this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
71 points (96.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26858 readers
1338 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In the past, we've had issues with women suffrage, slavery, and sanitation, among many other things.

Today we have gun control, AI, intended/unintended false information, vaccines, etc. as consistently hot topics.

In a few decades' time, what views do you have now that may spark major social debate in the future? What conservative and/or progressive stances do you take today that might be too far on either extreme in the far future?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kraftpudding@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, but I think anything related to animal rights and eating meat will probably be controversial in the future. We can lab grow meat, but you still choose to kill an actual animal for food? Canceled in 2050. Rightfully so I'd even say.

[–] limeaide@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I agree, and I wonder when stuff like this will begin to happen.

Also, I think that once the average person finds out just how smart aquatic life is, we will look back at stuff like sea world with more disgust than we already do.

[–] kraftpudding@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I think it will be within a generation or two.

I know, grandpa eats real meat, that's not nice and i don't want you to do it, but he grew up in another time, so we have to make allowances.

[–] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had a very awkward moment when I was talking about how intelligent octopus obviously are, and looked down and remembered I was in the middle of eating takoyaki 😓. I just want lab grown meat ASAP.

load more comments (1 replies)

Yeah I'm not a vegetarian, but if lab grown meat were widely available at a reasonable price I'd think a little poorly of people that went out of their way to eat the remains of a sentient being instead.

I've already swapped a lot of my meat consumption to meat alternatives like beyond meat and impossible and so on

[–] zefiax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's really hard to give up meat completely for me so I am trying to at least cut back by eating meat only every other day. Hopefully we can just move to lab grown meat that's not detrimental to the environment so that I can enjoy meat without guilt again.

[–] mrbubblesort@kbin.social 54 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The right to privacy. Just because I don't want someone watching me 24/7 doesn't mean I'm up to no good

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The ever encroaching "tough on crime" stance. Politicians push to make more and more things criminal and with worsening penalties. Many punishments seem disproportionately cruel or long for the crime. It's political suicide to say that we should treat our felons better or to reduce sentencing right now.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Yeah, we can't even agree to stop torturing inmates with solitary confinement or 110°F temperatures, and whenever I bring this up I always get pushback about how prison isn't supposed to be fun.

Well, yeah; it's also not supposed to be torture.

[–] KittenBiscuits@lemm.ee 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A person's right to assisted suicide.

A few countries have this already, and I think 1 or 2 states may have it decriminalized. But I wish it were less of a taboo subject.

It's ok and even seen as being responsible when we make these decisions for our pets, yet if you want to make the same decision for yourself, you must not be thinking straight.

I have not had and do not have thoughts of suicide, but I have been caregiver to several family members and been witness to the end of life stage.

We should be able to decide for ourselves at a certain point that it's time to go.

[–] zefiax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

We have it in Canada. Conservatives hate it and love to point to a small percentage of abuse of the option however it has really helped alleviate stresses for families and people suffering from terminal illness.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I fervently believe that the best if not only way to reliably reduce crime (including that committed by abusive cops) is restorative justice, but the vast majority of people still consider the necessity of penal justice (and in some places like the US even penal SLAVERY) to be so absolute that it might as well be a law of nature rather than the system that best serves the rich and powerful.

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

You habe to have both. People mold their behavior around incentive structures. If you give them the incentive to commit crime, they will commit crime. If you give them the incentive to do better, they will do better.

Then again you also shouldn't have bullshit laws that punish people for things that hurt no one but themselves, like the war on drugs. If they do something to hurt someone while doing drugs, that's what we have all the other laws for.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You really don't have to have both, though.

Incarceration and (in especially barbaric jurisdictions) penal slavery, torture, and state-sanctioned murder are largely ineffective disincentives against doing bad or otherwise undesirable behaviour that do nothing to incentivise good or otherwise desirable behaviour.

In fact, they often directly or indirectly CAUSE more of the former while making the latter much more difficult if not impossible.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Humans aren't the only species that have a right to the planet's resources.

[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

Disability rights, equal access to nutrition (not just edible items but actually nutritious food), equal access to electricity especially for cooling.

I suspect the resource wars will ramp up with climate change, driving a lot of international conflict of all types.

[–] jman6495@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

Circumcision is immoral, religion can be a serious social harm, the use of AI in art should be prohibited or at least frowned upon

[–] eldavi@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

universal basic income (ubi).

it's clearly a need and like other clear needs in this country (eg health insurance) it'll continue to get ignored until it sparks some sort of revolution or our country's owners figure out to perpetually put it off like health insurance

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Religion gas to go. The way we rarm animals is barbaric. People should be able to pull the plug if they don't want to live anymore.

[–] Venator@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Once lab grown meat is common, farms will seem even more cruel to people of the future.

I know religion seems like an obvious scapegoat for a lot of problems, but gassing them seems a bit extreme 😜🤣

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 year ago

Or maybe they wanted to be able to huff religion gas at home rather than at the restaurant/church?

First it's religion gas to go, then religion gas drive-ins and the next thing you know, people will be reheating religion gas in their own microwave, almost completely cutting profiteering billionaires out of the process!

[–] wmrch@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is an old one for many countries...but I fear a housing crisis in Germany.

Right now it's not as prevalent as in the us for example but there are no steps taken to prevent it becoming a major social issue.

  • Construction industry suffers from high prices and a lack of workforce
  • The only housing that is being worked on are luxury properties
  • Infrastructure development in rural areas where housing is still affordable is not progressing
  • Regulations and hurdles for new buildings are more difficult and complex than anywhere else
  • Real estate ownership is often only possible through inheritance/generational wealth, as income is extremely highly taxed
[–] TheInsane42@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Looks familiar. We already have the same issue in The Netherlands (Hi neighbour).

1st time buyers can't get a house as they are to expensive, current owners can't move on as they 1st need to sell before they can buy something (and hope that the selling prize covers the mortgage costs), social letting (entry level) has an issue with availability of houses and most others for the letting market are in the unregulated market and those houses are being sold off as the letting out of houses in that market is being regulated so much that it's not economical anymore.

On top of that, it's to expensive to build new houses and the country is already needs 1m houses in the next few years. Due to this the right wing is hammering on stopping refugees entering the country when they are about 5% of the immigration issue. (expats are the other 95%)

[–] Imbrex@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Obesity is unhealthy

[–] CharAhNalaar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Here's an issue that people won't talk about that they need to: the right to commit crimes. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral, and the growing belief on multiple fronts that a criminal justice system should be "perfect" is what's driving a lot of the erosion of privacy rights, among other things.

[–] GyozaPower@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

My hope is politicians and, overall, rich people and corporations getting away with everything. It's crazy what money ans influence can do to cover up/minimize the damages that people and corps should receive for doing the shit they do just for profit and personal interests.

[–] PaperTowel@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I love fishing recreationally but I could totally understand if it became totally taboo in the future.

[–] LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
[–] xylogx@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If someone injures you through a false statement of fact you can sue them for libel.

It is hard to do more than that without encroaching on free speech: people are entitled to their opinions. That said , free speech is not absolute and has linits.

[–] Stegget@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Slander is when damage is spoken. Libel involves dissemination through print or writing.

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's lying about you, I think they also mean lying to you.

[–] Lith@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Well there's also things like fraud, perjury, false statements, and lying to hinder an investigation.

[–] 667@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like conspiracy statutes tend to cover lying pretty well, and lying under oath is perjury. What other ways could lying be covered?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lumun@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago

I think in the near term there will be a lot more discourse about fatphobia/body types as a protected class.

In the longer term, I think history will look back at current factory farming as absolutely barbaric.

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Honestly, not that far into the future I think more and more people will be consuming various forms of media acknowledging in very scientific and real terms the end of the human race.

All the attempts at curbing global climate change will finally be acknowledged as being a pipe dream and even the ultra wealthy will come to see that they won't survive in their bunkers and instead will die like the rest of us.

I also hold a very dark view that the end of human existence is not the end of human suffering, but that's a tale for another day.

[–] geogle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Climate change is real and really fucking shit up (am an Earth Scientist), but I'd be more worried about a global nuclear incident.

Climate change may do us in, but in all likelihood it will just increase the stresses on food and water supplies. Humans are extremely adaptive and will likely persist unless there is a cataclysmic event that kills nearly all food for decades or more. Scarcity of resources will dictate just how populous we will be 20, 10, 1, 0.1, 0.001 billion?

We've survived the Pleistocene when the earth was about 6°C cooler. We expanded greatly just after and have continued extremely well through the Holocene, making it our own (now Anthropocene). We've inextricably changed the environment for the worse, but it alone will probably not be the action that wipes us out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I also hold a very dark view that the end of human existence is not the end of human suffering, but that's a tale for another day.

And today's that day! Go on....

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

Bit late to this, but I have a couple of big ones:

  1. Once brain uploading becomes a thing, the code/data of an uploaded person should be sacrosanct. You can't look at it, you can't fuck with it, unless they give you consent to do so.

  2. Once it becomes a possibility, every human should either move off-world or revert back to a hunter-gatherer existence. Humans in general have been a disaster for the biosphere, but especially once we started settling down and farming, and even more so once industrialisation became a thing. Earth needs time to heal from the damage we have done to it, and that means most people + all our industry and technology fucking off into space. Namely into space colonies, big rotating cans of steel the size of large islands, filled with dirt, air, water and artificial biospheres.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Stance: Progressive global taxation of all wealth

Social issue in the future: If the planet's ecosystems and the capitalist trends permit it, the vast majority of humans will demand global taxation of all wealth. Some extractive and regressive pockets will fight to the death for that not to happen.

load more comments
view more: next ›