I think we’ve run afoul of two issues. How do you define Marxism-Leninism? Through which means do you know its correctness?

Yes designer babies are totally going to be a thing. The ethical discussion we had about this in college boiled down to it being ethical if and only if an individual could choose to undo and redo the changes as they desire.

I’ve run into that argument from the deaf community. It’s a tough one, should a community of people have more of a say over what health outcomes are chosen than the parents of said child?

Ultimately technology should make whatever one wills be (short of causing suffering to other minds). Anything less than this is insufficient or otherwise broken technology. Theoretically if we had sufficient technology one could take any form whatsoever they desire at any moment with any senses they desire and so on. Now it’s a quite far fetched concept short of us gaining the ability to digitize our minds or otherwise inhabit simulated realities. To achieve this in physical reality would be quite difficult.

The issue you’re really getting at is the unequal spread of technology and our current technological limitations. Minds should be maximally free to experience whatever they desire short of causing other minds suffering.

You’re correct, the best aspect of science is the self revision built into it unlike other systems. The problem with a lot of political philosophies is they suffer from the same blindness but don’t have a system that is ultimately self revising. Once again if what you are saying is true then it will be shown through repeatable measurement, and testing. There’s no need to depend on feelings when we can have facts. If Marxism-Leninism is the most optimal form of governance for producing human wellbeing then a system designed to discover the most optimal form of governance will reproduce it. Putting political philosophy before science is putting the cart before the horse, aka Marxism-Leninism is a good hypothesis we can test using a stronger mental construct called the scientific method.

Yeah most countries have been seriously lacking on the HDI and environmental impact aspect of what I consider to be the best optimization for human wellbeing. Production is amazing, more food, better medicine, more efficient energy sources but it has to be for a reason, not just to do it. Of course capitalism tries to quantify this through market demand but unfortunately people and governance are easy to game if one has enough capital aka people can be convinced either directly or through ignorance to support markets that are harmful to their wellbeing and the environment.

It is, I mean unless we start forcing people to adopt kids they don’t want to adopt or something else I’m not sure that will change anytime soon. As for me in my family it’s more like accidental adoptions aka a more distant family member can’t take care of their kid whose 10 then someone else takes them in. It worked that way with family friend’s kids as well. It’s not like official legal guardianship or adoption, more so an informal familial help.

I mean yeah the scientific method and the tools of science, namely mathematics are indeed branches of philosophy, so is aesthetics but that doesn’t mean science is aesthetics even though they both are philosophy. Now if the claim that Marxism-Leninism is “correct” aka is the most optimal form of governance for producing human wellbeing then of course a system dedicated to finding through scientific enquiry the most optimal means of governance will scientifically prove it is through all possible measurements. There’s no need to have feelings when we can have proof, quantifiable, measurable, repeatable proof. Once again science and specifically the scientific method doesn’t need hand holding, the process will derive the most optimal means of governance regardless of people’s seemingly infallible worship of this political system or that political system.

Maybe a terminal based browser like lynx, w3m, links2, browsh and the like. They are html only so it is going to limit the websites you can easily or reasonably access but it’ll work with an infinitesimal data connection.

Politics then science has the cart before the horse so to speak. It ought to be the other way around. I’ll give a small example of what I mean. When someone gets their PhD they’re getting a degree in philosophy of something. We could have similarly said their degree is heavily philosophy based but it’s another sentiment entirely to say it is a degree in philosophy. Science is the singular most powerful cognitive structure ever created by mankind to determine truth and it ought to be the core of the means through which we govern ourselves. Anything else is just not in the heart of seeking truth, much less the truth on how best to organize and maintain society for the optimized wellbeing of the society’s citizens. Science doesn’t need a middleman.

As a not ace person, yup it’s a tough one for people. It’s almost like telling someone you don’t sleep or get tired. That said some of the kinkiest people I know are ace. I mean they don’t interpret what they are doing in a sexual manner but it’s still kinky. Like rope and a movie or enjoying being tickled or flogged.

Can I get an example? The most I’ve seen is extremely predictable intense curiosity from others and a barrage of questions more so than people going out of their way to be mean to someone about that. Btw some of the kinkiest people I’ve met were asexual funny enough. There’s a lot of experiences in the sensualist and bdsm world that aren’t specifically sexual or dealing with genitals or other typical erogenous zones.

Well this post is gonna float like a lead balloon.

These are always technology problems more than moral problems. The issue is our technology is too shit currently to fix the genetic disease. Same with abortion generally. If we had artificial wombs then we could even have late term abortions and birth the child to be adopted and yes there is a shortage of babies to be adopted.

I feel like I hear this argument about casting from every side. If it’s done one way it’s woke and another way it’s white washing. Like 95% of the time I couldn’t care less. 5% of the time the casting is extremely distracting from the story which is what I care about. Like hypothetically if someone cast Hitler as an African, Indian, or Chinese person in an otherwise period correct film it would be super distracting. Similarly if someone cast like a white dude as Bruce Lee’s character in like a remake of Enter the Dragon and like Kareem Abdul-Jabbars characters like with Peter Dinklage I would have a really tough time paying attention to the film like the original.

Casting most of the time isn’t too sensitive for myself, but there are certain conditions where the casting kinda has to be a particular way for the story to work. Like if you have a film. That’s supposed to be set in Bejing and everyone is Italian with a thick Italian accent it’s just not happening for me.

Yes although we don’t really play around with political structures that much. They may as well be infallible religious doctrine. Also most definitely the goal currently isn’t developing the best society.

Kind of, it’s an afterthought to the system at play. Let’s say for the US, we’re really not experimenting with structures, like what would adding a fourth fundamental branch of government and splitting the power of the executive do as it seems lately the fed and executive branch has gotten overly powerful.

P hacking is nothing new and well understood by an informed group aka it only works on people who don’t actually know what they are looking at. Ideally a science based political system is accompanied by a science based culture aka the populace is well versed in the scientific process and how data is collected, the different levels in data confidence aka single case study vs a meta analysis of hundreds of studies.

Yes but no. The concept doesn’t infer a measure for policies and political structures. I guess one could categorize it as a subset of the concept. This idea is we literally just test ideas and see their influence on the wellbeing of the people and the society. No matter the political structure, system, or idea the data will be there to collect at least for what was tried. It’s up to people to use the data to infer their decision making. Of course they’re free not to or to test and ensure they never really know if their system is optimal.

Well if we test this policy and it optimizes people’s wellbeing over other policies then yes. The whole Idea is we don’t just do things based on the feeling it will have a particular outcome, we test it and that way we have knowledge.

I’m not sure the evidence that’s available here is proof enough she was distracted driving.

Would be funny if it was a more modern vehicle, with a massive ipad that’s nearly bolted to your forehead and has displays on the back of every headrest.