My eye! Sweet Jesus, Ouch!

[Hedganian]

Why would these things be available for a minority of people?

 

Certainly, most scientists have no interest in denying anyone access to medical advances.

 

That's what we have an NHS for, anyway, right? So that everyone can get the same standard of treatment? Personally, I think that Bupa and the like should be nationalised. The best doctors, nurses, dentists, staff and facilities should not be allowed to be in private hands. They should be part of the NHS. The NHS should, therefore, be the ONLY option, and it should be brought up to the standard of private healthcare companies.

 

Sadly, however, governments don't seem to work like that...

 

**EDIT**

 

There are Dental Hospitals everywhere. Pick up your local Yellow Pages, or search online. It might be part of one of your local hospitals, or might be separate. Your dentist could probably tell you the details, but if you're going for a second opinion on their advice, it might not be the most politic thing to ask them...

[greg]

1, Why would these things be available for a minority of people?

 

2, Certainly, most scientists have no interest in denying anyone access to medical advances.

 

3, There are Dental Hospitals everywhere. Pick up your local Yellow Pages, or search online. It might be part of one of your local hospitals, or might be separate.

 

4, Your dentist could probably tell you the details, but if you're going for a second opinion on their advice, it might not be the most politic thing to ask them...

1, Er, cost? Note I said Globally. What you suggest would have a global impact. But even locally, I doubt the NHS could fund what you suggest, after all, they are currently denying cancer patients life saving treatments. Penicillin has been around so long it is now almost redundant (immunity etc.) & in all that time it has only been truly available to less than 30% of the global population.

 

2, Agreed, they are (rightly) focused on the 'fix', not how it will be applied. It ain't their fault that economics restrict the use of costly technology.

 

3, Will do.

 

4, Agreed.

 

 

Greg.

[Seraphim989]

Plus people living for hundreds of years would ruin our entire supply system. Weve eliminated nearly all the population controls on humans already, if we greatly slow aging then the population will explode, even more than it already is

[greg]

if we greatly slow aging then the population will explode, even more than it already is

No.

 

Increasing longevity does, obviously, temporarily stop the population from decreasing.

 

But:

 

The population increases, because we keep reproducing, NOT because people don't die, or as you put it, we, 'slow aging'.

 

Goodness, how pedantic of me!

 

 

Greg.

[Seraphim989]

Well that would be assuming that we actually take the current human life timeline and stretch it out, rather than just adding on to the end of it. I suppose my original point was more about resources consumption. People living longer means more overlap between "generations" if you will, so where before grandma would die and the food she would have eaten can now go to little Timmy, she now keeps living and eating that food. And you can't make humans not die, unless you begin the move to AI/ the Borg, so what's wrong with slow aging? Its not like aging is actually a matter of time, its just how we see ourselves deteriorating

[amateurstuntman]

Easy. Just stop people having more than two kids.

 

With guns.

[Scuffer]

Easy. Just stop people having more than two kids.

 

With guns.

Even easier - stop stupid people having kids.

I prey for a system as described in Starship Troopers, where the right to have children has to be earnt not just a fall back occupation for out underclass.

[Moriquende]

Personally, I pray that just that system never sees the light of day in my country.

 

That would be a restriction of liberty and liberty is something that I hold very dear to my heart. Unfortunatly, liberty has taken quite a few hits in the last 25(or so)years due to sheeple and the EU.

 

 

If this *suitcase* continues I'll move to the US. Atleast there I can own cool guns and carry whatever knife I want. Atleast I some states, but I'll guess that'll change over time too.

 

 

[/rant]

[Kyrian_Zenda]

I think a system that bans reproduction in families that can't provide for themselves would work better. Ie. if you're relying on government benefits, no kiddies for you, meaning less of a burden on those who do actually contribute. If you do have a job and earn enough to provide for you and your child/ren, then happy humping.

[amateurstuntman]

Child licenses along the same lines as a dog license.

 

With a quick suitability test?

 

I can't have kids so I hate "breeders" so I'm all for that.

 

It is impractical because it can't be enforced without being a baddy.

You'd have to have SWAT types with medics trained to carry out terminations, what would you do if the child was carried full term? Chuck them in a furnace?

 

The only thing you can do is take the child at birth (or as close as possible) and give it to someone like me.

 

Tough choices. Humanity might have to face them soon though.

[Seraphim989]

China does it. Theyre quite successful

[amateurstuntman]

And recognised the world over as having a fair and reasonable approach to human rights.

 

Oh wait, that's not right is it?

[Hedganian]

The slightly-utopian future with access to the advanced medical techniques I mentioned before would already have in-built solutions to most of the problems raised by them.

 

Resource issues of our tiny single-planet species would no longer be an issue with the human race numbering in the hundreds of trillions, spread out across the vast reaches of the galaxy - with access to all the resources of those new worlds, asteroid-belts and whatnot.

 

The sheer scope of intersteller riches would raise the standard of living for even the poorest people living under anything even approaching a halfway-decent economy and governmental system, so pretty much everyone would have access to "basic" treatments like genetic regeneration of wounds, "simple" cybernetic implants where required, and Prolong.

 

And so-on, and so-forth.

 

Of course, it's not something we're likely to see for hundreds, if not thousands of years - way too late for the likes of you and I - so it's not unreasonable to expect that humanity as a whole might be mature enough to handle such things when they happen. Assuming, of course, that humanity actually makes it that far. Which, sometimes, looks doubtful...

[Seraphim989]

And recognised the world over as having a fair and reasonable approach to human rights.

 

Oh wait, that's not right is it?

 

Human rights are just a social construct

[amateurstuntman]

Good point and one with which I agree.

 

However, there is a point to be made for being at least vaguely nice to people (until they cross you).

 

 

Hed, your Utopia sounds nice but as much as it would be cool there is a fundamental problem.

 

People are *rickrolls*.

 

They will only spoil it. God fanbois will spout about how you are messing with the divine plan.

Horrible bastards will still come up with ways of inflicting fatal wounds on others.

Greed and jealousy will still exist.

 

A society capable of supporting your Utopia will also be fully capable of building weapons fully able to *fruitcage* the whole thing up.

 

Then they will.

[Seraphim989]

Good point and one with which I agree.

However, there is a point to be made for being at least vaguely nice to people (until they cross you).

 

China manages to toe that line. If they didnt care about what the world thought theyd have long ago just invaded Taiwan and done any of the number of things they want to do but cant due to international opinion. China works for China first and foremost, so yes, they are often not a part of international efforts. But if you look at real evaluations national power, and not silly moral issues, then yes, they are quite successful. China will grow larger

[Tinkerton]

I can't have kids so I hate "breeders"...

 

By that, i hope that you mean people that have kids for the sake of having kids/tax break/income support.

 

Whats wrong with having children because you want them? :S

[L4byr1nth]

If God didn't want people to find out about things, he wouldn't put them there in the first place, would he? You don't keep the bleach where the child can reach it, as the child has no concept of what the bleach is, or what it's used for.

 

Someday, when mankind has all but conquered the vast, far-reaching expanses of the universe, someone will discover a gigantic stack of 'Playboy - Deity Edition' hidden in an asteroid belt behind a gas cloud.

 

Ben.

[amateurstuntman]

Yeah, people who have a house full of the maggots for the payouts or because they are bored.

You know, 26, no job, 8 kids.

 

My wife and I waited until we were financially stable before we tried for kids and found out that in all probability our age was the major factor in our infertility.

 

We were only 30.

 

Also, and not so bad, are people who have more than 2, it's irresponsible.

If you have loads for religious reasons that is as bad as the payout maggots.

 

Just opinions mind, none of it makes any difference in the long run...

[mattmanic]

Also, and not so bad, are people who have more than 2, it's irresponsible.

 

How so?

[Desolation mkII]

I know, I am from a family of four kids, my aunt has three kids, my uncle has three kids. We all turned out mostly okay and were supported without the need for benefits.

[Tinkerton]

Whats wrong with having more than two kids?

 

I completely understand where you're coming from re: people who have kids as a source of income.

 

 

My wife has two sisters, and she's turned out fine, lol.

 

FWIW, we're doing the same as you, waiting until we can feasably afford children, not struggling along like we are ATM.

 

rant today:

 

managers who think that vauge 'oh yeah, we'll get that sorted' is acceptable when 'that' is a meeting about a pay increase which you were promised during your appraisal when your certificates come through, then when your certificates come through avoid you like the *fruitcage* plague.

 

 

Also, people that think you don't need to wear a suit to a job interview. needs no explanation.

[amateurstuntman]

I don't mean irresponsible in the sense that you will not be able to provide enough monetary and emotional support to the children to enable them to grow up with every opportunity.

 

That is a consideration though.

 

What I mean is that it is globally irresponsible.

 

What will happen if everybody on the planet has 4 kids?

The population will double in the next 70 years, then double again.

Can the planet support a population of 24 Billion? No it can't.

 

Having more than 2 kids per couple is selfish and will (if it becomes the policy of everybody) destroy the world.

 

That is no exaggeration.

[mattmanic]

But some people have only 1 child, some don't have any at all.

 

There aren't many people with 4 or more children, but 3 is a very common number in the area I live in.

[amateurstuntman]

Sure but you can't assume someone else will have one so you can have 3.