Future issues

There are a few topics today which I think will go away in th near (50 years) future that I think are worth mentioning.
Firstly blindness and deafness. This are already being treated (especially deafness) and with stem cell research it is unlikely that these affliction will last long. Already there is "push back" form the deaf community who feel they are distinct and stuff. I have nothing against that, but I would never force someone to be deaf so that they can still have a community. The only draw back is that seeing eye dogs will become a thing of the past and this will ruin my argument for brining my dog place (well seeing eye dogs are allowed so you can't deny me for sanitation reasons).

Secondly organism meat. Growing a whole chicken or cow to eat just a few parts is rather inefficient. The muscle part (which is what we eat) has been grown synthetically already and will eventually be cost effective since there is much less input since you spend all your energy/money on product. It is entirely ethical since there is no organism, only tissue. This will put an end to cattle ranching and feed lots but I think will also have an unintended consequence: wheat prices will plummet. This will mean poor people in Africa etc will not be able to make a living off of wheat since 70% of N.A. wheat is used for livestock, it will flood the market. This will be a huge boon to the planets food productivity, but an economic disaster for some.

Homosexuality. Firstly let me state flat out, I have nothing against it at all. I just think it is clear it won't likely be around the first world for long. It is likely that it is an interaction with mother's brain in the womb, but whatever is the 'cause' it will eventually be discovered. Once it is that will leave the possibility of both stopping or creating a homosexual child. The vast majority of people will opt for the former, I don't think out of hate or anything but it is simply human nature (mostly because we are designed to want grandkids). This will mean either some people will have to make homosexual children, leave it to chance or become extinct (for a great take on this see Greg Egan's Cocoon).

Maybe I'm looking to far, but then again I remember heating things up on a stove (!?!) and I had a pen pal... lol a pen pal!

Blissful chicken

Sorry this ain't a recipe. It is cruel to have chicken's in cages. But that's because the chickens are fearful and caged. So what if there was a type a chicken that had a brain abnormality such that it was constantly euphoric. What do I mean? Well think of a chicken constantly in a state like being high. So what if you GM modified the chickens to be blissful so even in a cage they were happy? They'd be happier than the other chickens and not worried about the slaughter house. Or you could simply have retarded chickens. The only problems (I think) stem from the fact a a euphoric organism has no reason to do anything (that's why we aren't always happy) so it may not eat so you may have to have it euphoric while it's not eating or if it's too retarded it may not think to eat.

Seems like a solution (unless you believe in bla bla "playing god" or bla bla brain is not mind in which case you shouldn't be on this blog).

Silly environmental stuff

To start I have nothing against environmental science, it's the environmental religion I oppose. I've been marking some environmental papers and Man have I come across some rather silly remarks that I thought I'd share.
-Cities are lonely(!?!) I can't begin to fathom this one...
-Our technology has made us slaves working too much. This is nonsense. A few centuries ago most people were farmers, a 7 day workweek job! Maybe in the 1950's, but compared to today, we work less (remember we passed legislation to make sure we don't work more that 44 hours)
-Having animals as pets is immoral (animal liberation people). This is soo silly. If there is one thing most of us with pets are guilty of is caring too much for the pet and not enough for other humans. Most of us send our dogs for spa's, medical care and lavish meals, treats and affection on them. It is a sad fact that my dog (and almost all dogs I know) have better lives than most poor people in the whole world!
-Human's have lost "something" by living in cities away from nature. Nature is very nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. It's damp, dirty full of bugs and poisonous lizards and cold. If our ancestors could live like us they would in a heart beat. This is probably a deeper problem that fundamentalist environmentalists pray on (if I were to wager it would have something to do with most people not completing projects only pieces of projects and so missing the satisfaction of whole job well done). But I can agree that we lost predators, diseases (yes some people still live in nature and die from it, see Africa/Asia/S.America) and high infant mortality.

There are problem with our way of living, it is clearly too destructive to be sustainable, but that does not justify misusing science and tricking people. But it is unacceptable for us to move backwards (no one will give up our quality of life and especially our infant mortality), so help push forward. Saying the earth is a sacret place to be revered etc only cheapens the arguement (and is simple to refute since 5 mass extinctions have happened and more will happen unless humans stop them). Economics is the management of finite resources and the earth must not be viewed as a reservoir but a finite resource. That's how to find solutions. For example, it cost a certain amount to dump waste in a sanitary landfill (which isn't as bad as fundamentalist environmentalists would have you think) but not into a river or the air. Clearly it should cost giving an incentive to not do it! All that is required is a denial of the equality argument (all people should have equal access to all consumer goods) and some stuff will become more expensive but then less people will use it. If the cost is reflective of the damage to a resource then yes some poor people won't be able to afford some stuff because now it costs more (see why we need to throw away the equality argument) due to pollution laws but that's how demand/damage is kept low.

To say we are "removed" from nature and then deny human nature to consume, collect and modify their environment is a logical fallacy.