The problem with some of these is that in some cases, they aren't necessarily the wrong idea. For instance, I've almost hit several people who darted out into the street without looking while they were on their cell phones. The problem with something like that would be enforcement, as cell phone usage in the car tends to be one of the extras that cops tack on to traffic tickets (like cruising in the left lane in some states). Though I guess if their were surveillance cameras everywhere, it wouldn't make much of a difference.
I am a bit confused by the gay rams thing though. I had thought that most (factory) farm animals were artificially inseminated anyways (I know they do it with cows, and some horses) so it didn't matter.
oh, i agree that generally the people behind these things are well-meaning. i think my basic point (my post was pretty incoherent, and the article i linked to is kind of dumb) is that in the end i don't care whether or not a particular behaviour/substance is somewhat dangerous; or rather, i do care, but i really resent the idea that regulation/banning is the way to go. yeah, wearing ipods/talking on cells makes it harder for people to concentrate on the things around them, and i have no problem with laws banning cell phone use in cars (because cars are lethal weapons), but the idea of people banning the use of such things by pedestrians makes me livid. sort of like - where does it end
( ... )
I totally identify with the general principle, but I think the execution leaves something to be desired, which is unsurprising since William Saletan is an idiot.
The transfats thing is a good example. I'm not comfortable with the idea of banning a food substance, but on the other hand transfats are an artificial additive. AFAIK they don't occur in nature, and exist mostly to make manufactured foods cheaper. So why should they even exist.
There are really good arguments about all of these points, but Saletan doesn't make them. He just says, "boogie-boogie-boogie." The gay rams thing is a good example. Changing sexual preferences in the womb is freaky, but Saletan offers no evidence that this can actually happen, just "some fundies want it; and some guy says it's possible."
So I suppose what I want to say is I worry about what Brin called "the transparent society," but not because of what Saletan said.
oh, no, i agree the article is dumb - it was just that it reminded me of these various issues, and i'm easily (and very) upset by seeing the right to privacy and to self-determination being encroached upon, which just seems to happen more and more. i really don't like the culture of absolute safety, for instance - the idea that people's behaviours have to be controlled for their own good. i think that attitude debases and infantilizes people, and an infantilized people are ripe for (among other things) fascisms of various kinds. but then, i have a libertarian streak under all the socialism
( ... )
as for transfats, i think they're a disgusting crime against nature and i don't want them near me - but i /really/ don't want the government determining whether or not they /can/ be near me. it's my own damn decision whether or not i want to poison myself, and the second-hand smoke argument doesn't really hold up as well when it comes to things like transfats. i know there's the argument that these sorts of things end up costing society health care money, but jesus, so do an infinite number of other behaviours. i don't see any big push to keep people from overworking themselves in the interest of cutting down on healthcare costs from cardiac/stress problems, for instance; no one is afaik trying to ban people from playing sports; etc, etc.
Well, if you're lower-middle-class, you have can have the government decide to keep them away from you or you can have corporations shove them down your throats. I'd far rather see the federal government regulate the other side-i.e., large food corporations can't use transfats in foods-rather than
( ... )
i actually agree with you re transfats and the FDA - that was a silly example to use. i think when i brought them up i was thinking of solutions like sin taxes on foods involving transfats, which for some reason was upsetting me (whereas FDA regulation of them doesn't). but it wasn't a good example.
i'm not actually against government regulation/intervention on principle, at all. i think corporations should be /far/ more regulated than they are. capitalism only really works imho if it's pruned. regulation bothers me when it gets down to an individual level - watching people, keeping them from doing things to themselves supposedly for their own good.
i read /earth/ when i was about 12, and basically didn't understand a thing. all i remember is miniature black holes and computers you could manipulate with your mind.
Comments 8
I am a bit confused by the gay rams thing though. I had thought that most (factory) farm animals were artificially inseminated anyways (I know they do it with cows, and some horses) so it didn't matter.
Reply
Reply
The transfats thing is a good example. I'm not comfortable with the idea of banning a food substance, but on the other hand transfats are an artificial additive. AFAIK they don't occur in nature, and exist mostly to make manufactured foods cheaper. So why should they even exist.
There are really good arguments about all of these points, but Saletan doesn't make them. He just says, "boogie-boogie-boogie." The gay rams thing is a good example. Changing sexual preferences in the womb is freaky, but Saletan offers no evidence that this can actually happen, just "some fundies want it; and some guy says it's possible."
So I suppose what I want to say is I worry about what Brin called "the transparent society," but not because of what Saletan said.
Reply
Reply
as for transfats, i think they're a disgusting crime against nature and i don't want them near me - but i /really/ don't want the government determining whether or not they /can/ be near me. it's my own damn decision whether or not i want to poison myself, and the second-hand smoke argument doesn't really hold up as well when it comes to things like transfats. i know there's the argument that these sorts of things end up costing society health care money, but jesus, so do an infinite number of other behaviours. i don't see any big push to keep people from overworking themselves in the interest of cutting down on healthcare costs from cardiac/stress problems, for instance; no one is afaik trying to ban people from playing sports; etc, etc.
Well, if you're lower-middle-class, you have can have the government decide to keep them away from you or you can have corporations shove them down your throats. I'd far rather see the federal government regulate the other side-i.e., large food corporations can't use transfats in foods-rather than ( ... )
Reply
i'm not actually against government regulation/intervention on principle, at all. i think corporations should be /far/ more regulated than they are. capitalism only really works imho if it's pruned. regulation bothers me when it gets down to an individual level - watching people, keeping them from doing things to themselves supposedly for their own good.
i read /earth/ when i was about 12, and basically didn't understand a thing. all i remember is miniature black holes and computers you could manipulate with your mind.
Reply
Leave a comment