I love 'Utopia' and I can add the Canadian science-fiction show 'Continuum' to that list, which criticizes the rise of corporations and portrays a dystopian future in which corporations have taken over the government and police force. Season 3 deals with a villainous corporation not so subtly named Sonmanto and also addresses the issue of GMO.

Seconding Artician. The brain evolved by natural selection, just like the rest of the body. It has built in biases and modules that vary genetically. Look at the wide variety of personalities in dog breeds, for example. In humans, the big five personality traits are estimated to be about 50% heritable based on twin studies.

Gattaca is a good movie and Brave New World is a good book, but they should not be taken as the ends of some slippery slope that any eugenic policy inevitably leads to. I think it's unfortunate that so much fear of eugenics is propagated by dystopian fictions like those. Eugenics can be done in a humane way that respects all individual rights. For instance:

1. a system of incentives for highly successful people to have more children or donate to sperm banks.

2. Universal single-payer healthcare, providing among other things free condoms and birth control pills to all, so that the use of contraception will not be so much inversely correlated with income as it has been from 1850 to the present when the poor often couldn't afford it (and it's a demonstrable fact that on average the poor tend to have lower intelligence partly due to genetics)

Even such modest, individual rights respecting policies, if phrased in terms of benefiting the gene pool, are political suicide because people are still afraid of imaginary slippery slopes leading to Hitler. Most of the US is still in denial of the implications of biological science, for reasons that speak well of them, but it's time to grow up and get over that habit of Godwinizing any attempt to improve the gene pool regardless of whether it infringes individual rights.

Or maybe lots of people people don't actually believe that, but are reluctant to say otherwise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0W9sSqeJnA

Funny. I live in the bay area, and walk my son to soccer in the park all the time with no worries. We can take easy, peaceful strolls outside in the summer and winter. Looking around, it's no Norman Rockwell, but all I see are american families. We are surrounded by the best schools and universities in the country.

As far as Oakland goes, it's a great city to visit and to live. It's not just me that feels this way, demand for housing there has only increased in the past decade. It's expensive to buy there because people want to live there. Alot more than St. Paul, by the way. Last time I checked, St. Paul also had its crime ridden parts; or can you walk anywhere at night in your town?

So these dystopian pictures being painted on this thread exist in this thread only. In real life, Oakland is a thriving city with alot going for it, and the people with means who actually drive the economy agree, and are voting with their feet and wallets, and corporate headquarters.

I visit Oakland often. The last trip, I took my son on a tour of the USS Hornet, where he got to see the first footsteps of the Apollo astronauts after they returned to Earth. Before that, we visited the world class planetarium and took in great views of the valley. I love going to the great restaurants and live music venues downtown.

So according to this video, pest-resistant corn is a Bad Thing(tm)?

Oh teh noes, we will get a higher crop yield. Food supply will be more stable, and probably cheaper.

Who will save us from this dystopian nightmare?

I studied English and Philosophy in school and have continued reading a lot of utopian/dystopian literature since. My familiarity with economics and economic history pales in contrast, but the close relationship with subjects I am interested in has caused me to spend some time and consideration learning what I can.

That said, when I see a video like this I lump it into the same pseudo intellectual/science/news that things like Bill O'Reilly, TYT, Kirk Cameron, Creationists and bigots bring to mind.

Why did I watch this? Well I'm open to listening to legitimate and informative critiques of socioeconomic systems. If they are particularly good it can lead to all sorts of follow up questions and inquiries. I get bored while i'm "slaving" away at work so I put things on in the background...

Then there videos like this. There are very few facts throughout the entire video. The analogies used are misleading. The terrible acts and downfalls of groups, individuals, or particular ideologies are often blown out of proportion entirely. There is no nuanced investigation, no insights, nothing but a self satisfied narrator with droll delivery.

Thanks for rummaging through my videos for dead links. I'll pass on using my downvote on this video.

So these thingy-dealies won't contaminate ground water if they gusplode? (He really would make a lovely he-she though, and Chloe with a flapper-cut, a fettishing boy)

Someone's physical androgynous characteristics has nothing to do with their sexuality, does it? merely an observation...similar to the one I made based in my 'ignace' of nuclear power, and all her fucked iterations.

I've been anti-nuclear from the git-go, always will be-
I also must maintain that the power that will push the planet into the next exponential blast (if numb, distracted peeps don't let asshole humans turn the place into a dystopian shit hole) won't come from an energy source that uses radioactive anything-It's gonna be something else that creates the energy needed for whatever sustainable future awaits.

my instincts is all I'm going on, but this cat's gonna get snatched-up by insect-keepers for profit and mayhem...Or fuck me, maybe he's gonna be another Nicole Tesla-(pun-intended, the kids cute)

sexuality my ass.....

i like ron paul.
we dated for a bit because we had so much in common in regards to civil liberties and a non-intervention foreign policy.
i had to dump him due to his free-market corporation obsession.
it had just turned creepy...
he still calls on my birthday though,very sweet.

the american people are against any military action.up to 80% of the population kind of against,but what have we learned over the past 10 yrs?
the american government ignores the population and relies on bobbleheads like blitzer and this other cunt to promote the propaganda.

"so let me just say,that after being briefed the gas attacks took place"
ok..im listening,please continue.
"and that the assad administration is responsible"
the assad situation is responsible?
really? are you sure? because as far as i can tell there is not one shred of evidence.
well,thats not quite true.isreali intelligence says the assad regime is responsible.
and if the isreali intelligence says its assad then it MUST be true right? they wouldnt,,you know..lie.

whoa whoa whoa mr quigley.
am i correct in assuming that your entire argument is basically "trust us"?

you sir,are a whore who would sell his integrity to the highest bidder.you have lost any right to speak on this situation or for any of your constituents to show you any form of respect.
i revoke your right to participate in human affairs and i bid you good day.

i said good day!

and look at our little slut blitzer trying to snipe from the bleachers.
oh blitz...
you sold your soul a looong time ago.
nobody listens to you anymore.
they are just transfixed by the beard.

to imply that military force is a righteous and just course of action due to 100,000 people dying ignores the fact that america has used chemical weapons.

so when THEY use chemical weapons it is a crime against humanity but when WE use them it is justified?
nice logic captain propaganda.

and if we are to take your argument to have any validity.then i am forced to ask this question:
"if the united states has the right to invade another country for crimes against humanity.that the invasion is for humanitarian reasons (as if bombing and killing is humanitarian),then explain to me why so many countries were NEVER invaded by the united states,even when THEIR crimes against humanity were far more egregious?"
see:rwanda
see:east timor
the list is NOT short.

cant answer?
then i submit that your argument is no argument at all.
because if you were a true journalist you would have asked "where is the diplomatic solution?"
"why are we we going in to drop a limited sorte of bombs?"
"in what reality could that produce positive results for the region?"
"where is the international political pressure to bring these factions to the negotiation table?"
"where is the evidence that assad's regime is responsible?"
"why is the obama administration ignoring the military commanders advice of non-intervention?"

i could do this all day.

there is a bright spot in this otherwise dreary and dystopian picture.
the american people are not as politically gullible as they were 10 yrs ago.
we SEE whats going on.
the world SEES whats going on.

welcome citizen to the united states of empire.
please have a seat.
be quiet and obey.
your government is in control.

Privacy and freedom are orthogonal. Privacy both grants freedom and takes it away. You're talking like there is a clear path for a centrist to take on this matter. My thought experiment was meant to expose a hypocrisy in too commonly held ideals. "Information should be free!" is often taken to mean that we should be able to access whatever information we want. On the other hand, "big brother" is a pejorative describing dystopian violations of individual privacy that reasonable people holding the former position often use.

We can't have it both ways. Either we get to know what people are up to (e.g. terrorists, banks, lobbyists, politicians, government agencies, etc) while coping with oversight of our own activities. Or we lock down all the information and cope with the inevitable cheat avoiding detection.

You can play the game of trying to break it down case by case, but the fact is surveillance can't really be implemented piecemeal. Once you decide to collect the information, you sort of get what you get.

Kinna....I'm more of the messenger for what I perceive I can see of her core-Her manner, her phrasing, matter-of-fact tells (plenty of them)-I fear the woman was more of a "final solution" type personality, a "Georgia Guidestone" dystopian freak of the ilk you don't give keys to nuclear bomb codes to.

Terror attacks that get prevented tend not to get quite the same news coverage. We'll likely never know how effective it was, but is the efficacy of the program at all relevant?

I don't think the motives behind this whole prism thing were some machiavellian aspiration to become Big Brother. They have blown the terror threat out of proportion and have allowed the ends to justfy their means. Nobody wants another Boston or 9/11, but the idea of a future where such terror attacks are impossible by way of mass survelliance is far more frighteningly dystopian. Buuuuuut I am in danger of making a slippery slope argument and creating a false dichotomy. Needless to say society is about the sacrifice of freedoms for some degree of security. I hope the debate as to where that trade might become unfavorable continues, and I certainly hope those that provided the seed for it dont end up swinging from a rope for treason.

Are you having hot flashes, as well? Cravings for pickles and ice cream? Feel like crying sometimes for no reason at all, or hearing voices in your Wheaties?

Just trying to figure you out. Lots of good and bad info flying around, accordingly spun by the provider's worldview. There exists a fundamental truth here, however, and although it's possible to miss it amongst the din of spin, your position seems to be as ephemeral as your cut&paste cache. The enemy of your enemy doesn't have to be your friend. This isn't just another bogus scandal. I wouldn't even classify it as a scandal. It's much bigger than that. Dystopian future, today. Pick a fucking side already.

The book is filled with statistics that support the position (often to the point of information overload).

And you're right that we need to address the root of the problem but you have the wrong root. Lousy upbringings can indeed lead to criminal behaviour, but what leads to lousy upbringings?

Lack of education, unemployment, perceived social inequality all factor into it. And yes, some people are just messed up and shouldn't have kids, but I'd say they are a minority.

So instead of your frankly insane, dystopian, eugenics-based future, we could instead look at ways to make everyone better off. First step, give women control over their reproductive cycle. This has been shown time and again to be one of the keys points in raising a societies economic and social values.

To get back to the original point here, how do these young men, (who had every advantage in life, compared to 90% of the world anyway) fit into your future?

When was torture last sanctioned by the state? The dark ages? Of course violent crime was higher in the dark ages. It was pretty difficult to enforce the law back then due to the lack of cars, satellites, computers, security cameras, guns, etc, not to mention that laws varied greatly depending on which part of the land you lived in and what lords you served under. Does Pinker's book have any contemporary examples that support your position?

In any case, regardless of whether you favor punishment or rehabilitation, the real solution is to address the root of the problem: lousy upbringings. Anyone can have children, no matter how qualified they are. They can have a criminal record, a history of mental illness and be unemploymed and still have as many kids as they want. It's ridiculous and the reason why so many children grow up to be criminals. We need to have strictly enforced regulation of reproduction. Parents should have to go through a thorough testing process and meet certain requirements (like having enough money to actually support a family) before being allowed to have kids. If a woman walks into a hospital with an unlicensed pregnancy, both she and the father should be arrested and executed without trial. Legal births would be recorded in an international database, which employers and government workers would reference during any hiring, licensing or authorization process. Essentially, illegal children would have no chance of ever becoming a part of regular society, forcing them to the outskirts and slums. This would make it easier to focus raids and clear out the most prominent concentrations of criminals.

This may sound dystopian but it's really the only way to fix the root of the problem. You will never be able to make people better if you let them be raised under lousy conditions. Morality is learned, not innate. If we want everyone to follow the same rules, they need to be taught to respect them. If the parents don't, why would the children?

Dystopian world, with a cute and happy dancing godzilla and indie music by The Leisure Society.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Leisure-Society-Fight-For-Everyone

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is a trailer for a book - which is something I didn't know happened. It's also my favourite book series at the moment. If you like your futures dystopian - this is for you. Hugh Howey is also a bit of a self-publishing rock star - as he reportedly pulls in 6 figures a month for his eBooks like Wool. 20th Century Fox just bought the film rights - should make an awesome movie.