[removed]

When did anyone mention serial killers? Is that your biggest concern about humanity at large? The serial killers? Alright, fine, we'll lock them all up for ya, like they already are. Now the question remains, what about all of the rest? And who gets to define "antisocial"? Do we just kill anyone anytime they do anything wrong like a eugenic meritocracy?

There was a documentary about this, called “Terminator” if I recall correctly

[removed]

Study philosophy - people have been trying to come up with an objective theory of ethics for thousands of years unsuccessfully. We’re not going to suddenly stumble upon one now, especially in a day in age where people can’t even agree that vaccines during a pandemic are “ethically required”.

Just look at how two supposedly objective ethical systems like utilitarianism and deontology try to answer simple ethical questions like trolly car problems. Despite both supposedly being rooted in objectivity they come up with very different answers to the same ethical dilemmas.

I get that you want to say “education is the answer”, but that just opens up new ethical questions to answer. Who defines what education is “needed”, how does science even play a role in ethics, what happens when there isn’t scientific consensus, etc.

[removed]

Its like trying to keep all the organisms on earth from continuing to speciate. Entropy will not allow it.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/filosoful:

A new study from Harvard Medical School researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital suggests that men who regularly lift heavy objects at work have higher sperm counts than men whose work is less physically demanding.

The study, published in Human Reproduction, is part of the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) cohort, a clinical study that aims to explore how environmental chemicals and lifestyle choices affect reproductive health.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11dhcoe/physically_demanding_work_tied_to_male_fertility/ja8l1gm/

Can anybody find any place in that article where it links to the study or the research? There’s nothing bugs me more than an article full of highly specific percentages, that’s actually so vague that it’s not worth discussing.

I’d love to know what kind of specific tasks these experts think are going to be automated.

Slaughterbots video on YouTube from 5 years ago. https://youtu.be/9fa9lVwHHqg

Was a mockery of the world we will be living in and I think it’s spot on.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

For-profit companies don't usually solve problems. They just try to make money using the problem as a lever to pry money from us.

Maybe males with higher testosterone levels are more drawn to more physically demanding jobs?

Ummm.......

No

Can we at least vote on this.

I think we should.

You said his anecdote wasn't relevant. He never claimed it was a scientific argument. His anecdote demonstrates survivor bias which is 100% relevant to the discussion. You were just too obtuse to recognize it.

the only thing we know for sure about teh future is it will be different, this is relatively new in history, used to be generations would live and die without much change.

to best prepare the youth for the future teach them to think critically and be adaptable

It's funny how people think AI becoming very disruptive is far off. Just think about where technology was 25 years ago and now. If anything, AI will become quite disruptive in the workplace in about 20 years and probably lead to massive work displacement mostly into things that require human interaction. It's not that those jobs AI will handle will completely disappear, but the amount of people needed to do them will be reduced.

The problem here is that there are irreconcilable divisions among people with regards to the ontological foundations for what is considered good. Some people derive their ethics from an essentialist or teleological understanding of the world, while another subset of people believes ethics is derived from measurement of utility, and other believes ethics are nothing more than expressions of personal preferences (emotivism), etc. If we cannot even agree on what makes something ethical in the first place, then I doubt we would be able to establish an effective universal curriculum to teach what is ethical.

That said, maybe an alternate way to approach this proposal would be to simply create a council comprised of moral philosophers representing each ethical perspective. Nations would submit ethical issues that would be accepted or denied by the council. If accepted into the docket, members would simply write opinions on ethical issues submitted by nations. The opinions would be non-binding, but nations would be obligated as part of submitting the request to provide a response to the opinion in terms of how they plan to action on recommendations.

Let russians do it.

Employing force on a serial killer is not fascism or communism.

"We should all agree" is a nice sentiment. But that's all it is. You can't even get people to agree that a pandemic is worth being socially cautious.

The bad guys write the rule book. It sucks and I hate violence. But violence is a tool.

Every society employs force to get its people to confirm to its laws and ways.

I didn’t know that. I thought something like lead paint exposure was something that only caused an issue when initially exposed.

A new study from Harvard Medical School researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital suggests that men who regularly lift heavy objects at work have higher sperm counts than men whose work is less physically demanding.

The study, published in Human Reproduction, is part of the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) cohort, a clinical study that aims to explore how environmental chemicals and lifestyle choices affect reproductive health.