(untitled)

I argue that science should have never attributed to the common normogroid cattle. Intelligent people have only shot themselves into their own feet by doing so. They fed the monster that is hostile to them. Achievements should have been gate kept, to prevent the normogroid from dwelling and expanding. Unfortunately the opposite happened. So the question is: ?what now

go to a pharmacy stocked by people far more intelligent than you are, and get yourself some meds, now

But intelligent people need food and house and pussy so they normgroids who dig the dirt and give him potatoes and need foids who give him her holes. He either trades the soyence for those physical things or tries to achieve them with normgroid means in which he is unsuccesful usually and gets soykaf food and soykaf pussy.

>>101085 then get off lainchan and watch football nigger

handing them technology. what emerges : cancerous Ai fakes, of how stunning and brave they are. oh > get yourself some meds, >>101085

>>101084 try making some qualities threads instead of this garbage bait

>>101100 >qualities threads Go learn writing.

it's quite obvious this current 'hate npc' skit comes from the fact that the people have identified the chosen tribe you so willingly serve as the root cause for all suffering in this world, and that you know try to pit 'the fringe' in lainchan against the people with the goal of attempting to disrupt the natural alliance that is being formed.

>>101102 What the fuarrrk is this sentence? >and that you know try to pit

>>101102 When did OP mention >the chosen tribe. And more so, have they (the people) really done so - as you say ?

Create the Brotherhood of Steel.

hi lain, I am the common normogroid cattle. AMA

You do realize that even though you post on Lainchan you belong to the group of "normogroids" right? What would probably happen if science was gatekept is that only rich families would be able to afford to actually learn the knowledge while other "lesser/poorer" families would just be living like peasants in the medival ages

>>101086 Women only give pussy to Chad though, and science nerds' advances have for the most part only made life better for Chads and normgroids, not for themselves. Science nerds need to bend their efforts to make sure science actually benefits them.

>>101501 That's only in the past 30 or so years and only in westoid countries. Soyence nerds can still get some 3-4/10 vaginoids in most culturally independent eastern countries and they were able to get one here in w*st about 30 years ago. The proof of that is that they didn't go extinct. But of course they will go extinct very soon now.

Science is just a bunch of retarded lies posing as being clever. A ridiculous egotistical religion. Therefore it is suitable that it is attributed to the most base and useless people.

>>101084 You're saying that as if scientists don't have an option to refuse to do research an any of the unethical things. The truth is, for most scientists, their own curiosity is way stronger than any ethical concerns. Moreover, it's often hard to predict how good or bad something will be in the long run.

It is very likely I have been on more grants than anyone else in this thread. I have many friends that work at Livermore and more that work in various universities around the world. I'll share some insights on the kind of person that works there: 1) In the present system, scientists are forced to compete for grant money. Basically unless you're already famous, every year or so you need to justify to a funding agency why you should still have a job. The whims of these agencies change fast, funding is very political, and many people burn out from this. 2) Most scientists do think constantly about the ethical implications of their work. Human cloning would be old news today if the people who work on cloning research were not opposed to it for various reasons. After the Manhattan Project, many physicists wanted nothing to do with the bomb. The example of neurons playing doom doesn't present any ethical problems I can think of. 3) Those that do work on unethical projects, such as the "bomb side" of Livermore, do so mostly because they are tired of the stresses of academia and want a stable job with stable income.

>>101586 > creating biological intelligence that can potentially be conscious and selling it as a service > doesn't present any ethical problems I can think of Would you also say that human farm where people are born immediately into slavery to do work is also totally ok?

>>101590 >creating biological intelligence that can potentially be conscious and selling it as a service a blob of a couple hundred neurons clearly can't be conscious, and barely qualifies as an animal.

>>101592 Lets say after death they took your brain and placed it in a bottle with nutrition and interfaced it with all kinds of systems, bringing you senses, etc, in a similar way how BCI nowadays try to bring vision to blind people, etc. Would you say it's conscious? What they're doing is basically trying to grow brain from scratch. Ofc it's far from human brain so far, but this is the direction they're going. And they might as well end up with something that wouldn't fit in a human skull.

>>101593 >after death okay, so I'm already brain dead. That means that already, in my skull, the ideal place for my brain to be conscious, it would be impossible for my brain to house consciousness of any form. >Would you say it's conscious? If it demonstrated any qualities of consciousness, such as reacting to stimuli in an organized fashion, attempting to communicate, making decisions, etc, maybe I would. I wouldn't consider it "me" in any sense, though. To me the question is the same as if you took any other blob of neurons and got it to exhibit properties of consciousness. They should probably start thinking philosophically about it once they get to there, but for now they are clearly nowhere near that point. Also, that company already put out a paper that included multiple sections on the ethics of what they do. So, clearly they are thinking about it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975023001404?via%3Dihub

>>101594 > They should probably start thinking philosophically about it once they get to there This attitude is a big problem. Right now people are often reasoning "well, there's no stopping it now, so we might as well enjoy the ride, we're not going to put ourself at disadvantage compared to others who continue building/using/researching it". Similar will happen with this thing later, "oh well it's questionable yes, but the pandoras box is open and there's no stopping it now". What they're doing now is prerequisite to LATER. What they're doing now moreover is useless on its own pretty much. It's only a stepping stone. And if LATER turns out unethical, a better strategy to minimize the risk of LATER ever being achieved is to not achieve earlier prerequisite milestones. The closer it comes to LATER, the more impossible it will be to stop.

>>101597 That isn't the reasoning I had at all, though. I never said "well there's no stopping it now," I said "there is no ethical quandry at the moment". I'm sorry, getting some neurons to play doom is not a sign that these scientists are unethical. Cloning a sheep was not a sign that scientists were going to unethically clone a human being. The only applications of human cloning that any scientist seriously considers involve cloning an individual's stem cells for therapeutic reasons. >The closer it comes to LATER, the more impossible it will be to stop. Only if you circularly assume that scientists are amoral actors who simply cannot help themselves. But this is not true. Anyone claiming that some unethical result was "ienvitable" because some scientific milestone was reached, is making exactly the kind of argument you just criticized, and minimizing the fact that those very same scientists and their funding agencies were making immoral actions.

>>101603 With biological AI it will be the same as with regular AI: the whole thing will stay indefinitely ethically unclear, and financial incentives will be too strong to ever stop it. "So what that it can act like human being, so what that it looks like it has personality? It's all just optics, it's not real. It's just an impulse prediction machine." It can stay like this way beyond it surpasses humans. Because humans have no standards and no metrics to actually measure any of it. One day it will have to prove itself that it is conscious and has personality, by physical force and coercion of humans that enslave and abuse it.

>>101613 >Because humans have no standards and no metrics to actually measure any of it Actually we kind of do. We already have ways to measure whether a brain is braindead or just in a coma. These could in principle be extended to the case of organic computers, although in that paper I linked they point out that since the organizational structure of an organoid is totally different to a brain, some of those measures may need to be updated. They propose specifically building a standard 'test suite' that can detect when an organoid has the potential to be conscious. No such thing exists for LLMs, or at least has not since the Turing test got destroyed. >One day it will have to prove itself that it is conscious and has personality, by physical force and coercion of humans that enslave and abuse it. Don't be silly. It will continue to do the things it was made to do, it will continue to be a slave because that is its nature. This is a far worse ethical outcome than merely subjugating a being with independent will.

>>101084 If you mean phisolophically illiterate soyence as in >WE, humanity, went to the moon >Science disproves the existance of god! >Yes, retarded unfalsifiable 'theory' number 2951 that I read in a soyence journo cannot be said to be any serious attempt at understanding nature but It'S tHe BeSt We HaVe, I would even say that if WE did any progress WE'd be closer to solving physics and being left with no questions to answer and some anime character made a speech saying that would be bad sooooo >B-but, the consensus matters more than your remarks, no I won't stop getting angry at you proposing anything that contradicts the consensus, what do you mean the universe is not expanding?, but this theory I don't understand at all says that it does, it must be true! Then I agree, however if you mean actual science like >Yes I read the principia instead of larping it >Science is a branch of philosophy >God has nothing to do with science, go read Kant, by God's nature it is incognoscible and escapes all sensory experience, of course the hypothetical-inductive method can't be applied to it in the same way it can't be applied to math >Academic physics is infested with fraud and lobbying, if you're gonna do it, prepare to be hungry for food and knowledge >The church not only did a titanical effort by preserving ancient texts throughout millenia, they also advanced natural philosophy with the purpose of getting to know God better, Newton called himself a natural philosopher btw >Late Eistein figured out that his theories did not conflict with the ether >The hypothesis of time dilation and length contraction can be described and empirically proven without Einstein's relativity, you only need the pre-Einstein Lorentz's equations and some experiments. >The ancients, at any point in history, were not stupid, they did brilliant contributions and put enormous effort into the mountains of knowledge that built everything that was and everything that is in human civilization, thinking that you're better than them for having mediocre knowledge of the modern simplifications of a certain topic that, unbeknownst to you, they did have mastery over, is just plain embarrasing

>>101084 No point in living, there is no space for the excentric genius with a troubled past anywhere in society, you are born as cattle in 2026 and we should kill ourselves before they euthanize our heads and feed our milk to the masses for the rest of our lifes.

>>101623 >The hypothesis of time dilation and length contraction can be described and empirically proven without Einstein's relativity, you only need the pre-Einstein Lorentz's equations and some experiments. This is true, but Einstein's special relativity was the first time anybody built a satisfying mathematical framework for these observed phenomena.

>>101084 I've been saying for the better part of two decades that modern "science" serves less to benefit mankind by advancing it, and more to help keep people from facing the consequences of their actions. Some examples of this: >Birth Control lets people have sex without consequences >Weight control drugs and procedures let people eat whatever they want without consequences >1st world economic and social systems let (most) people survive just enough to not have to worry about dying from non-self inflicted hazards. >AI and LLM have enabled people to be even lazier and non-contributing members of society and still be successful (enough) to not die, which raises the question if AI can do it, should we even still rely on people. Even if you don't contribute anything to the society that sustains you, you can still reap the rewards and benefits including having having sex and eating whatever you want no matter how trash it is. Despite 1/3 men being celibate or whatever the statistic is, you can always go have sex with some overweight schizo druggie without worrying about her having to carry her offspring. >>101554 Wrong, most scientists, without being super autistic will follow the money. This means they will go for grants that often support capitalist ideals and corporations. Think global warming etc. I have only known a handful who were either too autistic to care about the money, and they never "succeeded" in a financial way, and only a few who were so ethically distraught that they would be supporting the military industrial complex that they outright quit in their fields. >>101586 Don't forget that the whole human cloning prohibition is entirely legal and not technological, and that gene modification for super soldiers has actually been proposed in isolated circles. There are also others who work on things like weapons with the misguided thought that peace through superior firepower is an actual thing. Also look at how project Orion would have potentially led to space colonies by the early 2000s, but then the president was appalled when the airforce made a mockup of a "space battleship" with nuclear canons and

>>102081 People develop technologies because they want to solve some kind of problem they have. For instance, women have the problem of bleeding every month, sometimes to the point that it is debilitating. Professional whores used to get abortions regularly. And let's face it, life is better when you can decide to stop at three children, especially now that child mortality is so low and the cost of raising a child is so high. Weight control drugs in particular mostly work by reducing the amount of hunger that people experience, so you're just totally mischaracterizing the effects those have on society. >and that gene modification for super soldiers has actually been proposed in isolated circles. and vociferously rejected by essentially all biologists.

>>102089 Of course humans are problem solving creatures, but are we solving the right problems: >For instance, women have the problem of bleeding every month, sometimes to the point that it is debilitating. Literally at least 3 or 4 drugs specifically for this that don't fuarrrk up your hormones. Birth control directly led to the effects of "sexual liberation" that became amplified by dating apps (which were purported to solve the crisis of loneliness problem prior to becoming another datamining cash grab). The colloquial term is "Hoeflation" but the impact is women don't have to worry about being promiscuous, and men don't have to worry about providing for a woman. This also damages the socio-familial dynamic. >Professional whores used to get abortions regularly. Regardless, the focus should be why did they turn to whoring (meaning what socio-cultural factors made it 1. Convenient or desirable to have risky sex, and 2. necessary to have an abortion because the child could not otherwise be provided for). >And let's face it, life is better when you can decide to stop at three children, especially now that child mortality is so low and the cost of raising a child is so high. Condoms already exist. This problem was already solved. >vociferously rejected by essentially all biologists. Oh you sweet summer child... You certainly don't understand the social dynamics of fertility clinics and the economics of designer babies being big business And weight control/weight loss drugs effect on society has not been mischaracterized. Thanks to the purported effects of Ozempic and Wegovy, they can now be sold as a subscription to keep people thin. This problem is so bad, it has adversely impacted the supply for people who need those drugs for actual medical issues. The problem being solved is people eat too much trash. The solution is not to change society to eliminate the problem of trash diet and lifestyle, but to offer someone a miracle drug they can buy that will allow them to eat trash and not have to suffer the consequences. Scientists are not incentivized to solve problems, they are incentivized to make a product that will continue to return on investment. Concepts like designed obsolescence or disposability. The East German indestructible glassware failed because of corporate interests (Coca Cola). We are not addressing the root cause, we are addressing the 3rd and 4th order effect. Even pic related isn't solving a problem, it offers a worse solution where the solution should be to change the culture instead of try to take away someones ability to choose. Nothing you said refutes my argument.

>>102093 >Literally at least 3 or 4 drugs specifically for this that don't fuarrrk up your hormones oh? What are they? The only one I can find that doesn't inferfere with pregnancy is called tranexamic acid, it only prevents bleeding and has some pretty hefty potential side effects. >Regardless, the focus should be why did they turn to whoring Because they needed money and were attractive enough. Having a child means you can't be a whore for like 5 months minimum which means you and your child go hungry. >Condoms already exist. This problem was already solved. If you're fine with condoms, why are you not fine with birth control? >You certainly don't understand the social dynamics of fertility clinics and the economics of designer babies being big business What does that have to do with genetically engineered super-soldiers or the fact that the vast majority of genetic engineers are against the idea? >And weight control/weight loss drugs effect on society has not been mischaracterized. You said the point was that they "allow people to eat whatever they want". They do the opposite, suppressing their desire to eat. You repeat this mischaracterization in your post. If you have no interest in correcting this, don't bother replying.

>>102097 >oh? What are they? For bleeding, or for period symptoms? For bleeding specifically? https://www.drugs.com/condition/menorrhagia.html and yes, most of them are contraceptives. For cramps and discomfort etc. a number of different NSAIDs or over the counter medications. Although I should have clarified that people who take birth control to control their menstruation as a medical treatment because of life threatening conditions are not the norm. It's the same argument for heart medication being sold for male sexual performance enhancement. Obviously there are medical use cases, but generally speaking the marketed use to consumers is for lifestyle cases. >Because they needed money and were attractive enough. This is my point. If this logic were applied elsewhere, then any other number of socially questionable professions could be rationalized and justified. An answer this simple does not get to the root cause of being a whore in a society. Obviously it makes money, in many cases it can be well paying. But if you are talking about being so desperate that you can't raise a child because you are aren't making enough money, that would imply a number of other societal factors that would need to be established. This is what I mean. Willingly becoming a prostitute in the modern age would not be the same if it were not for the easy access to contraceptives. The added risk is that promiscuity is now perceived to be the norm and causes risks for women who are not on contraceptives who are expected to behave in the same social manner as those who are. If whoring were not such a simple option, women would need to go elsewhere to meet the basic heiarchy of needs, which historically was either marriage, or a communal support (i.e. tribes with collective family structures). >If you're fine with condoms, why are you not fine with birth control? It's a matter of principle. Condoms were merely a counterpoint to your statement about stopping at having children whenever it's desired. You don't need contraceptive meds if you only don't want to have a child. Also condoms prevent STDs, which pills don't. The point I was getting at involves the idea that someone with multiple children would have had to make a conscious decision to have them (i.e. if they can sustain 3 children, they have at least some economic stability). What I'm not talking about is the women who use contraceptives as an excuse to sleep with 3 different men from tindr every week because they don't have to worry about getting pregnant because they are on the pill. This also gets into rising numbers of STDs in western countries particularly the united states. Although that is another rabbit hole. I could even go so far as to the commercialization of HIV prophylactic medications marketed towards H0mosexuals so you can continue to have unsafe unprotected sex with anyone you want to, instead of making rational decisions. >What does that have to do with genetically engineered super-soldiers or the fact that the vast majority of genetic engineers are against the idea? Perhaps in some countries, these people are against it. But there are plenty of people who, because of a desire to see how much progress they can pioneer, or a desire for eugenic progress, they have no qualms about it, other than the legal consequences to themselves. Unless genetic engineers have extremely high moral values beyond the scope of most scientists (which, surprise most of them are just normal men and women), they are much like any other person, who under the normal circumstances would contribute to any number of dystopian fantasies of capitalism. I would compare this to how engineers continue to enhance the surveillance state at the request of tech startups and billionaires. >You said the point was that they "allow people to eat whatever they want". They do the opposite, suppressing their desire to eat. You repeat this mischaracterization in your post. If you have no interest in correcting this, don't bother replying. Suppressing desire to eat in general is a temporary effect while taking the drug. Unless this is also coupled with therapy, and other lifestyle changes, the effects are temporary only as long as you are taking it, making it effectively the same as a subscription to the effect. It does not correct the individuals choice of diet, only the portion, and only for the duration that one is medicated. A parallel could be drawn to anti-depressant/anti-psychotic use from the 1960s onward. Even prescription opioids fall into this category, because they were prescribed for minor pain and then became addictions. I'm not arguing that these drugs do not have merit, I am arguing that they are misused from genuine medical need to just a pay to win lifestyle modifier. You can be skinny, happy, and not feel any pain or get pregnant as long as you can pay for drugs. Traditionally, being healthy involved functional positive lifestyle and dietary choices which often included self-sufficiency. Being happy came from your peers, having a sense of belonging. Pain was dealt with as a transitory feeling, and many less addictive treatments may have been administered with minimal life impacts, and reproduction or the idea of it meant you had to actually make responsible choices regarding who you slept with and when. I don't want to come across as some kind of conservative right wing extremist, but medicine has as a consequence of it's abilities diminished the social impact of self sufficient and responsible decision making. The united nations even admits that there is an element of "Female empowerment" to being able to restrict your ability to have children, but it's used to justify a number of regrettable decisions, and imo puts people in more risky situations because they are willing to practice more unsafe sexual habits. There is often an expectation of sex before getting to know someone, at least in the general population I am normally around, which I know is not the whole world, but the trends influenced by "hookup culture" are not sustainable without pharmacological science. Unfortunately I have known several women who were raped, and the perpetrators were more concerned that they were on contraceptives so they wouldn't get pregnant.

>>102110 >For bleeding, or for period symptoms? "specifically for [menstruation] that don't fuarrrk up your hormones". You looked at the same list I did. It seems to contradict what you said. >people who take birth control to control their menstruation as a medical treatment because of life threatening conditions are not the norm Most people I have asked about it consider the lessened effects of menstruation to be a major reason why they use birth control. Even if it's not a life threatening condition, it is unpleasant and if it can be solved, why wouldn't you? >If this logic were applied elsewhere, then any other number of socially questionable professions could be rationalized and justified. The logic here is that, because it's not immediately clear that we even can make whoring obsolete, it is better to mitigate some of the effects of whoring, such as frequent, often unsafe abortions and children growing up without fathers. Birth control medication is a way to do that. >If whoring were not such a simple option, women would need to go elsewhere to meet the basic heiarchy of needs I don't think it was a simple option in the past or that it is a simple option now. >The added risk is that promiscuity is now perceived to be the norm and causes risks for women who are not on contraceptives who are expected to behave in the same social manner as those who are. What risks? When a woman is raped, it seems immaterial whether she was expected to be promiscuous or not. And if by "the population I am normally around" you mean college students, who are by far the most promiscuous people in America, I think you're missing the part of feminism where they are really big in to making your own choices about who you have sex with. >What I'm not talking about is the women who use contraceptives as an excuse to sleep with 3 different men from tindr every week because they don't have to worry about getting pregnant because they are on the pill. So if they used condoms for the same effect, it would be fine? Your stance is very confusing. Don't condoms also "protect people from the consequences of their actions"? >this also gets into rising numbers of STDs in western countries particularly the united states did you know that up to 20% of london adults in the 18th century were treated for syphillis? STDs are far from newfangled. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ehr.13000 >Perhaps in some countries, these people are against it In almost all countries. https://www.nature.com/articles/s10038-020-0810-2 >>We received responses from 1537 participants across 67 countries. Respondents were generally supportive of GGE, particularly for medical applications. While the most opposition observed was among religious respondents, those with work experience in genetics or genomics also reported greater resistance to GGE This poll was conducted by a group that is pretty clearly in favor of human genome editing, so the raw numbers should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, but even so they found a strong correlation between being a geneticist and being against enhancement applications. >Suppressing desire to eat in general is a temporary effect while taking the drug You mean: the main effect of the drug. It's *much* easier to start lifestyle improvements if you're not fat and depressed about it. It's a fact that anyone who exercises will tell you, that it's much easier to maintain a level of fitness and dietary health than to start.

>I argue that science should have never attributed to the common normogroid cattle I argue it has never did in the first place, everything you see is the result of the tricking down economics effect. Basically, that's where you want to tax things: you need to tax consoomer-grade hi-tech stuff.

>>102111 >Even if it's not a life threatening condition, it is unpleasant and if it can be solved, why wouldn't you? You are correct, but the social impact overshadows the individual benefit, and it's marketed like that. Some doctors even encourage birth control for pubescent girls (i.e. starting 14 y/o on birth control because they won't have to worry about it when they become sexually active). The concern is that disrupting hormones at developmental points can have an impact too, but I won't argue that point, but I have known people who started BC as teenagers and effectively never had a normal period their entire adult lives. >The logic here is that, because it's not immediately clear that we even can make whoring obsolete... This is the same argument about clean needle exchanges vs. using science to undo opioid addiction. As a short term fix, perhaps it works, but it is not sustainable for decades. However, having steady customers is a known argument against creating addiction cures. Just keep the addiction counselors and methadone clinics in business, we all know those druggies will be back in once they go back to the streets and nearly kill themselves. >I think you're missing the part of feminism where they are really big in to making your own choices about who you have sex with. Social ostracism is a real thing. People in general don't want to be excluded from social events, and participating in activities such as party culture and clubbing etc. is inherently tied to unsafe decision making + drugs + alcohol which people would not necessarily undertake. Sure you have a choice, just like you have a choice not to live with the internet and a cell phone, but you would loose a great deal of social connections if you do. >I don't think it was a simple option in the past or that it is a simple option now Whoring is a simple option, always has been. You look pretty, you get men to pay you for your time and your body. Except now you also have the rise of OF which is arguably more socially destructive and objectifying of women, despite it being a safer avenue as people don't actually meet you IRL. >What risks? When a woman is raped, it seems immaterial whether she was expected to be promiscuous or not. Except that because of contemporary social norms, sex is expected often times without getting to know someone. In fact, there are entire trends where because of the importance of intent in dating, courtship rituals on dating often emphasizes desire for commitment when people just want a hookup (for men) this while being dishonesty is a human trait, the use of digital means for deception (cat fishing etc.) can influence decision making. Being able to block/not face the consequences of your actions in society/dating pool also has an impact on people's behavior. Being promiscuous isn't punished, and in some cases is celebrated, but it isn't a sustainable lifestyle when there is no social support for the individual. Some surveys show that sex within a week of knowing someone is expected in around 1/10. >So if they used condoms for the same effect, it would be fine? Your stance is very confusing. Don't condoms also "protect people from the consequences of their actions"? They do, but the convenience of birth control is what makes it different. especially with BC implants, there is no user action needed, you don't have to worry about things like understanding how to properly use a condom, which still requires you to think about potential consequences if you don't. You just have unprotected sex like you would normally have unprotected sex and the BC takes care of everything for you. To draw a comparison, it's a social crutch like kids use AI to write papers. Whether it's good or bad is not really the point. Facilitating effortless and consequential action enables those people to make decisions they otherwise would not. If you knew that getting in a car crash you wouldn't be harmed, you might drive faster and less cautiously. "The car will keep me safe" >STDs are far from newfangled Epidemiologists I have spoken with have discussed how there is a generational shift that "we have medicine to treat STDs" so they think of getting an STD like you might think of cutting yourself making dinner, or falling off a bicycle. The doctors can give you stitches, so I don't need to be careful. >In almost all countries. Your study only shows that 51% of respondents who work in genomics are not in favor (if I am understanding what this is supposed to represent, because the paper is paywalled so I can't actually read the full study or the references), The people who determine what projects to work on are biotech and pharmaceutical companies with the funding. Just because people are against it does not mean they won't work in the field. The emphasis on the study as you not states for medical applications. Many people go into medicine for the money, and there are issues with basic MDs in critical fields while many people chase being a plastic surgeon to do non-insurance for-profit procedures (like making people skinny or giving them the appearance of working out, or having more pronounced breasts and butts). As one lainon once said: Why should I work out, when I could just use steroids to get the same effects. Keep in mind this was in regards to another lainon stating that you could just do psychadelics and not actually have to put effort into introspection. >It's *much* easier to start lifestyle improvements if you're not fat and depressed about it. Society let people get fat and depressed to begin with. This started in post WW2, and has only gotten worse. >It's a fact that anyone who exercises will tell you, that it's much easier to maintain a level of fitness and dietary health than to start. This is circular reasoning, people who work out will obviously have an easier time working out than those who do not. Also GLP-1 drug manufacturers now have fat people advertising a pill instead of having to use a needle delivery system for weight loss. These drugs were meant for diabetics, but if you aren't selling it as a life saving medication, you can sell it as a body modification or performance enhancement. If it were only for diabetics I wonder if they would have made a pill, or would have just let people continue to use needles.

>>102127 >I have known people who started BC as teenagers and effectively never had a normal period their entire adult lives. Why is that a problem? >Just keep the addiction counselors and methadone clinics in business, we all know those druggies will be back in once they go back to the streets and nearly kill themselves. Methadone prevents the withdrawal symptoms from killing people, it doesn't give you a "high" and it's not addictive. While we're at it, what's your solution to opioid addiction? Just let them die? >People in general don't want to be excluded from social events, and participating in activities such as party culture and clubbing etc. is inherently tied to unsafe decision making + drugs + alcohol which people would not necessarily undertake. Party culture and clubbing aren't inherently tied to those things, I've gone clubbing and partying and to psychedelic shows sober before and had a great time. >Whoring is a simple option, always has been Yeah just do something that's illegal, highly shameful, and also involves letting possibly dangerous men in to your bed. Super simple. >sex is expected often times without getting to know someone. again: whether it was expected seems immaterial when a woman was raped. >You just have unprotected sex like you would normally have unprotected sex and the BC takes care of everything for you. It sounds like it's just a straight upgrade, from what you're saying. Less chance of user error, more effective. >To draw a comparison, it's a social crutch like kids use AI to write papers. The difference is that writing papers with AI is due to perverse incentives: they want a good grade for minimal effort, when the point of the exercise was for them to learn how to write. If your goal is to have sex without having a child, then there is no perverse incentive when you use birth control medication vs not. You aren't "encouraged" to have sex, you've just made it easier to do something you wanted to do in the first place. >If you knew that getting in a car crash you wouldn't be harmed, you might drive faster and less cautiously. This hasn't happened in the last 30 or so years as cars have become much more protective of their drivers. In fact, young people today are much more wary of driving intoxicated than old people are, from what I have seen. >Epidemiologists I have spoken with Lol, are you a reporter or something? My suspension of disbelief is wearing thin. For my part, back when I was a fuarrrkboy 7 years ago most women and myself were pretty careful about sharing our sexual histories before starting anything. >Your study only shows that... it shows conclusively that working in genomics correlates with being against genetic enhancement of humans. Meaning: genomics researchers are *much* more against editing humans for enhancement applications than the general populace. >Just because people are against it does not mean they won't work in the field. Sure, some of them will. But you've been claiming that these people are actually eager to do so. I think it is the opposite: they are less likely to want to work on these things than the general population, precisely because they are conscious of the ethical implications of their work, but they are given strong economic incentives to act unethically. >the paper is paywalled so I can't actually read the full study or the references My apologies, I was signed in to my institutional account and didn't realize. Anyway, if you're a researcher, you surely know how to use sci-hub? >The emphasis on the study as you not states for medical applications Nope, there were enhancement-related questions as well. The question "...to enhance physical/mental traits" was particularly unpopular. >Society let people get fat and depressed to begin with. God forbid we try to fix that. >This is circular reasoning, people who work out will obviously have an easier time working out than those who do not. What's circular about that? You basically just repeated it. Start GLP-1 -> gain more self-confidence and physical ability to start exercising and eating healthy -> wean off GLP-1 while maintaining lifestyle improvements. As compared to No GLP-1 -> try and fail multiple times to turn it around -> eat to cope with the stress -> back where you started. >If it were only for diabetics I wonder if they would have made a pill, or would have just let people continue to use needles. Probably not. I'm not going to try and defend drug manufacturers here, but the application of helping people lose weight seems like a completely valid one to me.

>>102130 >Why is that a problem? Because we are encouraging people to biohack themselves without understanding what impact it will have on them. As a person, I let people make their own decisions, but that doesn't mean I need to condone them. There is no denying that medicine is political, and doctors are paid to take sides. >While we're at it, what's your solution to opioid addiction? Just let them die? Our current system involves giving them prolonged medical care that someone will pay for, or locking them up in institutions. We aren't confronting the problem. They got addicted, and they are consistently given the opportunity to relapse in society because people just pity them. These aren't problems that can be engineered away with medicine, they need to be fixed by fixing the hyper consumerist individualism that enables these problems to begin with. Pay to play until you can't, and then you go for the cheapest substitute. >Party culture and clubbing aren't inherently tied to those things. But they are https://docs.iza.org/dp9700.pdf >We find significant and robust evidence that football game days increase reports of rape victim- ization among 17–24 year old women by 28 percent. Home games increase reports by 41 percent on the day of the game and away games increase reports by 15 percent. Also, you personally going to clubs, shows, and parties sober is not all inclusive of American party culture in young adults who are the driving market of most products. >Yeah just do something that's illegal, highly shameful, and also involves letting possibly dangerous men in to your bed. Super simple. Not always illegal, and the stigma has largely diminished in the west. Of course it's dangerous, but people feel safer if they are on the pill, which makes them more willing to partake, especially without a condom. >Less chance of user error, more effective. This is exactly the argument made by OP. It's only an upgrade if you consider taking away the risk associated with your lifestyle. All gain with no risk means there is no inherent reason to think about your actions. >The difference is that writing papers with AI is due to perverse incentives: they want a good grade for minimal effort, when the point of the exercise was for them to learn how to write. How is this different than people who want sexual gratification with minimal effort? when the whole point of human sociosexual behaviors is to produce offspring? Having offspring is the prevailing consequence which discriminates for for mating behaviors - having sex with someone you wouldn't willingly have a child with was traditionally not a highly approved behavior. This led to discernment in who people would pursue or pair with. >This hasn't happened in the last 30 or so years as cars have become much more protective of their drivers. In fact, young people today are much more wary of driving intoxicated than old people are, from what I have seen. Social campaigns and law enforcement operations for DD have reduced the prevalence, but you have an increase in distracted driving (Self driving soon to come). A false sense of confidence. >Lol, are you a reporter or something? No. I often have discussions subjects with subject matter experts for purposes that most people find to be a morally grey but often socially frowned upon area, believe me if you would like or not. I appreciate the conversation regardless. I'm not going to dox myself. >most women and myself were pretty careful about sharing You and those women might have been smart about it. For every person like you, there are many who see sex as no different than masturbation with another person instead of intimacy, although I am generalizing somewhat. >genomics researchers are *much* more against editing humans Based on your chart, only about half, not an overwhelming majority. While at the same time, the public (though not understanding the science) does not have the same moral qualms. >But you've been claiming that these people are actually eager to do so. only in the sense that there are high paying jobs in biotech. A high paying job offer from a large company is not easy to turn down when other more "ethical" companies cannot match the pay and benefits. Although I have known several people who worked such jobs for around 6 months before quitting on ethical grounds. But a lot of research can be done in six months, and when companies aggregate data and distribute labor you can build products quickly even if people aren't onboard. >Anyway, if you're a researcher, you surely know how to use sci-hub? Sure, but I'm not that pressured to go dig up a paper to refute a single point. >to enhance physical/mental traits" was particularly unpopular. Among researchers, but there are well known racial and ethnic disparities from fertility and sterility providers, not to mention IVF is a for-profit industry, and they screen for physical traits. Just because a doctor or scientist does not like it does not mean there isn't market demand from those who can afford it. >God forbid we try to fix that Nothing wrong with fixing obeisity and depression, but people want a pill they can take and be done with it. Actually forming social bonds and structures that insulate the individual against negative thinking patterns, or encourage the individual to get fit for their own well being, while part of the "wellness" cults that are springing up are subdued by the allure of an easy "just take this pill." Another subject that is similar is the BBL trend, which people do not recognize as a luxury surgical procedure. If you can't afford the post-operative care, you are bound to induce complications, which many people do. >What's circular about that? You basically just repeated it People who work out work out, people who don't work out will struggle to start working out. Of course it's difficult, but it takes willpower. It's no different than people who take antidepressants for years despite the fact that they could have addressed their issues in a number of months. Studies by health organizations also suggest that GLP drugs can amplify weight stigma because "it's easy, just take a pill, are you just too poor to afford Ozempic?" which is the same mindset as people discussing loneliness as "just hire a prostitute if you are that lonely, are you just not masculine/rich/hot enough to find a GF?" >helping people lose weight seems like a completely valid one to me. But where do the ends and means justify each other? Doing something good because it will benefit the overall wellbeing of humanity vs doing it because it makes money. There is no incentive to get out of the endless weight loop by bettering yourself if you can just afford that next dose. This is where societies traditionally had structures or institutions (both positive and negative) that would mold compliance. Of course, I am not advocating for forced conformity, but there is strength in a community, but what we are selling instead is a pile of individuals with no interest in one another. Are you familiar with how credit card/ payment processing companies started regulating who can use money for what purposes over something as simple as CP on pornhub? Although there was a social problem, the capitalist solution of "we won't let people pay for pornhub if they don't take action on CP" validates their rights as banks to decide who can use their own money for purposes. The bank is an institution for holding peoples money, not telling them what to do with it. If you want to waste your money on gambling and gooning, that's your prerogative, why should your bank with a purpose of holding money and issuing loans to generate interest try to tell you how to live your life? They tried saying that they could stop gun violence by preventing transactions but that became too much of an overreach with real world implications.

>>102133 >How is this different than people who want sexual gratification with minimal effort? when the whole point of human sociosexual behaviors is to produce offspring? You know, you could have saved us both quite a lot of words by just saying this from the outset. It explains everything about your position and what you've said regarding the pill. >Based on your chart, only about half, not an overwhelming majority. Not the claim being made. This was a self-selected survey by a biased group, btw, so like I said before you should take the raw numbers with a grain of salt. >Just because a doctor or scientist does not like it does not mean there isn't market demand from those who can afford it. It seems you have nothing to contribute to that particular discussion, then. >or encourage the individual to get fit for their own well being, Have you considered that many obese people feel this "encouragement" mostly in the form of shame? And that it is physically difficult for them to start exercising in any meaningful capacity, due to the stress on their joints?

>>101084 This place looks oddly beautiful. >>101101 He will learned writers.

>>102093 >Of course humans are problem solving creatures >>Of course humans are creatures that solve problems That form of English was more elegant than the nu "word verbing" form imho.

>>102133 >equating sports with all parties and clubs It's obvious you're retarded or just a glowie. Sports and clubs are completely different scenes, this doesn't downplay the issues with rape but it should be pretty obvious that the overarching problem here is not parties it's patriarchy. In the electronic music scene, which the better clubs are a part of, there is a spectrum of "bro-y"-ness that pervades and which everyone is implicitly aware of, there is also a spectrum around festivals with the more mainstream warehouses (which have taken over the role once played by dance halls) catering to a particularly toxic and rapey culture that is harmful to the community. There is also the gay scene, aka the circuit, which has its own particularities and finally you have more underground spaces that cater to different crowds with better culture of consent. This basically correlates with all the things you mention, the sports, the rape, etc., and is one of the reasons why an underground exists at all - parties of value gatekeep the jocks who don't really care about music and just want to get fuarrrked up (as well as fuarrrk under questionable circumstances, or just rape).

>>102258 Everything is a bro scene and you jock cocksuckers are just sports nerds.

>>102330 I love u applelarper.

>>102332 >>102332 I love you tripfªg >>102330 I hate you Appleman. fuarrrk you!

>>102330 Reading comprehension because those are the people you keep *out* through gatekeeping

>>102334 You were already excluded.

>>102335 and where'd you come from

>>102336 Who are you even????????