top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 67 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Trains in North America.

We had them at one point, built the nation with them, then so summarily decided that the automobile was better, that we built all of our infrastructure assuming that nobody would ever not want a car to go everywhere, making it doubly hard to convince people that public transit doesn't have to suck.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 25 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    "I ask the jury if this looks like a man who had all he could eat"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Pre-birth DNA editing to ensure a healthy and ideal child.

    Eugenics is awful. It's horrible. There is no question and there's a million historical and fictional deep dives one can do to objectively prove that it is against any form of morality you could possibly come up with.

    But, improving the human experience, ensuring no one is born with a disability, ensuring that everyone has the best possible chance to enjoy and experience life would be amazing. If society could get its collective shit together we could in fact make sure that every person gets the best possible experience of our species. We could pretty much entirely eliminate childhood cancers. We could make super heroes (relative to unmodified humans). We could eliminate genetic defects that have plagued families and entire populations since pre-history.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Correct me if this is naive, but wouldn't this potentially also reduce the diversity of the gene pool?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Maybe that’s the eugenics issue. Correcting genetic damage might be small and rare. On the other hand if everyone wants a blond blue eyed baby that will grow up to be a 6’2” Adonis, genius, super athlete, then yeah

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Only superficially. It's really hard to tell what percentage of our DNA is actually useful, or could be useful under conditions we haven't seen, or is actually a part of any given variation. What we do know, of the number of DNA combinations we have seen if we play out each possible version of those variations there's around 4^2000 variations. Or in other words If a billion people were born every day since the start of the universe, there would not be a single duplicate person. And this is the extreme low end estimate based on limited data sets that generally don't even include people of every major region, much less interesting micro-populations that have been breeding in isolation for a thousand years or more.

    Now lets assume we remove all causes of congenital blindness. Generally speaking the number of genes making up most identified causes are less than 20 total. That would (simplified, yell at me later math nerds) knock that number down to around 4^1995.

    That would still be more viable combinations than we could possibly run through from now until the heat death of the universe, assuming current population growth rates which we'll have until we invent birthing pods.

    In other words we'll probably be fine, but if we need to, and it's allowed to be researched more, we could just simply artifically introduce safe variation. i.e. people giving birth to people they aren't genetically related to anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    No. Why? We could literally introduce diversity into the gene pool in a controlled manner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    Who wants their kid to be the one that gets the random mutation injection?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    What if you need to be a little crazy to stand out? No one wants a boring a artist, uninspired actor, musician that sounds like all the other ones…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Is it possible yet? We already have genetic screening which is actively used in many countries. IIRC downs syndrome rates are lower because of it being screened for now. But not everything can be screened for and we don't fully understand all DNA yet.

    If you could cure these things with an acceptably low risk of negative effects I am pretty sure people would be in favour of it. The research for that sounds difficult though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    We can do it to living people (Gene Therapy is just editing DNA using an inert virus to deliver the payload and modify gene expressions), and there is a very good chance CRISPR allows it for in utero cells.

    If we had zero ethical boards, we'd be at the active experimentation stage to discover what each nucleotide pair precisely does which would involve growing humans directly.

    That being said we are doing things that are close to it. For example look up the term organoid. Then Brain organoid. Then realize pretty much every university is growing unique but stunted human brains and experimenting on them; and then realize these organoids dream. Anyway that existential horror aside, this also extends to almost every organ in the human body. We're essentially brute forcing gene expression discovery at the individual component level; if we were to scale that up to a full human (or get much, much faster computers so we could simulate it) we'd have the totality of DNA fully understood.

    From there it's trivial to combine our current tech that allows free form editing of DNA with exactly what we would need to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I would not bet on that. For some countries retirement systems are collapsing, so that could be seen as viable solution for retirees that cannot sustain themselves...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I am one of the current generative "AI" naysayers. It's not society holding it back, it's the fact we don't know how to make true AI.

    Now a classless system where everyone can be equal, that will never happen because of society.

    Fair and true justice for all not just the rich will never exist because of society.

    I don't see any tech not existing just because of "society". Even flying cars, it's the fact they're so inefficient and hard to make is why we don't have them, otherwise we could automate them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Well see here little buddy, back in the 1980s you'd get this little cardboard circle with a variety of characters on it, and there was this whole game around building a tower and knocking these circles off the tower, but no one played the game. Hell most people refuse to believe a game with them existed. They were going to be the next big collectible before Pokemon brought back trading cards and beanie babies took over for anyone that didn't like cards.

    Some pogs were also metal. For some reason.

    Years later a weird asian man made a face and coincidentally got pog brought in the the common vernacular, but that's a different pog entirely, a pretender to the throne. Every day I lament that that asian man made that silly face, if only because it has obscured to the true nature of the pog.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Slammers were metal, pogs were not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Most slammers were plastic, though metal ones were around. I had a Wolverine "Adamantium" slammer that got banned by my friends, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago*

    Flying cars are not a practical technology at the moment because we don't have a way of making them fly. Unless you basically want to just redefine the helicopter as a car. Once we've solved the flying problem I think we'll probably just make themselves driving.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Affordable, effective, mass manufactured suicide devices.

    I'm not saying that I personally want one right this minute, but society tends not to encourage making suicide easy.

    The closest thing we have, in the US, is cheap handguns, and while these do get used a lot for suicide, but they're not guaranteed death, and can lead to severe injury and disability instead.

    You could argue that society doesn't want its members to suicide because of economic, religious, or whatever reasons, but the outcome is the same:

    Society doesn't want you to suicide, in the face of personal emotional trauma, economic, or medical difficulties.

    Watch me get downvoted for suggesting this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    We technically can't have true AI. Or maybe in 100 years.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    Maybe. The real answer is we can’t define true general artificial intelligence. We have no idea what it would require or how we could do it.

    We’ve actually gone through several waves of AI. Machine learning, neural nets, expert systems, voice recognition were all considered AI, before LLMs. But each time, the end result is “nope, that’s not general ai”. Each time we refine our understanding of what a general ai would be. Each time we get a little closer to even understanding the goal, but we still don’t know where that goal is

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

    Widespread commercial nuclear fission power, for better or worse.

    Thanks to the gross mismanagement of Chernobyl and Fukushima and over-reaction to it (EDIT: and also Greenpeace, see reply), it has been largely defended and derived. And thanks to renewable energy being more affordable than ever, it might no longer make sense to build it.

    That said, flying cars and generative AI have one thing in common: they are more harmful than anticipated.

    If we had flying cars, even if the crash problem was solved by making them autonomous and fully protected from cyberattacks and unable to perform terrorist attacks (good luck lmao), we would still have noise everywhere. Think low-flying planes, but constantly. (And, of course, the proponents of the technology would call everyone complaining about it Amish Luddites who want to "stop progress".)

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Nuclear was killed by Greenpeace, not only did they take tons of money from shadowy donors to bad mouth nuclear (they turned out to be fossil industry related), they did it via spreading misinformation and plain lies. Everything incorrect the public thinks they know about nuclear power derives from a Greenpeace campaign. The worst part is that coal has killed more animals and people than all of nuclear incidents combined, including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Why do fission if we can advance fusion instead?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Neither are due to "society".

    Flying cars need a load of power and would be very expensive to buy and fly. And one would need a pilot license, too.

    True AI does not exist. What we have are LLMs, digital parrots with a large dictionary, that only appear to be intelligent because they produce convincing sentences.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    Genuinely, adequate and extensive medical knowledge and technology for female bodies and people of color.

    There is a colossal, glairing lack of medical knowledge and technology for female bodies and people of color. This is because of a millennium old issue of

    1. Patriarchy prioritizing the funding of medical research for men
    2. Racism excluding people of color from medical research, while downplaying the significance of their medical issues and their worth as people.
    3. Anti-science dipshits who oppose any and all sexual education among the masses and among experts because their magical sky fairy from an ancient text that's been mistranslated century after century tells them vaginas are gross and evil.
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    This comments needs some downvotes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    A self prophesying comment! You got your wish

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Not true. It could be downvoted more. Needs more downvotes.

    P. S. prophesizing*

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I'll grant it should be "a self fullfilling prophecy".
    But it never has a "z" in it.
    That comes from incorrectly thinking it needs similar similar patterns to other verbs.
    And this isn't some "simplified English" Vs "English" scenario. It's not even recognised as part of American English.

    https://www.askdifference.com/prophesized-vs-prophesied/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago

    I take pride in my English, so I mean it when I say thank you.

    That said, seems we're both wrong. I was wrong to correct you. You're wrong in that "prophesize" is in fact a real word. "Prophesy" and "prophesize" mean the exact same thing. The former is the older classic spelling. The latter, while newer, seems to date back as far as the 19th century.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    It's largely bullshit. It has no relation to the post. And it's clear that the commenter has a unrealistic view of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I'd argue the "medical technology" makes it qualify, and that there is undeniable history of racial and gender inequality when it comes to ability to contribute to medical research, which may have resulted in similar disparity when it comes to handling medical issues (for example, mishandling of endometriosis).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You'd have to be extremely deluded to think society today or in the future is holding back the proper treatment of, and research of illnessnesses in, people of color and women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Sounds like you're saying a lot of bullshit with nothing to back it up.

    Hell, you're not even able to refute my statement directly. You're making vague gestures to falsehoods you can't even explain. Fucking pathetic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    Software. There are still a few holdouts like Mullvad, but over the years a lot of good software have turned to shit because of greed. Bitwarden is next sadly, as their new CEO comes from private equity and M&A.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Plenty of good software exists. Just look at all the open source software we have!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Jellyfin. Have you heard of Jellyfin? What about Jellyfin‽ doesn’t do what you need it to? Doesn’t matter - use Jellyfin!!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    I just host my media openly to the LAN and view it with VLC. In the past I made it open to the internet as well and just didn't care if someone else found it too but currently I have no use for it away from home and using 4G for home internet makes hosting things take an extra step of effort I can't be bothered with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    In the United States, practically every advancement in medicine will be forbidden, as long as the current regime rules us.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Pretty much all interconnected systems that could use technology. No aggregate medical systems, no collectve smart systems for home, transit, energy

    We cannot have star trek because google, ms and pallantir want to se them to own us.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Flying cars are a bad idea because it'd cost hundreds of times as much for the fuel, and be ridiculously dangerous to drive. Drivers have a problem with the ~2 dimensions already. They are infeasible for at least another century.

    They'd also need specialized takeoff and landing areas due to the amount of force it'd need to exert on the ground.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    nanobots that fly up your arse and tickle your walnut. fuckin society man

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Invisibility

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    A pill or vaccine that will cure everything and enable you to live longer and healthier.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    There wasn't one, we'll only restrict who gets to have it, how, when etc.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    my bad, it's not considered tech. Removed.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Flying cars would be the worst idea ever

    Imagine drones flying all over the place,all the time. The noise, the visual pollution, the crashes where debris then falls down on other people

    Now imagine these drones to be 2 tonnes

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Physics aside, flying cars would be doable if they would be self-driving.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    If we found a way to make something like a truth serum, I can guarantee it'd be misused. I mean like a Divergent truth serum, which IIRC makes lying nearly impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

    The elite would never take it and instead take a fake version that looks the exact same just so they can remain in control.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Cures to cancer, Complete transition to green enviormental friendly tech Products that are build to last and do well rather than quick throw away - my favorit was the glass from east germany that could not be destroyed

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Not really the same thing but if people did not steal and could mind their own business and just generally work to be nice to each other and not cheat. Then we would save a lot of processing power and energy by not needing encryption and such. Out tech would have been able to advance that much more quickly. Securing software is a big junk of time in development.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    AR-15s, the US is just not aware yet.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    invisibility cloak or potions. They kinda already do with stealthy surveillance tech.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›