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...
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?
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 4 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.
I'm reading this again, after a few years.. The Steve Jobs joke seems in really bad taste now.
ReplyYeah, though in hid death, he DID prove them wrong I guess...
Mandatory life span limits? We can't even get a law passed that requires old people to pass a driving test every year!
ReplyLifespan limits are only necessary because U.S. Regressmen defunded NASA. If we get off this f*****g planet, none of that will be a problem anymore.
ReplyLeaving is not really a viable option. The nearest possible option is about 200 light years away, and since astronauts have trouble with a few months of zero gravity and muscle deterioration, plus food problems, fuel, stasis, and the fact that there is no evidence the planet we go to will have life, so we may have nothing to sustain ourselves when we get there. Also, who are the regressman?
As wrong as it is, written child erotica and drawn child erotica should not be illegal. As stated, no actual humans are involved. If that becomes illegal what's to stop them from making slasher flicks illegal? As that harms no actual person but yet depicts violent deaths. Also, I highly doubt anyone is forcing anyone else to read the pedophile stories or view the drawn pictures. Stories about ADULT rape, snuff, mutilation, and all that good stuff are not outlawed and if the logic is that the ones that include children are illegal, what makes the stories about ADULTS NOT illegal? It makes no sense. For some stupid reason, an adult can consent to anything BUT their own death (suicide is illegal as is euthinasia) which is entirely stupid because why should someone else be able to say that you aren't suffering a horribly slow death of terminal cancer, when in actuality you are and would rather go out on your own terms? The government is stupid.
ReplyLegalizing euthanasia is a horrible idea. Though I agree with your first statement the second part would cause a lot of problems in other areas.
"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."
ReplyWord.
One AI reasercher told his fellow developers to ever put a date on stuff like this or else it'll be like if someone from the 50s time traveled here and found no flying cars and no jetpacks they would be disappointed and so would we if we don't get As when it's 2030
#3: One of the reasons why child porn is so taboo is because the child is exploited and manipulated further into harm without his or her awareness/consent. If lolicon drawings and lolicon VR harm no one, then there is no reason why they should be illegal.
ReplyLolicon is held as illegal in many places though, including here in the US. I remember reading a case a few years ago about a guy whose computer and entire manga collection was confiscated by police because a random mail check found a lolicon manga being sent to him.
Try checking the legality of pornography. You'll be surprised in how many "civilised" countries the law simply isn't applied. We don't apply logic to things like this for the same reason we don't apply logic to love, addiction, aggression, drugs, sex, religion and fast food. We're hardwired not to!, perpetuate yourself, protect yourself, protect your offspring, don't let the shaman declare you a witch and make sure to eat all the fatty foods available. Winter is coming.
Why would someone waste the time and resources to clone an entire human for "spare parts" when one could just clone the necessary replacement organ?
ReplyThat's what hollywood doesn't get
Example: if your car needed a new engine would you buy a new car and put the mew engine in the old car
Is it bad to want several copies of oneself?
Rich dude that makes a clone of himself for spare organs? That's called the House of the Scorpion.
ReplyWait, you can't do that! It's "In Time"! We need to protect the rights of the Justin Timberlakes of the future!
Replyi had this whole paragraph typed up about just isolating the gene that makes people have no desire to have kids for a different solution to overpopulation. then i started thinking about breeding personality traits and no good can come out of that.
ReplyWho exactly would produce the babies with no desire to have kids?
I'm for the "Genetic Screening" part, just for democratizing it. Instead of an "Elites" having only the best and ruling over the worst, have the superior traits and inferior removals for everyone.
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesOnce it becomes possible to edit the human genome in live and future humans we can truly advance humanity. We can create the "Superman" at last. And we can eliminate inferiors without having to be Hitler to anyone. Just edit out the negative, inferior traits with an injection versus a gas chamber.
Uuumm, this is called eugenics and it was Hitler's vision to populate the entire planet with his "perfect" Aryan brethren.
Good work trying to put a positive spin on the Holocaust, jackass. Die in a fire.
i think he is sayng edit out difficiencies(i know thats not spelled right, too drunk to care), not race or religion. there can be white, black, jew, muslim, christian, f**k even kiwi supermen. Supermen all around!!!
3rd person...
Wonder why civilization is doomed?
Because civilization is often "Safer" than nature. People can survive with mild deformities and inferiority that would kill them otherwise as cavemen/tribal hunters. More and more people pass on their inferior traits multiplying them through the generations and the least intelligent tend to breed more while the more successful and more producing ones limit their offspring to preserve prosperity. In short, civilization is more threatened from within than without, look at all the cynicism here like the worst sci-fi inventions in RL. Just look at RL, sooner or later you won't be able to get any "Real" peanuts (and a sh-tload of other stuff) they'll have to be denatured or artificial flavored sh-t to protect the weaklings who it'll KILL.
Hitler, btw, "Sold" his Eugenics to Germany to "Keep up with the US"... Just FYI... It's too bad it got a bad rep, tried too early too enthusiastically and became little more than justifying racial and class prejudice. Heh, kind of like V.R. when home computers were still barely able to do "Multimedia"...
But, oh, yeah the Jooozzzzz....
Jews were always hated, always accursed. The holocaust would have happened to them regardless of "Eugenics". "His BLOOD be upon us, and our children's children's Children, until the END of TIME!" (from a Sunday School Easter play I remember way back, I almost was Pilate) Sorry about that, and Christ did forgive his murderers, but look at history itself to prove that...
I don't care about if a man is black or white or worships the giant spaghetti monster or great Cthulhu. As a civilization we can master our own nature as we have mastered but now are starting to understand nature. Without world racial and genocide wars we can perhaps create the "Overman". They don't have to be all white or blonde hair with blue eyes, but wouldn't it be good to get an injection and a few weeks later (days, actually) you don't need glasses anymore? And far more have people who can't walk be cured, like Stephen Hawking, though it'll likely be too late for him sadly...? And this time it'll be without horrible wars and vicious laws and forced extermination and sterilization?
That was the goal of Hitler's operation T4 and AB Aktion: sterilize (or by the 1940s, kill off) the handicap and Slavic populations, and use their homelands to give Aryans "living space" (Lebensraum). The plan started off with preventing Germans from breeding with handicapped people and "Untermenschen" (Jews and Roma/Gypsies), so the Germans could create a pure, master-race.
Read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut and you can see how truly sad that idea is...
Um, who decides what is a negative, inferior trait and what is a positive superior trait? Life threatening genetic deficencies are a given, but once they are dealt with what next? Down syndrome? Deafness? Low intellegence? Any physical traits the parents didn't like?
Plus, for all you budding Eugenicists/Genetic Engineers out there, talk to anyone who knows about this stuff and they'll tell you that genes usually aren't linked to just one trait. That 'genetic predisposition to heart disease' you are removing? Turns out without it the child has an increased predispostion to cancer. Whoops!
I say we're fucked :O
ReplyRather than setting life span limits, wouldn't make more sense to enforce birth control limits? Such as simply "Sterilize everyone".
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesNone of your laws can ever touch my balls!
The problem of social progression hits you there. Once you're two hundred and in power it won't really matter if you can still make babies as long as you legislate that people you're prejudiced against can't.
This is why some insist that the people should own guns. For when the governments goes for the balls of the peoples.
Just a question (from an English person) Why does the sheep stereotype fall to the Scottish? If you're gonna laugh at a stereotype at least get the people involved in it right xD it's the Welsh..
Reply Hide All See All 6 Repliesim Welsh (mostly, all right im born and raisd in England but my dad brought me up right) and im perfectly happy with the steriotype being passen on to the Scots
In the southern hemisphere it's New Zealanders.
I know that Middle Easterners get the "goat/camel-fucker" stereotype
Why did the Kiwi farmer put velcro on the front of his pants?
Because the sheep knew what the sound of a zipper meant. :P
As a Scotsman I was pretty offended. We prefer goats when we can get 'em...
Wouldn't a so-called "camel fucker" need some sort of, I dunno, stepladder? The logistics just seems off to me.
Okay, I'm massively skeptical on this one. With some of these designer baby, cloning, genetic advancements I think we'll find that we'll trip over a hurdle, land flat on our faces, and find that we weren't two miles away but 2000.
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesDid you know that missing chromosomes can present as completely different syndromes, and that the human genome project is a largely a failure? Or that, no matter how much green tea you drink or drugs you take, genes will warp with age. Unless they can find an elaborate gene that causes perfect protein synthesis 100% of the time, and manage to engineer it consistently in designer babies, we won't need life span limits.
And I have a hard time believing that robots will ever give the same pleasure as other human beings. It just won't have the same socially driven base desires involved.
You think that we can create a mind when we aren't even all that sure what makes our own. Don't presume we know so much, science is a fickle bitchy mistress. And cloning, things can happen there that no one can predict.
My dads generation thought computers were actually limitless, but anyone who's done programming knows that computers aren't as adept at processing information. No matter how much you scream "YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT!" it didn't and it never will. Now we think genetics and branches of biology are limitless, I have no doubt we will come crashing down to earth. Feel free to correct me on any point, with a comment and facts to prove me wrong please.
There's no guarantee the stuff in the article is possible, sure, but there's no guarantee that it's impossible either.
Worst argument ever, Alia.
tl;dr
As far as the robot thing goes, do keep in mind that Realdolls not only exist, but must be profitable. Robotic lovers would, at fist at least, be realdolls that can move and react to you, they'd be even more popular. Does it compare to a human lover? no and it never will, some people are settling for less than that right now though.
And as far as processing information goes, do you think people aren't working on that? Do you think that programmers collectively just throw up their hands and say "well, that'll never happen"? No, there's people working on methods to have computers interpret information more reliably.
Don't worry about how stuff is not going to work, worry about making it work. If you're seeking accomplishment you can marvel at the internet for a few moments.
Although scientists can be wrong.. science is about learning, the more we learn the better(scarier) we get..
The article says that there will be more elderly to take care of, which is entirely wrong, because people's bodies won't age nearly as fast so they'll be working for much longer. I'm mostly concerned if this takes place,for the overpopulation it would pretty much inevitably cause unless virtually everyone is sterilized.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesWell if this designer baby thing comes in, they may begin looking for children who will grow into old age with little problems and be able to have kids later. So yes they would be healthier and able to work longer and cost the economy less.
Also if you think about it, as we survive on into our hundreds, we will leave having kids later and later. Population expansion will slow and slow and with educated people being shown to only have a couple of kids in their life times, our population growth will level out and possibly even decrease over centuries. I'm not saying it will happen but nature will control our population eventually. So maybe we neednt worry.
Yeah but Kazuu.... You're forgetting that most people AREN'T intelligent/educated. The ones who are breeding the most, the ones with the highest biological fitness are the idiots who don't know how to use contraceptives. The fools who give into pleasure in the heat of the moment and are greeted with a surprise 9 months later.
Haven't you ever seen Idiocracy?
There were riots in the streets when the UK tried to raise the age of retirement if I recall. If people get older on average, they will need to work longer, but that's not something that's going to happen organically. People today who expect to live to 78 years old still feel entitled to stop working at age 65, that's not an attitude that will fade with time.
@ardeku thats why we need real sex ed classes.. not that scaried straight s**t that leaves more questions to be answered.