This has been modeled. Though I don’t have any references at hand, this is what I remember.
If you want to allow people to choose mates and breed normally, you’d need at least 3000 people, 4 to 5000 would be better.
If you are strictly controlling genomes and breeding pairs, ignoring monogamy and social norms. You might be able to get away with 100 if you selected for maximum initial genetic diversity. But 200 would be easier.
Two linefeeds will separate two paragraphs.
Two spaces are needed before a linefeed
to keep them in one paragraph.
Like this.
I’m not sure how it’s more or less trivial if you’re using a phone or desktop. In either case it’s extremely trivial.
That’s completely out of context. That image doesn’t even have everybody in it.
Every gain was immediately lost
Not at all.
They may be weaker, but we still have unions. Social security is still in place. We still have 5 day 40 hour workweeks as standard. Overtime is still paid at 1.5x. We still have OSHA ensuring safe working conditions. The list is long.
Each cycle the public makes many gains. Most of them are carried through to the next cycle, where more gains are made. I have hope that Gen z or Gen Alpha will gain ground on universal healthcare, mandatory vacation and sick leave, mandatory family leave, voting rights and methods. Hell with AI coming for everyone’s jobs, maybe even a form of universal basic income.
No.
Oligarchy has waxed and waned throughout US history. It’s latest rise has only been over the last 50 years or so. They were kept thoroughly in check for 40ish years before that. It was after Nixon’s pardon that they realized they might be able to get away with it again.
Dave doesn’t. In fact, he agrees it hasn’t
Definitely has not
Is an online script builder you can use to do all manner of things. The first time I used it I went hog wild picking all sorts of things, and made my matching practically unusable. So be careful and stick to their recommendations unless you know exactly what you want to kill.
No it hasn’t
It really hasn’t
Right.
So no language, money, coins, math.
You and me are okay; As long as we don’t talk or write. We can barter, as long as we don’t count things.
I think it would be complicated.
The demand for GPs and family doctors would increase.
The demand for hospital beds would decrease.
In the long term, things would stabilize into a new ratio of services.
But, what is REAL?
You? Me? Money? Coins? Math? Philosophy?
The languages we use are even “artificial”.
People spend more time online than in nature.
You know nature’s covered in dirt, right.
Plastic surgery, makeup, skin bleaching, fake tanning are pushed above natural beauty.
Only when it looks natural.
GMO foods are consumed over organic (they could put money into farming organic instead of GMO).
Organic refers to the chemistry of the pesticides used. The GMOs themselves are still very much organic. Besides, none of the food we eat is “natural”. It’s all been selectively bred (even cross bred) to yield more, taste and look better then they ever did naturally. Accept maybe shellfish. Seriously. How hungry was the first person to look at a lobster and think “I’m gonna eat that!”
Now Ozempic instead of getting your porkback off the couch and exercising.
That’s a natural response to the unnaturally calorie rich world we live in.
It’s backwards world.
Yep. Less natural every day… Since we started farming 50,000 years ago.
While not perfect, I think things have undeniably improved over the last dozen millennia.
Not necessity. Since housing will be cheaper to buy, some will do that instead of rent. So the market of renters will be smaller, keeping rental prices in check.
The idea is to make the wealthy sell some of their assets. Thus driving the price of those assets down. If people horde fewer houses, the market of buyers shrinks and prices fall.
Now a 2% tax on certain assets won’t solve everything. But its a good start. There will need to be a number of loopholes closed and other taxes targeting the super wealthy, in order to make a real difference.
I’m compelled to point out, all names are just made up.
That low end of 100 would be with full eugenics. Selecting for genetic diversity, not for “hotness”.
If you were selecting for that, it would mean less genetic diversity, you might start seeing problems within 5 generations. But that’s just me speculating.