|
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.
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."
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.
Hell, we can even make babies with three parents (although legally only with animals thus far).
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.
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.
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?
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... |
5 Self-Destructive Ways People Accidentally Cured Themselves
6 Fake Foods You (Will Wish You Didn't) Have in Your Kitchen
6 Natural Disasters That Were Caused by Human Stupidity
17 More Images You Won't Believe Aren't Photoshopped
Uh, your supposed to blanch kittens. Then roast on the BBQ. Cloning is okay, cause ya can have three or four of the same thing, when you gots to take one out for something that pisses you off, is it murder? AI's , who needs them? We gots clones!
Join eRepublik! Change the world, rewrite history, become the president of your country, build the biggest company in the world, or lead your country to victory in battles. You can do whatever you want, the choice is yours. http://www.erepublik.com/en/referrer/Roflolmao
@NGN, if people are aging slower, towards the end of their life they will still be biologically elderly retard. you think they're just going to stay physiologically in their 20's until one day they die? jobs are created and destroyed all the time but many people do still get jobs or get promoted due to retirement and death, as a result new jobs will typically open up at the bottom of the company. positive social change is not a myth idiot, yes slavery and whatnot still exist in OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, you said it yourself. but if you actually went to school you'd know that in many countries, like um....america, positive social change has been slowly implemented over the years. and yes often times it is the new generation that ushers in this change, to deny that shows how little you've been outside. i'd say think before you type, but something tells me that wouldn't help.
"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." This is wrong on so many levels. "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." Except old people will NO LONGER BE BIOLOGICALLY ELDERLY! They will be biologically YOUNG and therefore HEALTHY! What part of this don't you understand? 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. "Uh, NO. Jobs are created and destroyed all the time. Before the industrial revolution, a high percentage of the population worked as farmers. When an entrepreneur starts a new business, she creates jobs never occupied by a previous worker. Actually, very FEW of us hold jobs that were occupied by someone that left it due to dying. Following this logic, murdering people is a good way to create jobs. "Picture a future where every high-paying position in your department or company is held by somebody who's been there for 200 years." What part of TERM LIMITS don't you understand? What part of COMPANIES THAT DON"T ADAPT WILL FOLD don't you understand? "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." Positive social change is largely a myth. Every vile treatment of humans that exists now existed since time began. Slavery exists today in many parts of the world. Civil rights violations and racism exist today. Honor killings exist today. None of these things will disappear because the present population dies off. New legions of oppressors, murderers, psychopaths and fanatics will be born in the future. Ponder this one: With mandatory lifespan limits, what will be the penalty for living past the age limit? Death? What if that person kills the people trying to enforce his age limit? Is that self-defense or capital murder?
You are rigth, ngrant429, that "robots will surpass humans in brain power" is a bunch of crap. How many times have we heard from the videogame industry how "the next generation consoles will have photorealistic graphics" and how many times have they actually made it? Not even the most powerful computer processors used, for example, for movies with CGI effects can creat actual photorealistic effects, you always notice them. And videoconsoles are years behind them. So it's just a case of scientist pretension of what they SAY they'll be able to do versus what they'll ACTUALLY be able to do. I think it's just pretentious to believe we can create a machine smarter than the human brain, to do it, we'd have to be smarter. Granted, a big team of scientists dedicated exclusively to that, with each one assuming control of a small percentage of the job, might be able to do it, but we are far, far behind.
its funny how they think robots will surpass humans in brain power. who is programming these robots then? they need to realize that the human brain is the most powerful thing on the face of the planet
if someone else hasn't already pointed it out, i will. if they have, i will anyway. cloning people for "spare parts" is dumb. it takes a lot less time and money to clone the spare parts by themselves, and that means more lives could be saved by this. plus you get rid of the moral problem of harvesting your clone for parts. so i'm not worried about human cloning: a few rich narcissists will use it for themselves, most of us will clone an extra organ if we need it, and that's about it.
wait a second... If science can already create sperm and egg cells in labs without any humans, and in a few decades sex bot will be released on the market, is it not a possibility that both he male and female sex bots will be equipped with haploid sperm and egg cells. If so then you could actually knock up the sex bot, or the sex bot could get you (the women) pregnant. 2 sex bots could then also just have sex with each, and very soon human babies would be popping out with robots as parents. Or perhaps they would not be entirely human at all.. but android babies. I hope the future does not come to this
warcraft sex: ok, this morning i chaffed my penis cos the lag was really bad - fml
All we need is to become really, really, Jesus level nice to each-other, the clones, the animals, the robots and the AIs. Then we can all dance and sing together, do drugs and have consensual (unintended pun intended) orgies. It's not about the technology, It's all about the attitude. If this wouldn't be paradise then I don't know what would. One solution: Start putting MDMA in our drinking water.
"computer processing power will surpass the brain of a man in 2030, and woman in 2038." Is that like saying women are smarter than men?
Oh, Cracked. Terrified of the future. We're all going to die of global warming anyway. Also, the Civil War was not fought over slavery. You should know that, you guys do research.
@degan he said it's legal, not that it's forced.
I stopped when I got to Stallone in the circus uniform. I couldn't stop laughing!
This guy talks about "In China, sterilization for people with genetic disorders was made legal back in the 90s." After doing some reading I found out there is no law in china that forces sterilization for people with genetic disorders, here's one link I found on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization According to everything I've read and I have even talked to a few Chinese people, anyone caught trying to force sterilization on anyone is thrown in jail. So I guess my question is where is whoever wrote this article getting his information? He might want to check his facts before he goes making claims like this.
also, "give me a hypothetical situation where the three laws are shown to be flawed, or incomplete, or allow loopholes and i'll gladly make a u-turn on my opinion" i believe that definately qualifies as a hypothetical situation where the laws are shown to be flawed, by the creator of the laws himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict, pretty sure that's not about "a" robot
@stony032, yep really really. i assume you're talking about i,robot as thats the most popularised one of his books (btw he made frikken LOADS of books, not just that one.) in that the plot is that there is a robot who can disobey the laws, and the possibility of a distortion of the laws by a nutso uber-bot. to make the laws perfect all we have to do is make sure the first one really, really cant be broken.
@amner, really??? lol, it's the f**king plot of his book.
@Champ585- Your attitude is exactly what's keeping Wikipedia on the no-fly list in schools. On Wikipedia, the people genuinely writing and maintaining articles FAR outnumber the vandals, and on particular contentious or controversial subjects (like feminism), most vandalism like that is reverted within seconds. I've personally reverted vandalism in the SAME SECOND it was posted. And hey, at the bottom of articles, you'll find a list of references and citations. Wikipedia isn't ED.
7 Secrets Only Two Living People Know (For Some Reason)
The 15 Most Shameless Fake Photos Ever Passed Off as Real
6 Creepy Urban Legends That Happen to be True (Part 3!)
The 6 Creepiest Places on Earth
The Men Who Stare At Goats: New Trailer
Curse of the Duck Hunt Dog
Copyright © 2005 - 2009 Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. CRACKED, CRACKED.COM and the "CRACKED" logo are trademarks owned by Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Digg
Del.icio.us
Fark
