Religious Prohibitions Leading to Safe-tech

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Lead pain is dangerous for far more than just toddlers.

You're agreeing that it's poisonous. Are you disagreeing that it is banned?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by ericthered

This actually leads to a thought experiment me and some others did recently. We asked that if you could clone someone to do a high-paying profession (doctor was what we were going with) and they were much better than all others, would you even have to force them to do it? they'd find their way to it naturally, and after the first few you could calculate the risk that they wouldn't. (and get cloners' insurance or something).

That was about computers, but the same thing applies. If you create something so that the most economicly viable thing for it to do is what you want, then you have a good chance of it doing what you want (though it may not do it for you)

This has been done to death down in the TS forum. Conditioning bioroids and setting parameters on SAIs and LAIs should be as ethical as manual childrearing, and subject to similar restrictions. They have to be socialized some way, and raising them to do what's expected of them is something every enduring society does. We can presume a kind of rumspringa for them if you like.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by ericthered

This actually leads to a thought experiment me and some others did recently. We asked that if you could clone someone to do a high-paying profession (doctor was what we were going with) and they were much better than all others, would you even have to force them to do it? they'd find their way to it naturally, and after the first few you could calculate the risk that they wouldn't. (and get cloners' insurance or something).

That was about computers, but the same thing applies. If you create something so that the most economicly viable thing for it to do is what you want, then you have a good chance of it doing what you want (though it may not do it for you)
....

Ability does not always coincide with desire. I seem to have a talent for musical instruments, but find playing anything mind numbingly boring and joyless. I don't even listen to that much music.
I would rather make X money doing something pleasant than 10 times X doing something I detest.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This has been done to death down in the TS forum. Conditioning bioroids and setting parameters on SAIs and LAIs should be as ethical as manual childrearing, and subject to similar restrictions. They have to be socialized some way, and raising them to do what's expected of them is something every enduring society does. We can presume a kind of rumspringa for them if you like.

Child rearing techniques are very much hit or miss (no pun intended).
The idea of anything hinting at mind control rather than semi-effective social manipulation freaks people out.
A.I.s have the problem that you can't not program their supposed interests and personality. They have no innate anything.

But letting chance dictate what a person wants and is good at rather than genetic engineering is a perfect rationalization for safe tech.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

sorry the probation isn't any more a prohibition against eating than eating poison. the when and where those prohibition where developed, eating such thing was very likely to make you sick, it's only developments in food preparation and storage that actually makes them far less unhealthy.

What preparation? Pig fat is eaten raw or salted. Thermal cooking is strictly optional. And it's actually a good product in that it has relatively high nutritional value and doesn't spoil for long periods of time. Yet Muslims and (AFAIK) Judaism adherents are prohibited from eating pigs at all.

Now, let's look at other religious behaviours that are definitely not a matter of health either, or even are actively harmful to health:

• Genital mutilation of minors or self.
• Refusal of blood transfusions.
• Repeatedly undergoing long and numerous stings by bullet ants.
• Scarification.
• Chiselling of teeth into shark-teeth shapes.
• Torturing/burning people for silly stuff like being born with red hair.

In comparison to those, refraining from genetic engineering or study of psychology are pretty tame.

[vicky_molokh]

Replied in the more specialized thread, to continue the old topic.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

You're agreeing that it's poisonous. Are you disagreeing that it is banned?

No, I just disagreed with your assumption that it was banned for only being toxic to children eating it.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

No, I just disagreed with your assumption that it was banned for only being toxic to children eating it.

Once again, the assumption is on your part; I named a reason without saying it was the only reason.

As far as lead in general goes, it's toxic for anyone to eat it, or inhale it, or drink it dissolved in their water, and so forth. This has been known for a good while now, and there are laws against letting that happen. No one in particular really wants to consume poisonous lead compounds, but many people will do it anyway if they don't suffer from it in the short term but it allows them a short-term convenience like a cheap place to live. And then there are the people who don't want to do it but might consume it if someone else leaves it laying around, so it gets banned.

Unfortunately, people try to ban it entirely which sucks for responsible folks who keep their lead minis in box away from people who might want to put them in their mouths or make water pipes out of them, and [for] those who might want to use it to solder electrical components instead of using tin that makes for a fire and explosion hazard. This is part of the inherent paternalism in making consumer protection laws, so yes, it is perfectly possible for people to outlaw things that no one wants to eat on the grounds that people might eat them if they weren't outlawed; it is precisely because people are put off at the thought of eating them that the paternalist can count on their support for the ban. "OMG what if kids ate this?!?!"

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Once again, the assumption is on your part; I named a reason without saying it was the only reason.

... This is part of the inherent paternalism in making consumer protection laws, so yes, it is perfectly possible for people to outlaw things that no one wants to eat on the grounds that people might eat them if they weren't outlawed; it is precisely because people are put off at the thought of eating them that the paternalist can count on their support for the ban. "OMG what if kids ate this?!?!"

Ok, sorry. I grossly misunderstood what you wrote.
I fully agree with this post.
It's like that quote about banning beef because a baby can't chew it.
Then again, there are so many stupid adults that need to be protected from their own idiocy that we need some laws that handicap us sensible people. :)

[Sindri]

This has gone on long enough. The current discussion is off topic and shows no sign of going back on. If the discussion must be continued please do so in another thread.