Now imagine raising human babies in a lab, and formally teaching them only one word at a time, and any utterance they make outside of tests doesn't count.
It'd be fascinating if they seriously went through the standard procedures and reported the results. I personally believe there's a lot of unethical testing and experimenting being done out there behind closed doors - and that's really unfortunate, but if the suffering is going to happen anyway, I'd like the data to be released so maybe someone can learn something (but then you'd have to fire/convict those involved, so that's why it's not released). It's only a real problem when you start excusing it, whether for results, convenience, or ideology. (excluding the occasional guy driven by curiousity, that's a whole other issue)
More on the point, though, how far would you be willing to extend the ability to socialize/play/practice? Would you extend it to insects? Bacteria? It's a strain to my imagination to apply it to those two groups. Especially bacteria brings up a large amount of new ethical issues. The thought processes involved would be widely ridiculed, so I can certainly understand the lack of effort towards testing it (risking career credibility).
The expected rigor of the scientific process is kind of a double edged sword. I respect it for making reproducable results, but sometimes I think it makes simple questions into complex chores. Ideally, you'd just have the individual pursue it, but if my question is something seemingly silly, like whether a leopard likes playing frisbee catch, I'd have to get my hands on a leopard first because I don't expect silly things to get reported publicly.
Or rather, this time around I'm wondering if it isn't all smoke and mirrors, a magician's distraction from something actually important.
This is a constant nagging worry for me. Especially when I hear about something occurring from a recent time period where I know I was trying to pay attention, then I look it up and it turned out I completely missed it at the time. Sort of a losing game, but I keep coming back to the table for another round.
It's interesting to hear about the surge of problems occurring in Reagan era. I'm fairly convinced of the "long march through the institutions" strategy being employed, but that carries a number of implications with it. I hadn't really considered that it might be happening in a scale larger than the USA, for instance; I thought maybe whatever nefarious group was hopping around for soft targets. So now I'm led to consider it more closely tied to globalist interests.
What'd be really interesting is to know if this 10-20 year skip in agenda-pushing (the fallout takes years to settle each time, so maybe it was an intentional strategy) has been a regular trend, but we'd need some sample reports from the 60s-70s and I don't have any connections that old. Then again, we had a big tech thing with the internet and cellphones, so maybe it forced some moves to be made.
Now imagine raising human babies in a lab, and formally teaching them only one word at a time, and any utterance they make outside of tests doesn't count.
It'd be fascinating if they seriously went through the standard procedures and reported the results. I personally believe there's a lot of unethical testing and experimenting being done out there behind closed doors - and that's really unfortunate, but if the suffering is going to happen anyway, I'd like the data to be released so maybe someone can learn something. It's only a real problem when you start excusing it, whether for results, convenience, or ideology. (excluding the occasional guy driven by curiousity, that's a whole other issue)
More on the point, though, how far would you be willing to extend the ability to socialize/play/practice? Would you extend it to insects? Bacteria? It's a strain to my imagination to apply it to those two groups. Especially bacteria brings up a large amount of new ethical issues. The thought processes involved would be widely ridiculed, so I can certainly understand the lack of effort towards testing it (risking career credibility).
The expected rigor of the scientific process is kind of a double edged sword. I respect it for making reproducable results, but sometimes I think it makes simple questions into complex chores. Ideally, you'd just have the individual pursue it, but if my question is something seemingly silly, like whether a leopard likes playing frisbee catch, I'd have to get my hands on a leopard first because I don't expect silly things to get reported publicly.
Or rather, this time around I'm wondering if it isn't all smoke and mirrors, a magician's distraction from something actually important.
This is a constant nagging worry for me. Especially when I hear about something occurring from a recent time period where I know I was trying to pay attention, then I look it up and it turned out I completely missed it at the time. Sort of a losing game, but I keep coming back to the table for another round.
It's interesting to hear about the surge of problems occurring in Reagan era. I'm fairly convinced of the "long march through the institutions" strategy being employed, but that carries a number of implications with it. I hadn't really considered that it might be happening in a scale larger than the USA, for instance; I thought maybe whatever nefarious group was hopping around for soft targets. So now I'm led to consider it more closely tied to globalist interests.
What'd be really interesting is to know if this 10-20 year skip in agenda-pushing (the fallout takes years to settle each time, so maybe it was an intentional strategy) has been a regular trend, but we'd need some sample reports from the 60s-70s and I don't have any connections that old. Then again, we had a big tech thing with the internet and cellphones, so maybe it forced some moves to be made.