Id rather know that a human pilot can jump in at any time if the computer — Mark Dennis

That is how they fix issues with drones during their flight. Of course, these flights are closely monitored. There isn't anybody suggesting that flight control would no longer be needed. Still, why does that person need to sit inside the plane? In what way would that help anything?

By the way, there haven't been mechanical controls on planes for decades now. It's not that someone could still pull a lever or manually open a valve on commercial airplanes nowadays. If the electronic controls are out of order, there's nothing that you can do anymore. We are no longer in the 1950ies.

The problems are caused by people who memorize the 70-year old regulations but do not understand the underlying technology. They think that they know but in fact they don't.

We don't need pilots in airplanes. We don't need captains or navigation personnel on ships. We don't need paper-based bills of lading any more. A digital file will do. We don't need any of the paper-based stuff any longer. It is also time that the old people who insist on that bullshit, finally retire.

That is how they fix issues with drones during their flight. Of course, these flights are closely monitored. There isn't anybody suggesting that flight control would no longer be needed. Still, why does that person need to sit inside the plane? In what way would that help anything? — alcontali

Ahhh I see what you mean now. Yeah sorry, I misunderstood. Human remote operating is a thing although you do need to account for stability of connection in distances between remote piloting via either man or machine.

For example; if the mars Rover were ever in a situation where it was in immediate danger where only quick immediate human intervention can save it; it's probably already a goner by the time the feed gets back to control to be able to avert disaster.

However, a control center in orbit around Mars would have much greater success so your point is still a very valid one and I'm admittedly pro science so I don't see the need to fight you on this one too much. You understand the human margin for error in programming and have still given good answers to the piloting issue.

How do you feel we should come at the problem of human error in coding? I know it needs to be more accessible to non-whites and Asians for starters. A lot of AIs that do facial recognition and machine learning, incorrectly learned that black people don't go to or attend parties due to the fact that the affirmitve examples of parties it was shown as its frame of reference only showes the faces of tech demographic parties full of Asians and whites. Racial bias being taught to machines. Scary prospects. I'm saying all this being White myself although my arguments on race aren't really required here as racism is thankfully not allowed on here :) so no open racists to crush into submission. Yes, I see the irony in a white person claiming to not be racist talking about submission.

We also no longer need taxis, because we have things like Uber. We don't need hotels, because we have things like Airbnb. All these technologies and business models are being held up in the West by the same problem: outdated and counterproductive regulations. Countries that do not have them will simply leapfrog ahead. — alcontali

What Uber does is set up people to work for companies who can shut them off and tell them what to do, but the companies have no responsibilities for the workers because they consider them customers. So it is a worse kind of labor relation. And I am not sure how that relates to not needing pilots since Uber and Airbnb generally have drivers and people taking care of where people stay. And these companies are both american companies I believe. If Singapore is so much smarter in general, why did it need the West to come up with these services, and Grab has its Western counterparts.

*Looks around for evidence that the great and good actually have any idea how to run things, bring up children or make sensible decisions*.

*Looks around for evidence that philosophers and psychiatrists actually have any idea how to run things, bring up children or make sensible decisions*.

*Shakes head in despair.*

I like this. Read some David Benatar, he writes slightly on this topic...
Taboo as it is I agree with you, both on the concept of licensing, and on the concept of involuntarily restricting unfettered reproduction. The only legal/moral issue would be bodily autonomy, the right to do with ones body as one wants; but then again, we wouldn't be licensing sex per say, but rather, the procreation of children...and people are all-for stripping women of their bodily autonomy...

Temporary birth control in the water source/air would probably do the trick.

Would have to be careful that licensing would not lead to any form of eugenics though, people should still be free to "breed" with who they want; it should be environmental factors like material capacities to raise a child, mental stability, ect. ect.

What Uber does is set up people to work for companies who can shut them off and tell them what to do, but the companies have no responsibilities for the workers because they consider them customers. So it is a worse kind of labor relation. — Coben

Before cashing out from my startup, I always worked as a contractor. For various reasons, I strongly preferred that arrangement. I never had a "boss". I always had a client. I cannot stand employment labour arrangements. Seriously, I hate employer-employee situations with a passion.

In the case of Uber, I would never, ever choose to be an employee of a taxi company. I would rather monetize some free hours, left and right, with Uber.

I really do not need an employer to "take responsibility" for any personal problem of mine. Of course, for that to work, you need to live in a country where the government hasn't taken over health care in order to make it unaffordable. Medication is up to 300 times cheaper here than in the USA. Furthermore, where I live, children take care of their elderly parents. So, I do not need a retirement pension either. I will just live in with one of my children, grow vegetables in the garden, raise a few hens, and be done with it. Unlike in the West, old people are happy here. No loneliness. No retirement home. No bullshit.

Before cashing out from my startup, I always worked as a contractor. For various reasons, I strongly preferred that arrangement. I never had a "boss". I always had a client. I cannot stand employment labour arrangements. Seriously, I hate employer-employee situations with a passion. — alcontali

This sounds like you were in a professional field, probably well educated, and your clients are seeing you are more or less an equal, not simply because of your qualities, but because of the type of contracting you were doing. Your work, it is very likely, allowed you to self market, direct to businesses or whomever the clients were. This is a very different situation for whatever an individual taxi contractor would be like. Uber's rates are low, saturates the market with so many drivers that individual drivers have to work long hours at low pay pay their bills. Uber is neither client nor employer, it's a middleman that creates a situation where indepedendent contractors can compete,since they will not have the infrastructure to reach clients, except by lining up outside events and stations and the like. It's not a parallel situation, at all.

Medication is up to 300 times cheaper here than in the USA — alcontali

I won't take up the Singapore vs. The West, since this is a bit like comparing bycicles and oranges. But it seems odd that Singapore's medication prices are 300 times cheaper, since pharmaceutical companies tend to price along national income level lines. I don't think it is government regulation that sets medication prices high in the West. As far as health care in general a quick look I took at the Singapore system makes it sound very interesting. It is heavily government regulated, with mandatory health care savings at the individual level, the tier system and so on. It seems to be working well. How well would be tricky to decide where information flows less freely, and a small country like this is dealing with a different range of issues.

This sounds like you were in a professional field, probably well educated, and your clients are seeing you are more or less an equal, not simply because of your qualities, but because of the type of contracting you were doing. — Coben

Well, you don't need a degree for software engineering. All programmers are essentially self-taught. The other ones invariably drop out. I was programming from the age of fourteen, as a hobby, together with other 14-year old classmates. I did my degree in another subject (operational research). Back then, no one else in my high school -- especially not the teachers -- knew how to program.

Often, clients did not see me as an equal. I often found them quite arrogant. I didn't see them as my equal either, because they were incapable of writing one line of code, even to save themselves from drowning. Most of the time, we mutually disrespected each other, especially at larger, corporate organizations. We tended to be mutually condescending to each other. I often ended up treating them with contempt. Things went much better when I started taking smaller-company clients online while living in SE Asia. These entrepreneurs were much more respectful, and so was I.

This is a very different situation for whatever an individual taxi contractor would be like. — Coben

They are much better off, because they do not even need to talk with customers. They just do their job, and be done with it. Thinking of it, I would have preferred that too.

Uber is neither client nor employer, it's a middleman that creates a situation where indepedendent contractors can compete,since they will not have the infrastructure to reach clients — Coben

I did have direct clients online, but I ended up using platforms like upwork.com too. Upwork is just a middleman similar to Uber. I don't see anything wrong with that. For the few percent they charged back then, they saved me a lot of time in which I didn't have to contact potential prospects. Still, eventually, I liked my startup work much better. However, doing contract work was actually not bad either. Unfortunately, in contract work, there is no possibility of cashing in on an upside. You can't suddenly make a lot of money. Startups are much better in that respect.

But it seems odd that Singapore's medication prices are 300 times cheaper, since pharmaceutical companies tend to price along national income level lines. — Coben

Just look up the molecule name for the brand that the doctor prescribed, and then order online Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, or Vietnamese generics instead. Instead of paying $1000, you can often buy the medication for $3 or $4, if you do that. Very little of that medication is still under patent.

As far as health care in general a quick look I took at the Singapore system makes it sound very interesting. — Coben

I don't live in Singapore. Too much red tape over there. My favourite countries are Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. I also like Indonesia, but they make too much trouble about long-term visas. I can't be bothered to deal with that. Let's keep it simple, stupid!

Well, you don't need a degree for software engineering. All programmers are essentially self-taught. — alcontali

Often, clients did not see me as an equal. I often found them quite arrogant — alcontali

Perhaps, but there's still a difference between a programmer and a taxi driver, probably even in Singapore. For example, Uber drivers are not able to increase their salaries or develop niches of expertise that they can advertise. You can. You can grow and it is your field of expertise. Probably most of these drivers either have no other skills that they can market or they do, but the economy does not offer them much opportunity. It's a fallback job, an extra income. You can actually pursue a career. Uber drivers, because they are 'customers' do not have the rights that workers have if the actual customers, the passengers, complain about them, rightly or wrongly. The companies need not have any process to see if the complaint is justified. There are hidden fees that can actually bring the commission up to 50%.

According to a study published by MIT, the median profit for drivers is an abysmal $3.37 an hour, and that’s before taxes. Ultimately, 74 percent of drivers earn less than minimum wage and, once vehicle expenses are taken into account, 30 percent actually lose money every mile they drive.

from...
https://www.otherworldsinc.com/uber-and-lyft-abuse/

Basically you have companies that found a way to come in between workers and people who work. There's a parallel in the hotel branch with book.com and other similar companies. They claim their service helps the hotels, since people find the hotels via the service. But people would have found the hotels on the internet anyway. And for doing next to nothing, but dominating google, they skim large amounts of money off the hotels. Which lowered wages, forced increased work per hotel worker, drove up prices for hotel nights.

They are parasites.

Upwork is just a middleman similar to Uber. — alcontali

With upwork, if you are earning a living through it over time, the percentage they take goes down. Uber stays at 25 or 30 percent. Period.

Just look up the molecule name for the brand that the doctor prescribed, and then order online Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, or Vietnamese generics instead. Instead of paying $1000, you can often buy the medication for $3 or $4, if you do that. Very little of that medication is still under patent. — alcontali

So these countries are selling drugs that Western research developed for low prices?

Yes, I have read some of Benatar's work. And the philosopher Hugh Lafollette has written an article making essentially the same case I have made.

The only legal/moral issue would be bodily autonomy, the right to do with ones body as one wants; but then again, we wouldn't be licensing sex per say, but rather, the procreation of children...and people are all-for stripping women of their bodily autonomy... — Grre

Yes, although our right to bodily integrity is not absolute and does not normally extend to doing things with our body that pose a serious danger to others. For example, it seems justifiable to quarantine those who are carrying highly infectious diseases (not always and everywhere, but under a lot of circumstances). And I am not entitled to use my body to drive a car or plane until or unless I can show that I have certain skills.

It's hard to deny that child-rearing, when done badly, causes significant harm (harm that lingers for a lifetime). The case for licensing reproduction then, for thinking that no-one has a right to use their body to have a child if they lack the skills etc to bring it up badly, both because this is unfair to the child itself (who does have a right to a good upbringing etc), and unfair to the rest of us as we'll have to live with the results.

As for stripping women of their bodily autonomy - it seems to me that, if anything, such a policy would enhance their autonomy overall, given that mother nature seems to be something of a misogynist and so - historically anyway - leaving things to nature to regulate has led to women being burdened with the lion's share of the disadvantages that accrue to those who procreate irresponsibly.

As for stripping women of their bodily autonomy - it seems to me that, if anything, such a policy would enhance their autonomy overall, given that mother nature seems to be something of a misogynist and so - historically anyway - leaving things to nature to regulate has led to women being burdened with the lion's share of the disadvantages that accrue to those who procreate irresponsibly.

Of course I agree. I meant that pro-life idiots have no problem stripping women of their bodily autonomy contemporarily. Women have, and continue to be, made solely responsible for the irresponsibilities of procreation; women have been murdered, lives and careers destroyed ect.... it was actually radical feminist Firesmith (Firestone) that wrote that it wouldn't be until women were freed from the burden of reproduction that they could be truly equal. I often feel the same when I'm waiting in line at the drugstore to get emergency contraception at nine in the morning while my boyfriend gets to stay in bed and sleep off his hangover.

it was actually radical feminist Firesmith (Firestone) that wrote that it wouldn't be until women were freed from the burden of reproduction that they could be truly equal. — Grre

Yes, that sounds correct to me.

I often feel the same when I'm waiting in line at the drugstore to get emergency contraception at nine in the morning while my boyfriend gets to stay in bed and sleep off his hangover. — Grre

If mother nature had so arranged things that men's penises would get an inch shorter after every successful impregnation, I'm sure he'd be at the drugstore before it even opened (indeed, pregnancies would be a rarity). Mother nature is a misogynist and no friend of Reason.

And for doing next to nothing, but dominating google, they skim large amounts of money off the hotels. — Coben

The user can filter the list of hotels for a location, time period, amenities that you require, and sort the list from lowest to highest price. They save the customer an incredible amount of time.

When there are no good offers on airbnb, which sometimes happens, I always resort to booking:com. Over the years, I have spent hundreds, if not thousands, on that website. Once, I even ended up at the reception of a hotel, asking for the price, and they said $150, but at booking.com they had listed the same room for $65. So, in front of the receptionist, I booked the room on booking:com; after which he grudgingly gave me the key to the room. So, I also gave them a low rating for service.

They are parasites. — Coben

No, they are not. It is the large hotel groups that are parasites.
Anyway, I have cut down on using hotels because I strongly prefer airbnb.

With upwork, if you are earning a living through it over time, the percentage they take goes down. — Coben

I don't really care about how much their commission is. If you can sell a project for $5000 with $2000 commission (net=$3000) you are still better off than selling it for $2500 with $500 commission (net=$2000). There are lots of situations in which paying out a higher commission for a sale, makes you more money.

So these countries are selling drugs that Western research developed for low prices? — Coben

Patent protection for drugs expires after twenty years. After that, you can freely sell the medical molecule. We are no longer paying patent fees for the use of the wheel either. That particular patent expired in the stone age already.

Furthermore, most of the expense is in bribing the FDA into ignoring dangerous side effects. The FDA accept applications for new drugs only from a very small cartel of oligarchs. So, yes, very often it is western companies who originally paid the corruption fees for the fake FDA documentation of these products. The newer the product, the more likely it is really bad for your health.

is there any reason why we should not licence procreation, given that we licence adoption? — Bartricks

 
Well, apples & oranges ... for starters. :roll:

But, anyway, I think it would be more practical (i.e. enforceable) simply to register parents - birth & adopted, citizens & foreign residents - as 'child raisers' and hold them criminally liable - same offense & conviction record, and, if warranted fines and/or probationary community service, but without incarceration - for those children until they are 25 years old, or maybe 30. (Also, in order to reinforce skin-in-the-game investment in social accountability, make voting mandatory from 16 years old (age of work/consent, driver's licence & selective service registration) until 30, and enforced by fining (or surtaxing) the parents AND the children.)

The manner in which you’ve presented this looks pretty much like eugenics. I’m not for eugenics at all.

The only version of this I could get onboard with would be to sterilize people who partake in severe child abuse. The system is already set up for removing children from hostile parents so those parents should effectively have to apply for a license to show they’ve changed their ways or they should be banned outright (depending on extent of ‘abuse’/‘maltreatment’ (I’m thinking forming drug addicts who’ve managed to turn their lives around being unfairly held to account for their youthful mistakes).

What do you mean by eugenics?

The only version of this I could get onboard with would be to sterilize people who partake in severe child abuse. — I like sushi

Is that eugenics? Surely it is. It is just that it seems entirely justified.

So, what you are opposed to is 'unjustified' eugenics.

Well, all reasonable people are opposed to 'unjustified' eugenics (for it is unjustified, after all). So now the debate is not over whether or not eugenics programmes are justified, but when they are.

Take your view that it is justified to sterilize those who have abused children.

Okay, well presumably you don't think that for arbitrary reasons? Presumably it is to protect the rights of the children they would otherwise have created, yes?

So, it seems that by your lights (and mine too, of course) procreation can be controlled when needed to protect the rights of children (children who do not yet exist, but would exist if we allowed the procreation to go ahead).

Well, that's exactly the basis upon which I am arguing for licensing procreation. I just don't see why you stop at child abuse. Surely children do not just have a right to be free from 'severe' child abuse, but all manner of other abuses, including being brought up very badly?

Well, apples & oranges ... for starters. — 180 Proof

Explain please - they seem relevantly identical.

But, anyway, I think it would be more practical (i.e. enforceable) simply to register parents - birth & adopted, citizens & foreign residents - as 'child raisers' and hold them criminally liable - same offense & conviction record, — 180 Proof

Would you think that justified in adoption cases - that is, anyone can adopt a child (just turn up and get given one from the pen), we just register who got what child and hold them criminally liable for anything bad they do to it?

Presumably not. Presumably you agree such a policy would be criminally reckless?

“Badges!? We don’t need no stinking badges!” Love on all those unlicensed folks who are gifted with a life to learn from while raising them. Why not help them? Whose to say what good can come from a bad choice? Whose to say how suffering for a time might inoculate for hard times to come?

You haven't argued anything or addressed the arguments being made here. You've just expressed your "love and peace' opinion, an opinion that has no merit whatsoever.

Okay, let's apply it to pilots. Let's just let anyone who wants to fly the plane. If you want to fly it - have a go. Whose to say that some good may not come from it? Yes, probably a lot of people will die a fiery death and others will suffer life changing injuries - all easily preventable - but their suffering and the suffering of their bereaved relatives might help toughen them up in the future.

Well, that's exactly the basis upon which I am arguing for licensing procreation. I just don't see why you stop at child abuse. Surely children do not just have a right to be free from 'severe' child abuse, but all manner of other abuses, including being brought up very badly? — Bartricks

Maybe you assume I meant sexual abuse only? Being brought up ‘badly’ means what, and exactly what is it social services do that doesn’t cover this already?

I stop at child abuse because non-child abuse is ... not abusive. You just want to decide who you deem worthy of living. Denying someone the joy of children because you happen to think IQ matters or some other daft criteria is utterly facile.

Support is generally the way to go. Like I said, it is possible for people to change so even those who’ve abused children should be allowed a second chance - exceptions would be for severe abusers (in the real world such people would have their children taken away, so the system is working as best it can).

Maybe you assume I meant sexual abuse only? Being brought up ‘badly’ means what, and exactly what is it social services do that doesn’t cover this already? — I like sushi

No, I assumed you meant 'severe abuse' (which would include sexual abuse, but not be limited to it). You're not addressing the point though. The point is that you are in favour of eugenics, you just draw the line differently to me - but I think you draw it arbitrarily.

Denying someone the joy of children because you happen to think IQ matters or some other daft criteria is utterly facile. — I like sushi

That's just silly. So a parent who, for instance, refuses to educate their child in any way (because it is soo facile to think intelligence matters!) or a parent who thinks, say, poverty doesn't matter and so doesn't bother trying to earn any money at all, is a responsible parent? You'd leave a child in their hands?

I assume the answer to that is 'no'.

Now, is prevention better than cure?

Answer: yes.

So, why - why - would you allow someone who has no money and low IQ to procreate?

Your position makes no sense to me at all.

Nope. Eugenics is about selecting for breeding whilst my position is simply about preventing severe abuse of children by vicious people.

That is Eugenics. It seems like a decent idea on the surface, but once you scratch away the shiny leaf all you’ll find is cold hard lead.

I don’t regard ‘intelligence’ or ‘money’ as indicative of ‘good parenting’. Besides I’m talking about preventing severe abuse NOT preventing reproduction. The child of abusive parents who go to prison will go to a new home. Besides, reproduction cannot be managed.

Nope. Eugenics is about selecting for breeding whilst my position is simply about preventing severe abuse of children by vicious people. — I like sushi

By preventing those ones from breeding, yes?

So you're in favour of eugenics, you're just arbitrarily opposed to some kinds and not others. Prospective children have a right to be protected from severe abuse, but not from poverty or idiocy?

I don’t regard ‘intelligence’ or ‘money’ as indicative of ‘good parenting’. — I like sushi

No, but it would be hard to be a good parent if you're starving and have no resources, and those with IQs below a certain level are pretty much fated to a hard life of exploitation. A responsible prospective parent does not procreate if they know they're not in a financial position to be able to look after any offspring; and I think a couple who know that any child they have would have a very low IQ would also, if responsible, not procreate.

We may disagree about that, but in each case my defence of caring about those kinds of thing is fundamentally the same: protecting the welfare of others.

and I think a couple who know that any child they have would have a very low IQ would also, if responsible, not procreate. — Bartricks

How could they know their child will have a low IQ?

Assume they could as a thought experiment. Now, wouldn't it be better if they didn't procreate? Any child they have will be an idiot. Idiocy isn't good for the idiot who has it, and it isn't good for others either as idiots do a lot of damage. So surely a responsible person would no more procreate if they knew their offspring would be idiots than if, say, they knew their offspring would suffer from some wasting disease.

Assume they could as a thought experiment. Now, wouldn't it be better if they didn't procreate? Any child they have will be an idiot. — Bartricks

You can try and turn it into a thought experiment. Who is “they”?

Prospective parents. And yes, it is a thought experiment at the moment simply because it is by thinking that we gain insight into these matters.