6 Insane Laws We'll Need in the Future
From the war on drugs to gay marriage to file sharing, it seems like the law is in a continual, often losing, battle to keep up with the modern world.
But it's only going to get worse from here. Advances in genetic engineering and AI are going to change what it means to be human, and that means lots and lots of work for the future's lawyers.
#6.
Mandatory Life Span Limits
See this clam?
If nobody eats it, it can live to be 400 years old. So if it can do it, what's stopping us from living that long? Or longer?
Nothing, according to researchers like Dr. Aubrey de Grey. He wrote a paper in 2005 mapping out a research path for treatments that would keep us alive for multiple normal lifespans.
Your medicine cabinet will need to be walk-in though.
And We'll Need New Laws Because...
Feel free to take this out of context if we ever run for office later, but we sort of need people to die. Our entire society and economy depends on it, and at some point we'd have no choice but to impose a lifespan cap.
First, it will cost money to keep these people going (it already costs far, far more to care for the elderly than it does for young people). Only the population of elderly will have exploded, because they won't be dying off.
Also, the vast majority of you have the job you have now because at some point in the past the last guy who had it quit, or retired, or died. Picture a future where every high-paying position in your department or company is held by somebody who's been there for 200 years.
It's also worth keeping in mind that big, positive social changes tend to take generational changes--some attitudes die so hard that they don't go away until the people holding them are in the ground. For instance, Thomas Jefferson didn't think slavery would go away until there was some future generation that wouldn't tolerate it, and he was right. And then the civil rights movement didn't happen until the last of the slaveholders--and many of their children--had died off.
If you'd like more insight on the subject, ask an Oakland Raiders fan how they feel about the idea of Al Davis running the team for another 300 years.
#5.
Genetic Discrimination Laws
June 26, 2000: A joint announcement by Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton revealed that the human genome had been mapped. The world blinked, shrugged and continued waiting in line for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. After all, what does it mean to them?
September 2, 2009: A woman gives birth to the first genetically screened baby. Once more, the world yawns and returns to discussing Disney buying Marvel. That's right; someone created a real version of Judge Dredd, and we're all, "Meh."
Not even Stallone wants to relive this.
Designer baby techniques are here (hell, they even describe them on a popular science website aimed at kids). They will become widespread in the next 20 years. And from birth, society will know whether your child is predisposed to health problems (with insurance rates adjusted accordingly) or even, dare we say, certain behaviors.
Discrimination based on outdated prejudices will be replaced by discrimination based on scientific fact. Holy crap! It's Gattaca!
And We'll Need New Laws Because...
When we said they would pass "Genetic Discrimination Laws," we bet you thought we meant anti-discrimination laws. It doesn't look that way. In China, sterilization for people with genetic disorders was made legal back in the 90s.
Pre-implant screening of genetic defects is now becoming standard for in vitro fertilization treatments, and people have been using sperm sorting companies to select the sex of their child since 2001. Additional "designer baby" options were planned to be rolled out by fertility institutes last February only to be withdrawn due to widespread "HEY THAT'S TOTALLY THE PLOT OF GATTACA!" criticism.
And we may feel the need to protect the rights of the Ethan Hawkes of the future... for a while. But once the designer baby practice becomes common, there is the real threat of creating a permanent underclass of people more prone to disease and genetic disorders, unless they start legally requiring a certain amount of genetic tinkering to offset the disparity.
And while we're on the subject...
#4.
Legally Redefining "Parents"
Mother's Day and Father's Day are already confusing affairs now, what with surrogate moms and transgendered dads.
Remember this guy?
Hell, we can even make babies with three parents (although legally only with animals thus far).
The standard nuclear family in 2050 (artist's Conception).
Yep, science is well on the way to reinventing the concept of family altogether. For instance we already know how to make sperm from stem cells. No need for a father at all.
Before you feminists get all cocky, women are no longer really necessary either, as artificial ova and artificial wombs are now a reality.
Mom?
But wait--they'll still need DNA, right?
Wrong. We have been working on making DNA in the lab since the 70s. The only reason we're not on the cusp of a factory that can turn out parentless kids is that nobody has figured out how to make money off such an operation.
Don't even think about it, Disney.
And We'll Need New Laws Because...
Still, it seems like it's just a matter of time until someone does it. So who would the kid belong to? Do they become a ward of the state?
Some of you may remember that immediately after the death of Michael Jackson there was some speculation about who exactly had guardianship of the kids, based on the fact that (rumor had it) they were carried by a mother Michael had never slept with, and was fertilized with sperm from some other dude. Meaning Michael had no more of a biological relationship to "his" children than you do. If one of the other two involved parties had asked for parental rights, on what grounds would he have objected?
On the grounds that puny Earth-laws do not apply to Captain Eo.
Likewise, if a wealthy man or a corporation manufactures a child and claims their rights as its parent, who's to say they can't? Don't be surprised if, based on the legal confusion created by a test tube orphan, we eventually get Organic Replacement Laws--if you want to make a kid, a penis and a vagina have to be involved. No sex, no kid.
Hey, speaking of sex, we'll also see courts of the future...
The Mass Effect series of games gets into the debate of AI rights with the Quarians and the Geth. I don't think a single other video game ever made me think on such a philosophical level before! Usually, morality in video games is pretty black and white.
ReplyWhich is my biggest gripe with Mass Effect.
You can either tackle a moral problem with common sense, or punch/shoot it in the face.
No sexbots until 2050? I´ll be glad to be able to use it for peeing then.
ReplyThe only way i'd want to live forever was if I had the powers of Superman, or Galactus, or some other overly powered comic character.
ReplyBecause living 200 years as a regular human would suck balls.
That is unless you are as rich as Bill Gates.
If I have a daughter that I really love,and then I find out there are 5000 girls looking like her living in Europe,then so what?It's not like that me and her would ever go to Europe anyway.Surely,there are 5000 girls out there,looking like her.I don't care.I would only love her.
ReplyThe main issue for me in this future world o' clones is the fear that my daughter will come home someday with a barely noticeable Eastern European accent.
#6: a: Just because we can write papers on it doesn't mean it will happen.
Replyb: People with less technology, in certain pockets of the world were living to 120 easily, while most of us now, still do not. We spend money to prolong our lives because we can't live as long as they did, due to our dietary habits, and a host of other things.
c: It's also worth noting that big negative social changes takes generations of people forgetting to fight against tyranny. Don't fool yourselves into thinking every law we pass now is for the betterment of society.
#5: a: Eugenics in the United States is actually a wiki article.
b: Mom actually deals with some of the medical encoding at her clinic. There's certain group of people that are marked as "shouldn't breed together" in Louisiana. It's not enforced, but I've known some people that came from such a coupling, and I'm not surprised that there is a list.
#1: The problem with Dolly is that she suffered from much older "diseases" than a clone ought to have. Cloning runs the risk of making clones from a defective cell, or a cell battered by UV rays for too long.
Sorry, that was supposed to be 2BR02B
ReplyI don't see long lifespans as a huge deal. I mean, sure, we'll need to deal with it. Guess what? We have been. The average lifespan has been increasing steadily over the years. So this is just more of the same. Unless we've developed a whole new kind of economic system, though, the older folks will need to keep working. But they'll be healthier, so it won't be as big a deal. Still, we'd have to change the "Just 40 more years and I can retire" (or whatever you go with) to "Just 400 more years of this, and I can retire!"
Reply"computer processing power will surpass the brain of a man in 2030, and woman in 2038." f**k you!
ReplyEver heard of the reply function???
Because the article is made up of comments.
One thing is undeniable: If the present rate of progress continues, computer processing power will surpass the brain of a man in 2030, and woman in 2038.
Reply--Brilliant!--
#6 is pretty backward. I am pretty sure that, if we become a race of immortals, our elders will become highly respected holders of wisdom. I doubt newborns would be more valued than ancient, productive people, not to mention that compulsory people deaths would be a monstrosity.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesHave fun living on your planet of 50 billion. Oh thats right you wont, you will starve to death.
The alternative would be limiting child-birth, possibly by selling permits to the rich. But that would lead to secret, illegal children, kept in a basement, no toys, or school...oh, or store-bought clothing. Or a birth certificate, social security number, or anything that would allow them to become successful or happy as adults. Oh, or you could pay to not be sterilized.
@ Vatra
So... basically the "Shadow Children" book series, then? Only... scarier?
Stop the births instead of killing people you asshole.
Al Davis looks f*****g scary, LOL. On another note, why bone a virtual Natalie Portman of all people? I can think of plenty others with more potential. Say Dolly Parton.
ReplyEDIT : Wait, never mind it's a stupid comment.
ReplyWhat Thomas Jefferson said on #6 made me thinking. I guess that applies to everything else? Like the old media for example, I wonder if it's still there in 20-30 years time.
ReplyA clone of someone would not be an exact replica of them; it would simply be a person genetically identical to them (only probably not even that, exactly).
ReplyIf you cloned yourself, the clone would be no more like you than an identical twin, and probably a lot less, since identical twins tend to be brought up together in the same environment (and time period).
monozygotic twins DO tend to be brought up in the same environment, but twin studies have shown that even those who are brought up in different environments (with no contact) share all sorts of traits based solely on their shared genetics. For example, if one twin is criminal, there's a 51.5% chance the other will be too; if one has schizophrenia, there's a 48% chance for the other; homosexuality ~25%, alcoholism 60%. And those are only the easily measurable concordances.
Your clone definitely would be "no more like you than an identical twin"... but an identical twin is an awful lot like you.
"...or an opposite sex clone for the ultimate in heterosexual narcissism"
ReplyBest line I've ever read.
Al Davis and Steve Jobs comments seem especially poignant this year.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesJobs is dead so i have no idea why.
Wow, dick shatteringly ugly as well as pants shitting stupid? Is there anything you are good at, crunkatizeme? I suggest hiding your face with a garbage bag.
@theNakedest It's called a joke. Sarcasm. I feel stupid even having to tell you that. What crunkatizeme said was meant to be a joke, and you were supposed to laugh. Well, you didn't. Instead, you had to rear your ugly, trolling head and throw out an unoriginal, poorly-constructed insult. Please, for the sake of humanity, leave this website and the internet immediately.
Loving the "Divorce for Men" ad that's showing up below the article...
ReplyI dont mean to sound dumb but fictional media does have some wisdom
ReplyThe Jove from EVE Online deleted their desire to breed and survive from their genes and they almost died out
Oh yes... the American laws that prevent the Chinese from making clones.
ReplyOh wait, I forgot our laws don't apply in China. Who knew?
There is only a certain amount of water. We are using it faster than it is being replaced already. No water = no food. Why do you think the world is magically going to start using all this extra space when we get over populated?
@ Syn
Do you know how stupid your comment was? ALL water will make it back through the water
system unless it is rocketed out of our solar system.
It could take a thousand years, it could take a week, but all water will return to the water cycle.
It is the only water we have, but we cannot be consuming water in such a way as to prevent us from having water one day and none the next.
Please phrase your next comment better.
I think #6 scares me the most really. We already have overpopulation problems and extending lifespans would just make it worse. Even if we could cover every usable bit of the planet with humanity, how would they be able to survive and be provided for? Moving to another planet won't solve the problem either, we evolved the way we did to best adapt to our environment, even subtle differences in air composition and gravity could seriously screw us up. You don't just immediately adapt to your surroundings, you don't even do it in a matter of centuries evolution is a long slow process of you're body figuring out how the hell to cope with it. Another issue would be that terra forming probably wouldn't work becuase just like us plants have adapted to best survive in their environment, you can't expect to put them in the soil of an alien planet and expect it to work. It may not even be possible to terra-form mars and if it's impossible what do we do? Just look for a new planet? Can you even conceive how ridiculously far away they are and what we find may not even be worth it because it would take years to get to even the closest one not in our solar system and by the time you'd hit gravity you'd die because you're bones haven't been able to stay strong by supporting themselves. As of yet and as far as I know, in no foreseeable future will there be a practical form of artificial gravity. No one wants to die, NOTHING wants to die, it's the greatest instinctive fear we all have because all living things have an urge to perpetuate themselves. Same goes for population numbers, the reason we're so big on sex and later in life families is because of the 2nd strongest instinctive urge, reproduction. We are so hardwired to do it, all the happiness that goes along with family is just, again, the instinctive urge to continue the species just for the hell of it. The reality is, no matter how bad the population problem gets, even if you have to live in a box and spend the entire day squeezing through crowds of people to get anywhere it'll never end and no one will ever do anything about it because of our need to perpetuate ourselves until starvation, disease, of the evolution of some horrifying apex predator that hunts us.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesJust from this post, you seem like the type that wakes up at 3 a.m. with these things on the brain, TheWalken. :-) I don't buy the idea of overpopulation myself. There's plenty of room and food for everyone on the planet--for instance, apparently only 10$ of usable land in Africa is farmed. From what I've read, the only real issues are a lack of access to food for some areas of the world, political corruption and war in countries that would otherwise be well off, and overcrowding IN CITIES...
And yes, that is 10%, not $10...lol.
The idea that over-population can be dealt with is an old one, and ignores several points. The one no one really addresses is that we're not one country. I remember an article from decades ago with someone being quoted as saying "Science will have the answers. We can even farm the Sahara if we want to." All I could think is "we" do now own the Sahara. Any land that is not in your country would have to be bought, or conquered, or you can starve while someone else does. There's been thousands of years of war over usable land so in the next century there will be wars over potentially usable land. If due to climate change the US's breadbasket dries up and moves north into Canada, it's not gonna be pretty.
Once a population reaches a general point of prosperity sustained through a couple of generations, the average child pr. person dips below what we'll need to keep the human race going. Differs a bit according to cultural background, but invariably it's true for every culture.
MarcInGA seems to be along the right lines. I can assure you that overpopulation will be a problem/is a problem currently. Look at places like China etc. The thing with overpopulation is that you can't just think of it on its own and you can't just think of it at the present. Sure it may look like we have space now but will we necessarily have space in the future? All signs point to no. E.g. I am currently doing research in climate change and the implications for the future within various areas. Not to stray too far off topic but it quickly becomes clear when you look at things like changes in climate and the effects on cities in the future that things like overpopulation will become a problem and the worrying thing is that planning departments in government haven't really been doing anything about it. Think simply here, one of the areas i am studying is set to have increased rainfall, therefore more flooding - this reduces land available, reduces reclaimed land - which is often used as agricultural land. That's agricultural potential immediately lost. Back to overpopulation - well if there is a population increase and increased urbanisation anyway there's going to be agricultural land lost. Combine that with climate change - effects of local/coastal flooding and reduced land availability then you have a population you can't feed or provide space for. This is just a simple example and there's countless other combinations - this is why overpopulation is a problem. Look at places like Rio and Favelas - it's not exactly the ideal places to be living. This is a serious problem and i can't agree more with what is being said in the article here. End of serious business haha.