Do you have a link to accurate statistics that are easily within reach, to correct the misinformation in that link?
I’m guessing this is some kind of snark, but generally when you tell people their cites are bad, you should provide one of your own. Then I can either see the error of my ways or we can argue about it?
Smoking whether cigarettes (already stigmatized) or pot. Ingesting pot, on the other hand, will hopefully be normal.
Personally, I want to die young (no more than 70-75 thanks to drugs/decent food I predict my body should get me that far going by when my mother who just recently passed/her siblings/my siblings/my father’s siblings (he died of a work related cancer from before OSHA so I don’t count his age at passing)) so I figure and hope by the time I am ready to die of COPD, lung cancer, diabetes or asthma that there will be universal (or at least USA) euthanasia or doctor assisted euthanasia. <— hoping that will be morally right.
On the other hand, I have a book left over from college on the history of German nationalism that includes an epilogue on the question of whether East and West Germany would ever re-unify. The author, a history professor from the UK, dismisses the possibility as it would require the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was published in 1989.
As for mine, often as I enjoy relaxing in the shower, I can’t help thinking that in a generation or two people will view it as a horrific waste of water.
The way we do it now maybe. Add a little bit of plumbing and you can use that water again to flush your toilets, though.
The stipulation is that it must be acceptable today.
The idea that eating meat will be morally repulsive is laughable. We (in the developed world) eat more meat now than ever before in human civilization, and maybe even in the entire existence of our species. The trend is towards eating more meat, not less.
Tobacco
Alcohol
Fishing
Fossil fuel use
Men approaching women for dates
Aggressive driving
I say that the thought of owning a pet will be thought of as terrible.
The thought of someone owning another living being will be thought of as horrific.
Preventing college athletes from earning whatever they can from their skills will be seen as a grossly unfair policy by future fans.
Most posters seem to ignore me what I post this, but the truly abhorrent thing dwarfs every other thing on this list.
We allow millions of our citizens to die from “old age” and we aren’t even trying (on a societal level like the national priority it should be) to develop a form of brain preservation to stop this.
Now many of you will claim that preserving brains is not possible or it wouldn’t be you if your brain were preserved and revived later. I strongly disagree but maybe we can agree on this one point :
Assume that in the future we find it is possible and was achievable with the technology we’ve had since the 1980s. (they had electron microscopes and advanced chemistry then, they could probably have found a combination of cryoprotectants that would work)
Then we’ve allowed more people to become corpses than were ever killed in the world wars, that were killed during any genocide. We’ve committed a crime on our seniors more monstrous than anything else humanity has ever done.
Some of you here will say that death is good, blah blah blah, but the fact remains that even if our generation doesn’t solve it, someone will in the future, and the people thereafter will be functionally immortal. (the term means they can be murdered and will die when the stars run out of fuel but there are no arbitrary near term limits on their lifespan)
So if a future generation of us gets to live on for thousands of years, why not us? Why do we have to be the ones to die? It’s quite possible, given the exponential advances in artificial intelligence that are being made, that we are closer in time to reaching the ability to do this than it might appear.
Tobacco we can replace with vaping devices.
Fishing with farmed fish from a tank or lab meat.
Fossil fuels with nuclear + renewable power, carbon from air-> fuel, a lot of batteries.
Sex robots so men don’t have to ‘harass’ women?
Automated cars.
What are we going to do about alcohol, though? I don’t know of a clear cut way to remove it’s dangers and ethanol is an awfully small molecule, I don’t know if some kind of antidote is possible.
Yes, but it’s inefficient and cruel to grow an entire animal, one with a fairly advanced brain and some kind of self awareness (a cow or pig) just so we can slaughter it the moment it is big enough.
The animal’s nutritional requirements means we have to use grain, we can’t use algae or photosynthetic bacteria as the nutrient source. All sorts of labor has to be done per animal and efficient farms cause the animals to suffer from overcrowding, etc. There’s an awful lot of poop made as waste, and it’s hard to prevent some of it from ending up in the meat itself.
It’s just gross and cruel. Also you have to grow a whole cow just to get a small piece of filet mignon. If we could grow just the parts people want to eat, separately from cell cultures in bioreactors, and feed the cell cultures with nutrients we got from extremely rapidly growing plants like algae or bacteria with chloroplasts, it would be a lot cleaner and more efficient.
I’m sure you’ve heard that progress is being made on this front, though it turns out that it is hugely more complex than it might have seemed at first.
Even since the industrial revolution there has been massive social, economic and legal reform, virtually all of it leftward.
Pensions for the elderly
Labor rights
Universal Healthcare
Feminism and women’s rights
Domestic violence laws
Police brutality laws
Minority rights
Abolitionism
Ending child labor
Universal education
Liberal democracy
Environmental protections
Etc, etc.
The only issues I can think of where society moved to the right are abandoning communism (the world realized it doesn’t work), weaker labor rights in the US. Plus income inequality is worse in the US now vs the past.
Other than that the overall trend line is leftist. Redistribution of wealth and social justice have been trending for the last two centuries.
The increase is not because of a change in moral attitudes toward meat consumption; it’s a matter of economics and availability. The Big Mac (3.2 ounces of beef) used to be a big sandwich, but now it’s a snack compared to the 3/4-pound abominations on the menu at Wendy’s; that the latter didn’t exist until recently is not because of a change in moral attitudes.
The moral trend is indeed away from meat consumption and toward vegetarianism.
Meh.
In 1860, human slavery was more profitable than it had ever been, partly than s to the invention of the cotton gin. Cotton was King. Slavery was viewed as protected by the Constitution even by its enemies. It was endorsed by major religions and regarded as the cornerstone of society in half of what was rapidly developing into the most dominant nation on earth. The idea that anything could happen to slavery, even in the far future, was “laughable.”
Legal slavery was gone within 5 years, its proponents bankrupted, most of their sons dead or crippled, and their plantations in ruins.
How do you figure? Some food spoilage is unavoidable.
I’ve been shamed before for disposing of food I did not care for, usually with the line about how people in blighted regions would have done any number of thing for the food I wasted. Hogwash. My disposal of badly-done scrambled eggs isn’t what’s starving kids in Somalia, and it is morally offensive to imply same.
You were making two different points so I hope I’m not violating board rules by snipping your post down to the only one that I wanted to address. It was an intriguing idea, that it wasn’t a slam dunk that views about abortion continue to migrate leftward. What I think may be more likely, however, in light of continued advances in medical technology, is that said advancements one day make abortion virtually a non-issue altogether. The abortion debate is mostly a product of modern contraception methods and costs; the room for improvements is massive.
That’s kind of tautological, though - although left and right are really ill-defined and often contradictory (‘left wing’ Europe is way to the right of the US Republican party on immigration for example), in general things that are ‘left’ are changes from the status quo and things that are right are either maintaining the status quo or attempting to restore a (real or imagined) status quo from the past. Because of this, the vast majority of things that were ‘accepted, then not accepted’ are going to be classed as left-wing.
There’s also major historical shifts that could be considered ‘leftward’ that resulted in severe steps back in some areas. For example, the Enlightenment and the idea of “All men are Created Equal” could certainly be called left leaning - but an unintended consequence is that it’s also responsible for creating racism in the form we recognize today, and to the distinctly nasty strain of slavery practiced in the US.
Deep down inside I think most people realize eating meat is unethical, but there is no palatable alternative.
In the near future when lab grown meat is cheaper and healthier than actual meat, then you will see a massive growth in vegetarian lifestyles. At the very least, actual meat consumption will decline.
But it’ll be decades after lab grown meat is widely available before actual meat becomes a social stigma.
and any similar show
I misread (as usual) the question.
I was thinking the opposite. What we find, somewhat (or not) unacceptable today, i…e. nudity, sex in the media will mean nothing in the future, meaning, it will be an every day occurrence. Anything goes in the future. Anything. :eek::eek: