Yeah, this is really comparing apples to oranges.It is fine to like/dislike the creative direction separate from the question of someone being a "role model".When people talk about "hating" Kurtzman they are obviously being hyperbolic about it.For example: I hate Kurtzman with a passion.This whole ideological purity concept is so fucking tiresome and cancerous.
Well if someone regrets having their hearing restored it is very easy to reverse that... nobody can take that freedom.If people really want more children to be born with mental disabilities I have no problem ignoring their wishes, I don't think that is too controversial of an opinion no?
I have stopped using the youtube frontpage and blocked the algorithmic recommendations from appearing.Now I only browse my subscriptions.My recommendations for food history: Tasting History with Max Miller + TownsendsFor Military History: LindybeigeFor Medieval Clothing: Bernadette BannerMedieval Life: V. BirchwoodGeneral History: Premodernist
Speaking of zeitgeist, there is one thing that confuses me about modern Star Trek.Kurtzman and co. are obviously not beholden to old canon such that they fear changing too much.But somehow the technology in the new shows doesn't seem to advance in a really meaningful way.There was this whole android uprising in Picard but somehow the status quo didn't budge? Like huh? Did I miss something?
Why is that one specifically a bad take?I really wish it would come true (it is one of the reasons I really like Star Trek), but I also recognize that it is an idealistic dream.
There is no united humanity and there will never be one.We are not a hivemind after all.If you restrict your actions to account for every possible way it could go wrong you end up doing nothing at all.Some people will end up doing it anyway, with or without permission.Making it legal at least steers it into a more ethical and productive direction
Of course the super rich would immediately meddle with their offspring if they could.But his would not produce any kind of superhuman.We barely understand how the mind works, attempting to make someone more intelligent with genetic manipulation is like poking a haystack and hoping that a needle finds its way to the top.Technology that advanced is like 100 years into the future at the earliest.The best we can do is to change your hair color and the way your sweat smells, that kinda thing.People are racist even without the help of genetic manipulation so it would change absolutely nothing of consequence.
I would argue that the bad reputation that eugenics got by being associated with fascism is very detrimental to societal progress.Before we understood genes and could manipulate them, the "solutions" (e.g. sterilization) to debilitating genetic disorders were very cruel.But this has changed with the advent of genetic screening and gene therapy.People are so reluctant to accept the good that these technologies can do that we are dooming future generations to unnecessary suffering.The first time I heard of diseases like cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and Huntington's disease I was very curious why they were not being eliminated by genetic screening.People act like we would immediately create a second class of people like Khan if we allowed more direct intervention but this is simply not true.There is a world of difference between eliminating horrible diseases and creating super humans.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, -Acton 1887I recommend giving this a watch.