OT - What will be completely unacceptable in 100 years - or even 50

There was also the prediction of the use of gyrocopters etc flying from Heathrow to the centre of London. This was tried but they'd overlooked how f****ng noisy it was, plus questions of safety.

So y'see, making predictions is a mugs game.

I loathe the smell of cigarette smoke. I don't care two hoots whether it's harmful or even (heaven forbid) beneficial. The smell of cigarette (as opposed to cigar or pipe) smoke is something I find offensive.

But... I wouldn't make it illegal for people to smoke. I'd set the price at a level where the tax on the product just pays for the cost of treating smoking-related diseases - so treating those is funded entirely out of tobacco sales and not by general taxation.

I'd like to see the law changed so that smoking outdoors (within n hundred yards of anyone else) was illegal. Especially around the doorways of a building or in the car park - anywhere that the public is likely to be. And in exchange, I'd like to see smokers at work given designated rooms indoors where they can smoke, somewhere that non-smokers don't have to go.

I'm not a killjoy - I know that many people like the effect of smoking. All I ask is that they are banned from doing it anywhere that I may have to breath their smoke.

Would you do the same for alcohol related medical problems too? And those caused by all other recreational drugs?

Oh I know that, but I'm amazed to see that many people make money from guessing about the future - I even met someone who worked for a large company once and his sole job was to "predict" (as in guess) where society would go in 5, 10, 20 and 50 years.

They already have.

And the excess revenue raised is spent on treating the elderly that are living too long because they did not smoke.

Eventually it will subside to a really low level - so low that it can be removed from everyday considerations. And then, in 200-300 years, people will look back in astonishment that it was as prevalent as it was.

The fact that only 13 years on, no one of any respect is even talking about the smoking ban in the UK - let alone reversing it - speaks for itself.

So you would REDUCE the tax on cigarettes then? Yes I know there are no hypothecated taxes in the UK, (except the license fee but that is arguably not a tax but...). But surely some sort of law change could be brought in with the price reduction.

Estimates put the 'direct' costs to the NHS of smoking at 3-6 Billion however tax raised by smoking is estimated at 12 Billion.

Figures are just ball park guestimates For instance smokers can die earlier, so not having all the GP appointments and prescriptions older people tend to need. There is also all the income tax from tobacco factory workers.

Not a smoker but I do so dislike un-researched/thoughtless reactions.

Two minutes with Google gives :-

And you have all the people making good money in the 'futures market' of course ...

Cheers, T i m

Maybe if civilisation has not descended into anarchy by then, a lot of things may have come full circle and attitudes changed to suit. Most things are cyclical.

My feeling is that any consensual act between adults will be OK. However if we look at the goody twoshoes of today, I'd have my doubts. Assisted death would be legal, but many lawyers would get fat on trying to appeal that a certain case cannot go ahead due to technicalities. In short, if we survive, it will be much as today, but with slightly different issues we may not even know of yet.

Say we settle on the Moon and Mars and those colonies become self sufficient. How do we view offworlders born out there?Moon babies would probably not be able to live in our gravity, Mars babies might need to adapt. Brian

No, in 200-300 years it will be "rediscovered" and everyone will start smoking again. This will be because all the ill-effects will have been forgotten about.

Or their exhaust fumes.

Following the collapse of civilisation I'd imagine cannibalism would be more of a hot topic than the suffering of fish. Regrettable though that may be.

I can remember the anti-fur protests of the 80's and 90's with models wearing furs dripping in fake blood. Then came one or two recessions, and now it seems the emphasis is somewhat more focused.

The feeling of outrage against animal suffering is particularly intense when cats and dogs are involved, since these are the most popular pets in Western countries. Therefore, consumers demand to be assured about the production of furs, in order to avoid the risk of inadvertently buying products made with fur from these animals.

Similarly every scientific advance in the study of animals simply provides yet more evidence of why their exploitation can be seen as immoral. Very little of which seems to have any effect whatsoever, on the dietary habits of the majority of the population.

michael adams

...

No point, there won't be any fish and what there are will be mutated and full of plastic.

Or therefore potentially inflicting suffering on any other animals that get caught up in the discarded gear (like the goose we rescued recently).

Beating an animal to death for it's fur as you don't want to damage the fur.

Most of the things they do with animals in the far East ...

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Talking to our friend who is a volunteer animal rescue guy, he says geese are one of the few animals of that size that are generally a handful. Daughter has recovered numerous stray dogs and several swans and not had the 'thanks' as she got from the goose.

So we'll only be able to eat boiled fish, but not fried.

If fish can survive swimming around while full of plastic then why can't humans who eat such fish also walk around afterwards ?

That's the thing about you Tim, you're always being so negative.

michael adams

...

Except that it seems it can be cheaper to use real fur than fake ... with supposedly clothing containing fake fur turning out to be real fur. ;-(

I think it might need the same process to force people to make the connection as with my 'Meat eaters licence' (where they have to attend an abattoir and witness the process from end to end to be able to buy meat). If you had to club the fox to death yourself, *maybe* the penny might then drop?

And this is why some of us try to keep bringing such things back to the fore ... it's only when the majority 'get' the point will it really be fully effective.

Yup, there *weren't* put there for us to do with as we choose and more importantly, we *need* the balance they had in the ecosystems to survive ourselves.

Or all the medical research that is done on animals when in most cases the 'research' came to nothing and the 'results' just stuck in a draw somewhere (and more animals tortured and killed for no good reason).

It will take time. When you have lived most your life under the assumption that certain species (varies by culture / situation) are there to be treated how we like and eventually killed and eaten by us, it's going to take a bit of time to un-do that, to educate and re-train peoples minds, to make people acknowledge the feelings they have for 'some animals' really applies to 'all animals', then we might move forward faster. But move forward we are, in ever increasing numbers and now supported by most of the big food manufacturers that realise the writing is on the wall.

What a 'dairy' based manufacturer has two vegan lines and a famous pork pie maker is now doing a vegan porkless pie ... you know they know what they *have* to do to stay in business in the future.

I wonder what nutjob thought it would be a good idea for humans to drink the excretions of another species? And it's pretty obvious why they didn't choose the lion or gorilla when they did. Now that I'd pay to watch! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

We won't be (or want to be) eating fish by then.

Many can't, same with seabirds who can't get enough nutrition because their stomachs are full of plastic.

Assuming there are any (fish) you mean?

See, it's all part of a much bigger picture and the smaller the creature the bigger the impact the same level / size of pollution.

I'd call it realist and I'm sorry that darkens your rose tinted specs. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

As I've pointed out more than once, it's all a matter of simple economics. All these "finer feelings" are simply another luxury good along with nice clothing, decent housing, and a varied diet which were denied to our peasant ancestors of only say 200 or 300 years ago. Even more so for townies who were walking past butchers doing their own slaughtering and watching horses drop dead in the streets.

And basically when our standard of living is reduced back to theirs which could easily happen, then we'll all be glad to eat and drink just about anything from whatever source; if the only alternative is going hungry. That, or cannibalism.

And no Local Authority Health Inspectors either

It really is as simple as that, I'm afraid.

michael adams

...

Well, some of our ancestors weren't peasants. ;-)

Of course, but that's not were we are now and won't be in the future, as long as we wise up *soon*.

And that is also 'perfectly normal' for some cultures (or was etc).

;-)

Well yes, but hopefully, as long as we sort ourselves out *soon* we won't see this dystopian future.

If you are unfortunate to be an animal that is arbitrarily labeled 'live stock' the 'now' is already dystopian. ;-(

Cheers, T i m