Skip Navigation
177 comments
  • But like... why babies? We already have way too many of those. We need fewer babies.

    If we're going to delve into some seriously murky ethical water here, why not forcus on something there's an actual need for, like organ and blood harvesting? And that would double donor pool by including men as poss-- ...oh. Oh yeah. That's why. -_-

    • That's already a thing in many countries, an opt-out program for organ donating, so by default they will take my organs if I'm braindead

      • I mean a step or two beyond that- like keep a braindead body alive via feeding tube and ventilator so it's just constantly generating blood that drips into donor bags. Keep just enough in the body's circulation to keep it ticking, but bag the rest -- it would produce WAY beyond the output of a mind-intact donor.

        Bone marrow transplant? Done. Skin grafts? Hit it. Fucking hair for wigs? Plasma? Hell, even fecal transplants are a thing (restores GI microbiome that got wiped out... it's gross as fuck, but it's a thing - and it requires the donor to follow a VERY specific diet, that can now be force-fed).

        Basically anything the body passively generates that we have some use for; keep a braindead-human-cattle-donor on life support and milk it for all it's got.

        ...that sounded a bit bit like a sales pitch - gist is to illustrate just how far we could take this. Putting the focus on babies will just worsen the population problem, but also showcases an extreme lack of imagination!

    • If we're going to delve into some seriously murky ethical water here, why not forcus on something there's an actual need for, like organ and blood harvesting?

      Speaking of, I just watched the MST3K episode on The Clonus Horror. It didn't end well.

    • But like… why babies? We already have way too many of those. We need fewer babies.

      Capitalism has a need for unlimited growth and also most national pension systems globally take the current working generation's money to pay for the retirement of the current retired generation - so the future working generation needs to be big enough to support the current working generation in turn.

      My own country did a footgun thing here. We had a mandatory 2nd pillar system where you contribute to a fund, the gvt matches (well, doubles) your contribution, and that gets added to the normal 1st pillar national pension when you retire, either you take it out as a lump sum, or get paid a portion of it per month. You literally couldn't take money out of it prematurely. Except the right-wing populists decided to allow taking money out of it with the caveat that you can't rejoin it for 10 years. A large percentage of people took money out, something like 30%?

      Now the next generation are going to have to shoulder the responsibility for the current generation again. This was supposed to reduce this dependence on future generations.

      • Cancer has a need for unlimited growth, that doesn't mean we should coddle a tumor: cut that shit out, then put it under the microscope so we know how to stop it from happening again.

        Your county's findings that right-wing populists are trash are consistent with a myriad of similar 'studies' around the globe. Mine just elected an orange neonazi who loves making decisions that hurt the quality of human life, so we'll be adding plenty of data to that pile pretty soon here too.

      • But governments are not willing to do the one thing that would make for higher fertility - make the country a nice place to live, with enough support for parents so having a child isn't an economic disaster

        I wonder what my country will be like with half the number of people. We're building so many houses, my town has two new suburbs opened in the last ten years as we head toward peak population, but our fertility rate is just over 1.6, replacement rate is 2.1. many countries are worse

        I remember when we had a population in my town of 200,000 we are currently just short of half a million

        We also let people take their money out of their retirement fund if they want it for buying a home (or rather put a deposit on a mortgage for a home).

    • We need fewer babies.

      I don't know who this "we" is. Circumstances vary heavily by household and neighborhood.

      • I don't know who this "we" is.

        The inhabitants of planet Earth. Making a baby is one of the largest carbon footprint things anyone can do. The climate is actively writing humanity's (and plenty of other critters') eviction notice via the heat we're pumping into our planet.

        The needs of the individual household include not being cooked to death, and I'd wager that supersedes whichever other circumstances you had in mind.

        We need fewer babies.

  • id love to keep it "boring"

    the "interesting" parts of a dystopia arent usually very healthy for us...

  • This has very little to do with what our actual dystopia will do. I mean, I thought that this was by someone who was probably thinking of the families that lost someone to a coma and had been looking for grandchildren, but no, they are seriously suggesting this simply because of its utility.. Even so, all hail the new future tech bro hivemind and all, but still, not very likely. If it is something that is capable of being truly considered by societies, it will also be capable of considering worse things over it.

  • Suggest like 2 of the most evil doctors you could find so that, actually, YOU could suggest it, The Telegraph

  • IMO

    We don't need more people in the world right now. We should be concentrating on figuring out how to agree on having and applying the best support for the ones we already have first.

    • You'll be glad to know that populations around the world, particularly in energy-intensive nations, are starting to decline. Some, like the US, are propping this up with immigration (for now) but places like South Korea, Japan, and a lot of Europe have been below replacement for some time.

      And to a lot of people this would be a good thing. Fewer people means less impact on the planet and more to go around for everyone. But a lot of our systems are predicated on eternal population growth. For example, a lot of countries have pension systems that require there to always be more young people paying into it than there is old people taking payment.

      Then you have the problem of who does the jobs that these retired people rely on. If there are fewer young people to do all the jobs in society, how will the non-working elderly buy groceries or get medical care or have packages delivered or clothes to wear? Automation can solve some of this but not all of it, plus who's going to develop and build the robots?

      It's going to be a very drastic change in how societies are organized, especially combined with how the Internet and climate change are going to affect society. Hopefully we'll come out the other side a little smarter.

      Goddamn ancient Chinese curse, stupid interesting times....

177 comments