in case it wasn't obvious, was to get a reading on the moral compass of a randomly selected liberal-minded individual, in this case @Lacius.
Throughout the exchange we've established that packing the court would be immoral, *unless* it is done in revenge (and I am going to call it revenge because that's what it is - means for the injured party to receive compensation which it, in consultation with nobody, considers to be just, issued by itself to itself as the sole judge and jury, which is just a wordy way of saying "get even"), however killing an unborn child 5 minutes before it is born (and at that stage it is a child, I defy you to prove otherwise) is not immoral based solely on the fact that in a purely mechanical sense it is connected to the mother's body and she has autonomy over it, something you would have a hard time finding support for and a position extremely few medical doctors would consider acceptable. In fact, if we take what was said to the ridiculous extreme, it should be permissible to twist the unwanted child's neck as long as it is still technically connected to the mother with an umbilical cord, although I *very much doubt* that he believes that.
As for the ultimate goal of the exercise, it is to illustrate that the reason why there can never be any peace or agreement between the two parties is because of fringe, extreme positions like this that toss aside any semblence of reason or common sense in favour of towing the party line. I often do this myself, but I don't advertise myself as an impartial arbiter of truth who always follows objective precepts of science and reason - many liberals do just that to minimise dissenting opinions.
Nice word salad though. By the way, I was never against sensible time frames and extenuating circumstances - I started the exchange with "legal, safe and rare", and I maintain that position.
Throughout the exchange we've established that packing the court would be immoral, *unless* it is done in revenge (and I am going to call it revenge because that's what it is - means for the injured party to receive compensation which it, in consultation with nobody, considers to be just, issued by itself to itself as the sole judge and jury, which is just a wordy way of saying "get even"), however killing an unborn child 5 minutes before it is born (and at that stage it is a child, I defy you to prove otherwise) is not immoral based solely on the fact that in a purely mechanical sense it is connected to the mother's body and she has autonomy over it, something you would have a hard time finding support for and a position extremely few medical doctors would consider acceptable. In fact, if we take what was said to the ridiculous extreme, it should be permissible to twist the unwanted child's neck as long as it is still technically connected to the mother with an umbilical cord, although I *very much doubt* that he believes that.
As for the ultimate goal of the exercise, it is to illustrate that the reason why there can never be any peace or agreement between the two parties is because of fringe, extreme positions like this that toss aside any semblence of reason or common sense in favour of towing the party line. I often do this myself, but I don't advertise myself as an impartial arbiter of truth who always follows objective precepts of science and reason - many liberals do just that to minimise dissenting opinions.
Nice word salad though. By the way, I was never against sensible time frames and extenuating circumstances - I started the exchange with "legal, safe and rare", and I maintain that position.
i dont live in the us, and i know next to nothing on politics, but i read that joe biden wants to do some pretty good stuff, so if i were in the us, well i would probably vote for him
No, for Trump, as Biden only wants to do evil stuff.
Haha, I actually loled.
Sure, why not explain that part as well.
The economics manual doesnt say 'have less children, be more productive' its what globalization dictates. It also comes as a result of (relatively) free trade.The more people you include in a 'trade network' the more benefit for everyone (because you'll need resources from another country, or expertise, or specialities, or parts, ... trade, this allows for specialization, which also boosts productivity), but at the same time, if you have more people in your trade network, that also means, more job prospects, probably willing to work for less, somewhere within that network. So relative worth of your own economy is constantly shrinking, in comparison to 'works cheaper' economy - if you dont innovate. The goal of that innovation is to create something that gives you a competitive edge, that can be quantified. The first thing you come accross, when you are doing cost calculations for goods produced, that anyone else can produce as well - is, how do I increase productivity to remain competitive.
Having women in the workforce, kind of was a pretty obvious answer to that. Relative incomes usually kind of halved with it - (today you need both parents working to sustain a family - usually), but life quality (as measured by GDP
) increased. Meaning you got fancier goods for your work.Now you just suggested, to replace that with a colonial effort where you move into other countries, take away their means of production, take away all their profits, and all independent investments, because that could serve the same purpose, allowing women to finally stay home in front of the stove again.
Wow. You have the intellect of a....
Small detail, why that kind of will not work anymore:
- Africans have smartphones and see, how the british are living
- If third world countries dont develop sustainable infrastructures (and remeber, I hate that stuff being pushed currently) in the next, lets say 50-100 years. They will be left in the stonages. When oil runs out. Investment interests in those areas will tank. World economy will shrink - significantly. (British empire came with logging and cole 'exploits', the likes of which arent available on thise planet anymore. (Entire Nations being 'deforested'..
)So currently, the name of the game is, to pump money into developing economies, so they can get to a place where dealing with them in the future makes sense at all. Bigger picture..
Trump style isolationist tactics will work for maybe one generation, then you get an energy problem, and trade costs explode.So regardless how you are looking at it - in the future, you'll maybe see decreased productivity again, but as always - its the transition thats not fun. And you can bet, that that wont be women resigning their independance willingly once more..
So to have your 'great society of the british back when they ruled the world' you are talking about seriously impacting how your current society works. And by impacting I mean loose gains.
So not only do you have half of the society against your position by default. You also have the entirety of your society against your point, that actually understands, what this would mean for the economy.
Which by the way is, why conservatives in the US 'entertain the notion' for people that can be 'emotionally convinced, that something is right'. Because its basically a cheap way to get influence. But then your pussy grabbing president still has to instill a women as a supreme judge in a hung supreme court, to make sure the conservative party doesnt suffer the retalliation from half of society, and the people that want to make money..
(As the notions may come up, that maybe with that power over the supreme court (elected for 40 years (!)) we now could revoke womens right to choose.)Again - for everyone entertaining the emotional argument, this is an unwinnable fight. Moving that aspect back would basically destroy society in more ways than one. But, but, my emotion and my moral certainty.
Yes, have fun with that, now that you know a little of a bigger picture..
edit: Why is chastity = to 'male patriarchy' (real sense, not SJW), because consequences for man are lower. Them cheating the system is more likely, them getting over consequences with deny, deny is more likely... Sure baby - I'm all for chastity too..
Companies will know that, companies will prefer hiring men, and so on and so forth...
Last edited by notimp,
In all the cases I have seen of it then it is pretty flawed but as you asked there are a few, in addition to things that Foxi4 might be pondering.
"we need more people to fuel our factories/retirement bills and abortion denies us a chance at having them/having them sooner".
The factories bit was actively tried in a few communist states, many still have lingering effects for both sexes (again see the regs regarding getting a vasectomy in Russia -- you have to be quite old or have had several already, compared to elsewhere where you might have to have a look around to find a willing medic but could legally get it done at 18, possibly even on insurance, and plenty have them done in their 20s and consider it a sound financial investment -- https://nypost.com/2017/05/27/hampt...-vasectomies-so-golddiggers-cant-trap-them/4/ ). It did not have a great effect as a net result (unwanted pregnancies tend to make for unwanted children raised in sub optimal environments...).
The latter one I have seen more recently as people look at birth rates being rather below replacement and have banked on there always being more people (more natives being more better for a lot of things, and immigration only works for so long before you exhaust the supplies of quality people and start getting less return on investment, to say nothing of other effects). Why someone else's shit tier financial planning, possibly put in place before I was even born, and unwillingness to react to market conditions (communists, advocate of modern monetary theory, Keynesian, Chicago, Austrian, classical... whatever your position in economics as a whole is then all agree that paying attention to the market, supply & demand, and reacting accordingly is a good plan), means I am supposed to raise a crotch goblin I don't know, not to mention it is debatable that it would even produce more instruments of wealth creation/extraction, but it is still an argument.
Abortion might mostly kick the can down the road but that also means grandparents are then less available (30+30+5 to 7 looking after them= bloody old and decrepit compared to 24+24 + the same, not to mention if we are all supposed to be retiring at 70 or whatever then there is also that) and thus the burden of care shifts either onto the parents, or more likely the state (is the condition of state education a particularly nurturing one that produces well rounded individuals ready to face life, or something that pulls that off coming in cheap?). One also ponders having a career break at 30 when you are probably nicely trained up and bringing in the big money for companies, and having to come back in 5 or so years or only going part time, or not having a break and instead starting reasonably fresh at that time in your mid-late 20s and being to be a good little worker drone (you have 2.3 extra mouths to feed after all). Said drone might possibly be better able to afford a fancy retirement (female poverty rates in retirement is fairly well studied, break to have kids tending to be a big predictor of it) or have your kids get settled in their lives before you get dementia and shuffled into a care home they get to pay for or otherwise geographically restrict them.
I don't know that I have heard it yet but the elements are all out there. Childlessness in women often has some unpleasant psychological effects (fairly well studied, and if nothing else one does not pay the silly money sums for invitro fertilisation and take the massive risks of later life pregnancy (or kick more money to a surrogate), or go through the utter arse ache that is adoption, without a serious underlying drive, one that we can witness in many other animals). Functionally then firing up the womb vacuum might deny them the opportunity to have a kid and in some ways be functionally akin to chopping off an arm because of a condition that says that limb is bad, wind in the issue of biological fertility clocks and issues of older women finding a man ("where are all the good men gone", marriage rates and characteristics thereof, the fun and games of 30 and 40 something divorcees and them finding a new partner...) to that one and it gets even more fun.
There are various places that are more willing to do trade if it is off the table. Most of those having nothing to trade but we are collecting reasons, and who knows what they will dig up tomorrow. On the other hand if one of those is your neighbour and they are doing a roaring trade in taking care of your women as they do a nice day trip just across the border to the womb vacuum and cheap booze shop then it comes back into play.
That would then appear to be several things covering sociological, societal financial, personal financial, international trade, psychological, medical, developmental and similar such reasons, none featuring "because some charlatan in a dress told me in a magic book, written after the fact within a time where industrial farming was not a thing and translated dozens of times since, which I never read yet believe contains truths that it was wrong". How many would stand up in face of no duty to carry a parasite, health reasons, financial reasons, lack sentience in the parasite and all the rest is a different matter, though if we are going to play in societies that are less about the individual and more about the society as a whole (and I don't know that there has ever been a true libertarian state, certainly no big ones) then restrictions and compromises do creep in. Equally is does not have to be restrictions -- too much stick and not enough carrot is a bad plan when you want people do do things.
I imagine it will get even more fun in the future too (the effects widespread of the pill are still being studied after all) when some kind of hypno learning, artificial wombs (already viable for complex mammals and being funded), genetic engineering (see CRISPR), life extension (while above my maths on decrepit ages was more offhand and aimed at being amusing I do note that 50-60 today is not what I saw 30 years ago in the same age range and that is without anything radical happening) and a male pill contraceptive (already in human trials) but I guess we might never see that if whatever the result of this election there will be a hot civil war in the US that kills us all.
But still rejected (in human cloning terms) by ethical standards worldwide. (Public sphere.)
That stuff also kind of important. (If you are talking potential impact on societies at scale.)
What does cloning have to do with anything here?
I have not seen any great push back against artificial womb technology as a general concept. Few morons that don't like giving up being the arbiters of childbirth (many of said same even decrying the male pill being a thing or vasectomies, or the not disclosing of such things, in some cases) and a few fans of sci fi that read too many army/super spy grown in a vat novels (I think I saw an episode of NCIS during its golden seasons that had something similar once, though in this case it was IVF had a twin siphoned off rather than destroyed, so pretty mainstream).
Even if there was I imagine they would just do the "it helps this baby grow to viability when its mother died in a car crash, I mean it is not even hard and we have the technology so logically not doing something..." followed by "oh look they can get a cancer treatment and not have to lose the baby" and then "well getting pregnant at 40 is horribly risky for you and the would be baby, and expensive for the insurance company, try a vat" (said 40 year old, or her husband, maybe being some high powered type and then maybe having a word in the ear of the medical regs places to push it through), next up injury or disease renders one infertile, speaking of injury and disease if pluripotent stem cells have not been cracked by this point then probably get some nice vat grown foetuses to harvest cells from to fight cancer or whatever like they already do with women today (except here you could plausibly have 60 go on at once and select the best one), might be a fight or two as a heroin addict gets a foetus extraction and the laws get resolved there, if men have not had the virtual equivalent of a surrogate or jizz filled turkey baster at one of the previous steps that will also appear there, risk wise 30 is not all that much better than 40 and I am sure some company will want an additional several months of work from their freshly trained up whatever so will pay for that one if it is not already cheap, and at this point we are off to the races.
If there is no real pushback beyond the nutbar "it is a woman's sacred right" set then as soon as it is on par with general pregnancy risks (which are considerable, even more so at age or certain body types) we are probably off to the races, maybe with a financial and lifestyle hurdle not unlike adoption.
Some rogue state or company will probably fancy a few truly deniable operatives that look like the natives (I don't imagine China has too many Icelandic looking people ready to go through the years of immersion deniable covert ops training) or serious big boy infiltrators somewhere along the way. Differences in states will probably be a thing too and then some tourist lines if some other state does not care for it (will genetically be their child, I was pregnant when I left 6 months ago, just did not show yet). That and some states will seek some replacements to bump their population up a bit should rates continue to even remain steady (rub one out and suck out an egg, 9 months from now you will have a new child and 6000 doubloons tax refund to help raise it) .
A theoretical artificial womb automatically resolves the abortion debate - nobody is particularly interested in women's uteri, they're not very visually appealing organs to begin with. Most men are interested in other female organs, but I humorously digress. I'm not sure how such a transplant would work, I imagine it would be rather invasive, unless we're talking about some distopian Demolition Man scenario where actual person-to-person sex is an option people don't even consider, favouring cleaner and more clinical means. That's all within the realm of fantasy though, so sadly, we have to deal with the cards we're dealt with. All we can do that is unobjectionably good is to promote responsible intercourse and the use of contraceptives - chastity is great and all if that's people's jam, it's certainly not mine. Other than that, sensible limits in terms of the stage of development of the fetus, as measured by trimesters, seems like a mutually satisfactory solution for both camps. What those limits should be is not up to us or legislators, they should be based on the advice of medical professionals and bioethicists. But that's a crazy nut job take (and the current legal standard), so I'll refrain from further comments and focus on the election going forward.
Sorry, yes - cloning was the subject of our previous exchange about that..
Societies pushback against artificial insemination and carrying out your child in an artificial womb? Sure you have seen that.. a little bit of a mix between 'Values, religions, social norms, fking is fun and cost.'.
Women would be brandmarked as uncaring/bad mothers probably..
(And natural births would be seen as 'luxury' if that scales, which first needs a society I cant even imagine yet. ) Lets say I forsee, that this business will have an image problem.. edit: Forgot "prior art".
Last edited by notimp,
Similar threads
- Locked
-
- Poll
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
the vram is one advantage when it comes to AI but ends up being slower even with that and really AI is the only use case that needs more than 12gb vram right now -
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I think I watched a video where two games at 4K where eating just over 16GB of RAM and it's the one case where the 7900XT and XTX pulled ahead (minus RTX of course) -
@
Psionic Roshambo:
So my opinion is that they could age a bit better in the future, and maybe AMD will continue improving them via drivers like they tend to do. No guarantee there but they have done it in the past. Just a feeling I have.
-
-
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
they definitely will age better but i feel dlss might outweigh that since it looks about as good as native resolution and much less demanding+1
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
AMD could introduce something comparable to DLSS but nvidia's got a lot more experience with that
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
least amd 7xxx has tensor cores which the previous generations didn't so there is the potential for AI upscaling
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
i think i heard of that, it's a good idea, shouldn't need a dedicated GPU just to run a LLM or video upscaling
-
-
-
@
BakerMan:
Have you ever been beaten by a wet spaghetti noodle by your girlfriend because she has a twin sister, and you got confused and fucked her dad? -
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I had a girlfriend who had a twin sister and they would mess with me constantly.... Until one chipped a tooth then finally I could tell them apart.... Lol
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
They would have the same hair style the same clothes everything... Really messed with my head lol
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@The Real Jdbye, I could see AMD trying to pull off the CPU GPU tandem thing, would be a way to maybe close the gap a bit with Nvidia. Plus it would kinda put Nvidia at a future disadvantage since Nvidia can't make X86/64 CPUs? Intel and AMD licensing issues... I wonder how much that has held back innovation.
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@The Real Jdbye, I could see AMD trying to pull off the CPU GPU tandem thing, would be a way to...