Search Results
6/20/2025, 5:59:09 PM
>>40114397
Rule 1. The population must be slowed to 0.1. Meaning for every person born, 9 people die of old age.
If we're assuming compliance and automatic and efficient reposition of funds and labor for these otherwise non-functional rules, sure; a population decrease is optimal.
2. Once a desirable population is reached, eugenics will be introduced. No more breeding for right wing people unless they have talents.
Eugenics/genes have nearly nothing to do with talent by any normal use of the word. Most of your genetic makeup exists to maintain functionality in your body, they are difficult to effect which also means the inverse is true, they do not assist much in mental/physical development. Stemcellls becoming less than 1% of your cells by adulthood is one example. Outside of bizarre frameshift mutations this doesn't vary from person to person, no one you'll meet is destined to become a genius because of their genes. Eugenics to cultivate talent for this reason seems utterly retarded. I am in favor of eugenics for actual reasons like preventing health issues.
3. Talents are decided by a committee of artists and philosophers. A rigorous process ensures that humanity becomes better day by day.
I don't see why we need this. Production of the members of society, the correct distribution of capital, these are important. People do not need to be the best fit for their job, and we are not lacking skilled workers in the first world. I agree with philosophy in school not for your dumb idea of talent but principles of validity/logic.
4. Once desired number of population is reached (in balance with the eco system) then the population growth will be churned up to 1.1
1 0, but the extra 0.1 is forba unique group of people that are placed in reserve in case of disasters, this group will also be the space explorers.
The ecosystem lol. Sure let's just focus on the human ecosystem first, don't get ahead of yourself also don't use Frieren for posts like these stick to Fern.
Rule 1. The population must be slowed to 0.1. Meaning for every person born, 9 people die of old age.
If we're assuming compliance and automatic and efficient reposition of funds and labor for these otherwise non-functional rules, sure; a population decrease is optimal.
2. Once a desirable population is reached, eugenics will be introduced. No more breeding for right wing people unless they have talents.
Eugenics/genes have nearly nothing to do with talent by any normal use of the word. Most of your genetic makeup exists to maintain functionality in your body, they are difficult to effect which also means the inverse is true, they do not assist much in mental/physical development. Stemcellls becoming less than 1% of your cells by adulthood is one example. Outside of bizarre frameshift mutations this doesn't vary from person to person, no one you'll meet is destined to become a genius because of their genes. Eugenics to cultivate talent for this reason seems utterly retarded. I am in favor of eugenics for actual reasons like preventing health issues.
3. Talents are decided by a committee of artists and philosophers. A rigorous process ensures that humanity becomes better day by day.
I don't see why we need this. Production of the members of society, the correct distribution of capital, these are important. People do not need to be the best fit for their job, and we are not lacking skilled workers in the first world. I agree with philosophy in school not for your dumb idea of talent but principles of validity/logic.
4. Once desired number of population is reached (in balance with the eco system) then the population growth will be churned up to 1.1
1 0, but the extra 0.1 is forba unique group of people that are placed in reserve in case of disasters, this group will also be the space explorers.
The ecosystem lol. Sure let's just focus on the human ecosystem first, don't get ahead of yourself also don't use Frieren for posts like these stick to Fern.
6/18/2025, 3:38:10 PM
Page 1