Why did they just study women?
It seems like anything that affects women gets attention, while society doesn't even value men.
While I'm not familiar with this particular study and can't explain why the researchers chose to focus on women exclusively, I'd like to call your attention to this exerpt from a Guardian article from 2015:
For several reasons, female subjects have historically been excluded from toxicology or biomedical research, says Tamarra James-Todd, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School. While progress has been made since 1993, when the National Institutes of Health mandated that women and minorities be included in any government-funded health research, there’s still a long way to go.
Indeed, this trend of including females in studies at all is relatively recent, and females are still underrepresented in study populations in general to this day. Please consider that your perception of an unreasonable focus on women when it comes to medical research seems at odds with the empirical data that we have.
But if the malicious code was put on an electric utility machine by Russian intelligence you have to assume that the grid is at least one of their ultimate targets.
Sure, as long as you're consistent in your reasoning. So if the malicious code was put on Joe Sixpack's machine by Russian intelligence you have to assume that the general public is also one of their ultimate targets. And indeed, this being generic malware available for purchase, your reasoning really starts to look questionable.
our only Mid-Eastern ally Israel
Is Saudi Arabia no longer part of the Middle East? Oman? UAE?
In most cases there are sculptures or paintings or drawings or written records of these people created during their life.
Here you set the bar at "during their life".
I mean, seriously- he died and then came back to life, and no one wrote a single fucking word about it?
Here you identify alleged resurrection (had it occurred) as sufficiently noteworthy to have merited some mention.
Are there no workhouses?
Please keep in mind that the entire context of this conversation is human labor being more costly than automation. In this light, you're suggesting that instead of simply giving people money and automating the work they'd otherwise be doing, we ought to actually spend more money on giving people busywork.
It's not clear to me how adopting this higher-cost model is superior to the alternative. It costs more, and it results in less leisure time for people. Are you suggesting that the additional cost is worth it, because leisure time is undesirable?
Seriously, I don't see the right wing allowing a basic income (or dole) being allowed here. Instead, it will go to the "job creators" who pay their bills (purchase their loyalty).
This is a separate issue. I've already acknowledged that there are other possibilities, like allowing the unemployed to starve. I'm not making predictions about what route we will choose (or value statements about what route we ought to choose). These conversations would be much more productive if people could try to avoid making arguments that rely upon subjective claims or circular reasoning.
Go to CAST website.
I googled. Do you mean:
Center for Applied Special Technology, something for people with disabilities?
Google Cast, now called Chromecast?
Cast software, something for SQL?
CAST LA, a group trying to end slavery?
Council for agricultural science and technology, which also has nothing to do with space propulsion systems?
In short, what are you talking about?
And what happens when that truck driver can't find another job?
GP suggested he could instead be "skipping through fields, rocking out to great bands, performing science experiments, climbing mountains and skiing down them while drinking Mountain Dew as explosions go off behind you, reading novels, or flying around in starships to go find green-skinned women to bang."
Do we guarantee him a wage?
That's one possibility. Another is that we watch him starve. There are a wide range of possibilities here.
What about his kids when they can't find a job?
Same as above.
I am not against progress, but there is a social cost that partially offsets the gains. We seem to regard this a collateral damage and want to ignore the people that are hurt in the name of progress.
There's also a social cost when it comes to fighting against this type of progress. For example, people have to continue working when they otherwise wouldn't need to. For some reason, we seem to regard this a collateral damage and want to ignore the people that are hurt by being compelled to work also.
Exactly, where are these automated factories that are displacing workers. They must be in China because all we have here is dilapidated and abandoned industrial buildings.
US manufacturing output is at an all-time high. Presumably these dilapidated and abandoned industrial buildings are more productive than whatever it is that they replaced?
Why single out phone conversations, then — why not ban all talk? If you wish for the law to protect you from people talking, why not also cover screaming babies?
A sense of purpose is important.
Okay, well, while I don't see any evidence of this claim, let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. In that context, I'd like to address two related topics.
First, does a fry cook at McDonalds satisfy this need for a sense of purpose through their employment? Or do they instead see their job as both a necessary evil and (to a lesser extent) an opportunity to socialize with some of their peers? If you ask a fry cook at McDonalds if they'd prefer to be paid to not show up at work, do you honestly think they'd say they'd like to keep their current arrangement?
Second, why are we so concerned about the poor, but not the wealthy? Do they not need to be assigned a sense of purpose also? How is it that the wealthy seem to get along just fine without being forced to labor simply to maintain their lifestyle? Is there a reason to think that the poor are inherently incapable of being socialites, of finding and pursuing their own interests?
How do we NOT support breeding?
We could start by ending tax incentives for breeders. Also, if we want to make data-driven decisions, we can invest in education of women (as this has been shown to be the factor that's most strongly correlated with decreased population growth rates).
Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor