[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.9453

File: 1626176093738.jpg (9.03 KB, 250x250, 1:1, thumb.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you ever wonder if there's something that's common and appropriate today that will be considered a horrible evil in 100 or 200 years?  (Guess I'm thinking about slavery in early America, projecting forward.)

Or do you think we're past that level of moral change, and only small things will change from here forward -- that people will look back at this time and say, "They could have tuned some things, but folks were mostly good to each other."

If you think morality will change in the future, what things do you think will become very evil?

 No.9455

I think that being vegan might be considered the default if mankind lives long enough and has the luxury to.
Now eating meat is still done a lot, but I feel that there's proof that it's unnecessary and might be detrimental to the general state of the world (climate etcetera).
So while it's now the norm basically to serve and eat meat, I can imagine that it might shift to the point where eating meat will be seen as something barbaric and atrocious.

Who knows, maybe even we'll find that PETA will be considered right on plenty of the more radical stances in regards to animal welfare. Maybe even keeping animals as a pet may be considered cruel at some point.


For a more controversial thought/fear: we might find ourselves be totally accepting towards pedophilia in some future. What with all our strife for personal freedom and such.

 No.9456

I also often think, with all possible medical progress, if at some point people will shake their heads at our destructive approach to cancer treatment, such as radiation and chemotherapy.
Maybe that would be at some point looked at in the same way as we look at people using arsenic/radiation to treat regular nuisances around the 1900's.

 No.9457

>>9453
>Do you ever wonder if there's something that's common and appropriate today that will be considered a horrible evil in 100 or 200 years?
Teflon, industrially processed foods, a human population on Earth exceeding 1 billion, persistent organic pollutants, and chemical environmental contaminants in general.  See also: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/13/a-chemical-hunger-part-iii-environmental-contaminants/

 No.9458

File: 1626218938599.png (246.59 KB, 600x600, 1:1, medium.png) ImgOps Google

>>9455
>being vegan
Quite possible.  Groups push for less meat consumption for the sake of reducing CO2 pollution, reducing land committed to intensive agriculture, for animal welfare concerns, and because eating less meat can increase human well-being.  But some people like the taste, and the carnivorous dominance represented in rendering, typically mammals and birds, to this purpose.  And...I don't actually know, but nearly everyone says some meat is necessary for human health.  But from a sorta lunar perspective, the arguments for a much reduced consumption of meat, at least from mammals and birds, seem to outweigh the arguments of preference.

>Maybe even keeping animals as a pets

Maybe.  That's a harder one.  As domestic animals have been breed to be agreeable to humans (and perhaps they also find living with/under humans more agreeable than their wild ancestors would), it might be possible to continue to breed pets, maybe with better understandings of what the animals need.  But I suppose you could claim like high meat consumption, pets are largely a preference.  If welfare concerns are high enough, perhaps it's best to avoid the pitfalls of keeping pets.

>totally accepting towards pedophilia

Huh.  Legally pedophilia is acceptable -- in that people are not submitted to routine tests by the state.  If one were open about it, I believe they would become targets for hyperbolic vigilante murder.  It's a highly stigmatized social identity.  And leaving any significant evidence of having acted on pedophile impulse will likely lead to prison.  What do you think might change?

 No.9459

File: 1626220904155.jpg (68.08 KB, 800x516, 200:129, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9456
>shake their heads at our destructive approach to cancer treatment, such as radiation and chemotherapy
I guess I think back to blood letting and gastrointestinal purging with mercury, which were never submitted to evidence-based testing, based instead on a respected theory of balancing fluids.  And I gather these treatments were mostly harm.

Cancer treatment is coarse in that it similarly harms healthy tissue, but I hope it is preferable to doing nothing.  Perhaps a better parallel would be early surgery.  Doctors might be able to remove a kidney stone, but with marginal sanitation and probably little or no pain-killers, the procedure would be barbaric and might end in deadly infection 1/3 of the time.  We wouldn't call these early surgeons exactly evil -- they were doing their best, but you are right, we would shake our head and feel glad we were not a patient back then.

 No.9460

File: 1626223042943.jpg (46.99 KB, 734x600, 367:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9457
>industrially processed foods,

Stuff is consistently high in sodium and corn sweeteners.  We probably need to fix that, at least.

It looks like obesity is something you research.  What is the concern over Teflon?

>a human population on Earth exceeding 1 billion

Some will say the population is due to collapse due to pollution and conflict over dwindling resources anyway (Four Ponies of the Apocalypse, basically).  I think you're thinking of the population being reduced by design instead.

>persistent organic pollutants, and chemical environmental contaminants

Your article is moving toward the idea that something in processed foods is making people fat.  Presumably something more mysterious than added sugar, as adding sugar has happened since sugar could be refined at scale, and the additional energy would be accounted for if considering calorie intake.

 No.9461

>>9457
>>9460
I would say that the use of PFOAs (perfluorooctanoic acids), a key ingredient in TEFLON products and the like, will be looked back as a nightmare and a great example of people rushing to treat novel chemicals as magical products rather than relying on objective science.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855507/

Specifically:

> "PFOA was probably linked to six outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension"

 No.9463

As somebody with a background in the field, I would say in general that "Better Living Through Chemistry" and everything about it would likely be considered horrid universally in a few decades just like it's generally seen as a problem now by a lot (but maybe not most) people.

For something like a century, modern Westerners in general and Americans especially have bathed themselves in industrially produced chemical products in a mass scale in order to hike up the profits of multinational corporations. Accountability has been close to nil. Same for rational analysis of what's really going on.

This sort of voodoo-ish, cargo cult type pseudo-science in which novel consumer products are given unrealistically amazing powers due to their long, fancy sounding ingredient names... it's widespread, yes, and it's a core part of what makes modern capitalism work, yes... but it's still totally wrong.

Admittedly, modern U.S. politics is so diseased and extreme now that any regulation for public safety that hurts corporate bottom lines is immediately labeled as communism and demonized completely. I don't know where this ends. I hope that present trends don't continue. I don't want actual communism, but capitalists embrace reactionary thinking so much that they appear to be acting as if they want to make it inevitable.

As long as large sections of Americans sincerely believe that modern corporate capitalism is like a Moloch demon that demands constant human sacrifice such that any restrictions in the name of pragmatism and sanity means offending the demon... well, we might find that this might destroy capitalism altogether. As the saying goes, "If you want to kill something, prevent it from change. The only unchanging part of life is that there's always change."

 No.9464

>>9458
> As domestic animals have been breed to be agreeable to humans (and perhaps they also find living with/under humans more agreeable than their wild ancestors would), it might be possible to continue to breed pets, maybe with better understandings of what the animals need.
i'm thinking on the lines that a pet isn't really given an option outside of living in captivity. Now we think this contents the animal as a number of animals seem comfortable in accepting their fate, but that might change.

We have come from accepting circuses and Sea World, to understanding that they do harm. We could probably also see this evolution towards zoos, once though as a gift to study and preserve animals.
But pets wouldn't be too far off from that either.

> What do you think might change?
At some point, I would guess age to just be a number and the kids getting the agency to decide when they want to do stuff. either sexually, but even on the level of education. (maybe at some point we'd say "kids have just as much right to choose not to not go to school and to work in factories again")
At that point, society might consider a crime against pedophiles, even those who actively seek physical contact, on the same level as homophobia.

I do speak from my fear/prediction for a future. not saying that this is the case now or advocating that it should be.

 No.9466

>>9464
>pets
Very possible.

>kids getting the agency
That's part of it, kids have not earned the right to be agents in sex, and other things like democracy.  Goes back to considering one a complete being only after reaching the "age of reason" -- 18/21 or whatever is decided as representing adulthood.

>not saying that this is the case now

There's a competing force, which I think has to do with 2nd wave feminism, in confining consent to only exist between peers, or at least in cases where it's assured one party does not have the power to coerce or manipulate the other through outside factors.  There are a lot of agreements that are presumed based on consent that don't involve peers -- an individual (who needs to pay rent) signing an employment contract, versus a big company -- but the only place the idea that consent needs to be between peers has made progress is in sex, and although there might be some questions about CEO misconduct occasionally, the biggest area is between children and adults.  (Because it was already taboo, I suppose).  So I guess, if we think of the future as being a progressive one, you'd have to balance those forces.

 No.9467

File: 1626566186132.jpg (49.08 KB, 513x600, 171:200, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9463
>As long as large sections of Americans sincerely believe that modern corporate capitalism is like a Moloch demon that demands constant human sacrifice

That seems like a whole topic in itself.  I suppose the major change in corporations has been their expanse -- there have long been international corporations but now it seems more the norm.  And perhaps size, I read somewhere the diversity possible on the stock market, for example, has decreased simply because the number of relevant firms is going down.

You specify corporation capitalism where most might just say capitalism.

>bathed themselves in industrially produced chemical products

Lead comes to mind -- that is a case of change, although the story is likely one of a lot of resistance, too.  But a list of things have been taken off the market.  I still see push-back from DDT saying Rachel Carson's ideology is a factor in murders around the world.  Again that could be a whole 'nother discussion.

But you're quite right, corporations value safety, but only in ways that allow their survival, and sometimes that's a low value for safety.

 No.9500

>>9467
Have you heard of the lead-crime hypothesis? It's quite fascinating. Recommended reading for everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis

 No.9505

File: 1627304518664.png (83.27 KB, 828x618, 138:103, Screenshot from 2021-07-26….png) ImgOps Google

>>9500
Crime is so bad I can't even get a number for how many Americans are criminals -- maybe 30%.  Prison population may be a proxy.

Anyway, I've heard similar about abortion -- effects trickling down to (types of) crime.  I think that was a chapter in Freakonomics.

 No.9506

>>9505
Yes, if I could, I'd like everybody to research the lead-crime hypothesis as well as the legalized-abortion-crime hypothesis. Understanding both is very helpful in terms of seeing how history has changed.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]