Where is +1 pedantic?

Completely uninformed. All the mills were destroyed or put out of business? Europeans soundly rejected new processes? The luddite movement lasted from 1811 to 1813. The government weren't having any of it. It was made a capital offense to sabotage industrial machinery, there were some trials, executions and prisoners, etc, and the movement simply died out.

So much for that. Britain was the first industrialised country, followed by western european countries and the US.

The argument being made is that there is no objective way to draw rights from reality. Comparing rights, there is no special relation between what you call fundamental rights and the fundamental laws of nature. They all follow the same pattern: something granted plus something taken away - the imposition. Now before you leap in and shout that these fundamental rights have no imposition, please recognise the existence of inaction bias. Forcing someone to do something and forcing them to not do something; the only difference is if they were performing that action or not before you imposed your rule. I'm hitting you on the head and I'm forced to do something else? Something I haven't chosen and don't want to do? I don't want to stop hitting you on the head/provide you with healthcare/provide you with an internet connection!

But "something else" is merely stopping you from a single action while with healthcare you are being forced to perform a single action? No, the former is stopping you from doing 1 out of 10000 actions while the latter is stopping you from doing 9999 out of 10000 actions. Or you can state it as the inverse. I don't think it can be overstated: action equals inaction.

The only difference between a negative and positive right is that a negative right's imposition is miniscule and the action going against its imposition is usually a ridiculous thing for a person to do - so ridiculous that it's brushed off and ignored. Like someone's "right" to "not have to hear your free speech".

Inalieble, negative, positive... just useful terms we give rights as a rough description as to how good the thing is they grant and how small the imposition is. That judgement is up to us and it's arbitrary. This is ethics, not fundamental natural laws.

Two things:

1. We've found old glass panes that are thicker at the top rather than the bottom

2. If the glass supposedly flows visibly x amount over hundreds of years, then all we need to do is have the precision to measure whatever fraction of x we have the time to let a pane of glass sit. With modern instruments we see no such flow.

And now I realise I responded to the post below the intended one.

Making way for future generations, as noble as it sounds, just doesn't stand up in evolutionary biology. You've got to look at the things that get selected for, and losing functionality and reproductive capacity is the opposite of that. Even on a group level, our history is that for the most part we died from pretty much everything but aging.

There is a much simpler answer for why we age and get diseases later in life. Let's put it this way: How many of your ancestors died before they were able to reproduce? Young people are very rarely affected by non-minor diseases because they were all selected away. This is even at expense of health later in life. It's why we see genes that do things like give some minor benefit in early life but then turn out to cause heart disease later on.

So, there is nothing actually physically stopping us from not degenerating with age, it's just that evolution only has come up with a partial solution so far. You might hear analogies where the human body is likened to a machine breaking down, but really we're more like machines that self-repair, but those repair mechanisms need repairing, and then those mechanisms need repair, except some repairs aren't complete and there are safety nets, more layers of complexity and so on. Throughout all this, the problems that get solved first are the ones that manifest sooner.

Isn't that his whole point? You have to perform a cost/benefit analysis. Using that and comparing to everything else in society, video games are really, really far down in our list of concern.

You broke it.

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public and demeaning of social groups?

Well, sure, in the natural sense. Homosexualality falls into that same category. In a moral sense, there's nothing wrong with it - you just can't act on it.