Am I to understand that your position on the matter is that we know all there is to know about the impacts of genetics on health and diseases? Because you seem to assert that the only reason a prognosis may change without an actual diagnosis, is if there was a change in the underlying genome itself (ancestral origin)?
To confuse many readers: If such reasoning is applied to computers, then it would be that a computer that was up to date as of February 1st, 2013 could not possibly have any unpatched vulnerabilities which were unknown prior to February 1st, 2013. That there is no equivalent to spectre and meltdown in our understanding of biology and genetics.
Am I to understand from your response that you think Pepsi tastes better than Coca Cola? Because you said one thing and I'm going to make up something completely random so that my response to yours is in tune to the response you gave to me.
This came up before when the studio replaced Crispin Glover in Back To The Future 2, and he sued them for using his likeness.
From the wikipedia article:
Dissatisfied with these plans, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[7]
If they take Crispin Glover and make his nose slightly longer and his chin slightly shorter and change his hair texture slightly... is it still Crispin Glover? Or if they start with a model that doesn't look like Crispin Glover and alter the parameters so that he does look like him.
Hold on -- a private company can be given the right to search somebody's home in Australia? They have literally been given the legal right bust into multiple private citizens' homes? WTF? Is this life imitating art or some kind of crazy distopian future?
Yes, I'm curious if this is just a case of something being phrased poorly... Are they authorizing the police to search on their behalf- or literally giving them the right to search their property?
The first is probably acceptable. The second most certainly is not.
Convert asteroids into space stations, and there's more than a 1000 times as much floor space as the Earth. (At least, in theory.) There's plenty of energy (sunlight), and lots of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Lots iron and carbon to make the steel for the walls, and lots of other filler to provide shielding. The only element that is in short supply is nitrogen, and you can get that from Titan. (or Earth if people will let you)
If you could move 10,000 people from Earth to the belt per year, and assuming a yearly growth rate of 1.02%, you reach 1 trillion in under 400 years. 100,000 per year, and a growth rate of 1.03% and it only takes 200 years.
AFAIK, with current tech, it's possible to reach 1 trillion in system in less than 1 millennium. Traveling to another star system in less than 1 millennium with current tech, isn't.
By the time we have the ability to do all that though, we'll also have the ability to go out of our solar system- if our species lasts long enough when we hit 1 trillion- we will probably be spread out amongst several solar systems when it happens. Who knows what technology we will have 1000 years from now; but a population would be more safe on a planet than an asteroid. Certainly, I know I'd rather live on a planet than an asteroid even an unterraformed one which would suggest moving extra-solar system.
The problem here is no matter how effective that kind of filtering would be, it would not be limited to only firearms or parenting. Once someone is determined to be unfit for anything, they will be blacklisted by employers. Just because someone may be unfit to be a parent doesn't mean they can't be a kick-ass employee, but employers (and more importantly insurance/liability) won't see it that way. At all. You will be blacklisted, and that will become the problem that dismantles the program altogether, putting us right back to square one.
If the data were used as a public social score like China already has in place, yes. I would suspect that any accurate algorithm of trustable gun owners would not be the same as any accurate algorithm of trustable parents... so we're already talking about 2 separate groups. Someone you can trust with a gun you can't necessarily trust with a child and vice versa.
I'm not proposing we legislate any of these social scores for allowing guns or children... the thought creeps me out- but I am proposing it just as a running thought.
What if the scores were only shown when trying to become a parent or when trying to get a gun? I guess people might discriminate against couples without kids anyway assuming they failed the "child permit". Employers in this theoretical scenario couldn't see gun or parent social score tests.
If anyone could see your social score we would end up with a system like China where you are restricted employment, and even what hotels you can stay at based on social score. That is mainly used for controlling the masses by giving dissidents a low score and anyone who is friends with dissidents- certainly government could use the parent/gun permits the same way.
Not for many millennia. Even if we colonise the moons and the planets and the asteroids. No planet is going to be able to support as many as Earth for millennia- and population growth is slowing on earth due to resource costs of raising children here. When we hit 1 trillion we will be a multi-system race. We may never hit 1 trillion within our solar system because there really isn't enough resources here to justify that many people.
There may be 1 trillion living humans oneday but I doubt it will all be in our solar system- not for millennia at least.
So what? Who said that was the purpose of the primary?
So you agree the system is broken?
And then when THAT person loses, you've gotten to vote for someone else, too. Two votes. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?
That's no more than with a primary. And... who cares? So what? You let people vote who they want to vote for instead of one of two people they don't. That is inherently a better system.
Nobody is forced into a two party system. In fact, do you know how you get completely away from a two party system?
Actually they are, because the two parties primaries are funded by the state but no one else's is. The system is inherently rigged to be difficult to third parties and the parties have changed very few times over the life of the US.
Voting and how people are elected is easily one of the most broken parts of US democracy and doesn't accurately represent the people.
How soon until a bureaucrat uses this data to determine that you shouldn't be permitted to own a firearm or are not fit to be a parent.
How long until they're right?
Obviously, I understand the concern here- and it is something to be concerned about... but what if the data could determine with 99.9% accuracy that someone wasn't fit to own a gun or be a parent...
I'm not proposing they use data for those purposes... but if the data could say accurately- would it be right to use it? (assuming no constitution violations- it gets updated as need be).
You will end up looking a lot like your mother or father, depending on your birth gender.
You will have the problems your parents have (propensity for dementia, alcoholism, diabetes, cancer, etc.).
If your grandparents live past 80 take care of yourself and you can too (eat well or exercise, one or the other works, generally). Pay attention to dementia, get your paperwork in order depending on how you want to handle that, just in case.
If you want, ask potential child-birthing partners about their family history. I wouldn't suggest this, let love lead the way and have a good time.
I know a few people who were adopted that don't know who their biological parents are (and by extension grand parents). It's not that uncommon in current society for the dad not to be known to a lot of people in poor groups of society.
Even in my own case, I don't know who one of my biological grandfathers is. (I was able to determine he wasn't biologically related to us through basic understand of dominant and recessive genes... but also because he was away fighting in WWII the whole year when my father was conceived and born).
So lots of people have missing ancestry information- and even for those that don't, recessive genes can go hiding for many generations.
Who cares what the other party's members think about the candidate? Isn't it almost a "by definition" that one party will think the candidate that wins their primary is better than the one that wins the other party's?
The purpose of a primary is not to make the other parties happy. It's to nominate someone who can BEAT the other party's, which will, of course, make them UNHAPPY. In fact, the more that the other parties whine about the candidate I've help select for mine, the better I know mine is.
Clearly Trump wasn't the most electable republican- and Hillary wasn't the most electable democrat as almost no one voted FOR a candidate but rather AGAINST a rival. All projections showed that there was a lost stronger support for almost every other republican candidate compare in a 1v1 against Hillary- and clearly Hillary was not very popular either even amongst democrats but got through because of the democrats' shady primary process.
As happens usually- you end up with extremists that only a handful of people are happy with and the majority of people are unhappy with.
if you pick the lesser of the two main evils for your second pick- your vote still counts rather than being "wasted" on a third party.
So you essentially get to vote twice. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?
You get to vote for who you really want to get elected rather than the best of the worst, the person you think is more likely to "beat the worst". There would be a lot more spread of votes in America if we weren't forced into a polarized binary system. The majority of people who aren't extremists have to vote for an extremist on the left or an extremist on the right. Rational and common sense politicians aren't given a chance. If you vote for someone decent in the middle your vote is wasted because they stand no chance.
Instead of stable or gradual change we get wacko on the left followed by wacko on the right and back again every 4 to 8 years.
I would like to get rid of primaries too as they tend to polarize the parties and get the worst* overall candidate nominated from each party. Actually, I think George Washington had the right idea- he wanted political parties to play no part in American democracy. Votes should be about an individual's ideas- not a party's ideas.
* Worst from a neutral's perspective or the other parties perspective- best from that party's hardliners normally.
I like the French system personally, where you cast two votes, and if your first vote isn't for one of the 2 most popular candidates, then your second vote gets used. It's ideal because, you can vote for who you really think is best... so if you think Hillary and Trump both stink, you can pick someone else... but at the same time it's not a wasted vote because, if you pick the lesser of the two main evils for your second pick- your vote still counts rather than being "wasted" on a third party.
It also means two conservative or two liberal politicians can run without taking votes away from each other and means the electorate as a whole picks the best candidate... not the party.
I understand the "it's not really the people's will if only half the people vote" philosophy.
However, a part of me feels like if voting was mandatory there would be a lot of people voting for the first name on the ballot, or the name that sounds the most familiar- or more just straight-party voting without knowing anything about the candidates involved.
I know a lot of this goes on already; but I feel like, if you don't know anything about the candidates, you're doing more of a disservice by voting than you are by not voting. I've not voted in the past in several races where I either didn't know the candidates or didn't know enough about them- because I feel it would be wrong to do so.
I'd prefer everyone get informed and vote rather than not vote. However, I'd rather people who are not informed or "don't care" don't vote.
On the one hand, whoever is in power is automatically hated by whoever is not in power.
On the other hand, there are just as many people biased against democrats as there are people biased against republicans.
On the third hand, people who identify with a group will naturally exaggerate the level of bias that is present against that group.
I do think those are all 3 very accurate points. It's easier to make fun of and dislike the guy in power. You can't blame your problems on someone who isn't in power.
Google's on their team, so who cares if they fuck everyone?
As a centrist can some someone please explain something to me? Not intending this as a wind-up- just something that amuses me and I'm curious to know the answer.
If IT is biased against republicans, and news media is biased against republicans, and Hollywood is biased against republicans, and women are all biased against republicans, if sports is biased against republicans, if social media is biased against republicans, immigrants are biased against republicans, and recently I'm told industry is biased against republicans...
If the republicans are perpetual victims of such bias from everyone- how do they have the current president and hold both houses? How can you be the "victim party" that faces everyone's bias and be the party in power?
It's hard to pull % of from that... but that actually looks like less than 10% overlap there. Besides a few outliers there are two separate bands of strength there. (for that one particular test there).
More than lets say 3 times a day, and 2 times in a row, I really don't want.
I mean, don't want to make love... so being responsible for 10 "girl friends" would mean half of them only have sex every second day, and I would "work" at my full capacity.
Not sure if that is fun for any of us...
You could always double up on them from time to time. All it takes is a velvet robe and a thick moustache and you will have all the correct attire for hosting threesomes.
I'm referring to the parent post which appears to be taking all men and women regardless of age group. This means at the extremes we can take the very strongest women, be they athletes or female body builders or whatever and compare them to bedridden nonagenarian men.
If we're comparing all of humanity including women in their prime and men post decline... sure there would be significant overlap healthy young women will be stronger than a lot of older men.
They can only create female offspring in this manner as women do not have a Y chromosome. I would assume the converse (boys only) would hold true for children of two males.
As long as we don't go into a technological darkage and forget how to make test tube babies- are men even needed? I say this, as a man, if we can reproduce without men- is that really a problem? Yeah, men have more physical strength, but is that necessary in the future going forwards with everything automated.
If you're setting up a colony on Mars or a moon, or something else... maybe that would be a place to just leave out men entirely if you can have two female parents. Men are much more likely to be on extreme ends of any social spectrum. Men are more likely to express genetic diseases and defects (mostly because we're missing half a chromosome).
On the other hand- the fact that men have only one copy of a number of genes means men are more likely to be geniuses (or retarded) than women too. So it's probably best not to eliminate men altogether. Maybe keep males at 10% of the population- a safety net for humanity if we ever lose the ability to reproduce in the lab- and because sometimes extreme expression of genes is beneficial. Plus- one man for 10 women sounds perfect numbers for humanity to be equally sexually satiated.
If we were starting a new colony on Mars, or an asteroid, or... wherever though- a population of all females for the first few generations might actually be a good idea though.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I to understand that your position on the matter is that we know all there is to know about the impacts of genetics on health and diseases? Because you seem to assert that the only reason a prognosis may change without an actual diagnosis, is if there was a change in the underlying genome itself (ancestral origin)?
To confuse many readers:
If such reasoning is applied to computers, then it would be that a computer that was up to date as of February 1st, 2013 could not possibly have any unpatched vulnerabilities which were unknown prior to February 1st, 2013. That there is no equivalent to spectre and meltdown in our understanding of biology and genetics.
Am I to understand from your response that you think Pepsi tastes better than Coca Cola? Because you said one thing and I'm going to make up something completely random so that my response to yours is in tune to the response you gave to me.
This came up before when the studio replaced Crispin Glover in Back To The Future 2, and he sued them for using his likeness.
From the wikipedia article:
Dissatisfied with these plans, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
How similar do they have to be though.
If they take Crispin Glover and make his nose slightly longer and his chin slightly shorter and change his hair texture slightly... is it still Crispin Glover?
Or if they start with a model that doesn't look like Crispin Glover and alter the parameters so that he does look like him.
The place I got mine from changed their results a year after signing up. My racial makeup and my ancestors origins changed quite dramatically.
Hold on -- a private company can be given the right to search somebody's home in Australia? They have literally been given the legal right bust into multiple private citizens' homes? WTF? Is this life imitating art or some kind of crazy distopian future?
Yes, I'm curious if this is just a case of something being phrased poorly... Are they authorizing the police to search on their behalf- or literally giving them the right to search their property?
The first is probably acceptable. The second most certainly is not.
O'Neill Cylinder Space Settlement.
Convert asteroids into space stations, and there's more than a 1000 times as much floor space as the Earth. (At least, in theory.)
There's plenty of energy (sunlight), and lots of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Lots iron and carbon to make the steel for the walls, and lots of other filler to provide shielding.
The only element that is in short supply is nitrogen, and you can get that from Titan. (or Earth if people will let you)
If you could move 10,000 people from Earth to the belt per year, and assuming a yearly growth rate of 1.02%, you reach 1 trillion in under 400 years.
100,000 per year, and a growth rate of 1.03% and it only takes 200 years.
AFAIK, with current tech, it's possible to reach 1 trillion in system in less than 1 millennium.
Traveling to another star system in less than 1 millennium with current tech, isn't.
By the time we have the ability to do all that though, we'll also have the ability to go out of our solar system- if our species lasts long enough when we hit 1 trillion- we will probably be spread out amongst several solar systems when it happens. Who knows what technology we will have 1000 years from now; but a population would be more safe on a planet than an asteroid. Certainly, I know I'd rather live on a planet than an asteroid even an unterraformed one which would suggest moving extra-solar system.
With a net population growth of 0.1% per year, it'll be less than 5000 years.
For 10k years, it'll require a net population growth of 0.05% per year.
So, absent some factor limiting our population (being unable to get off this rock comes to mind), it won't be "many millenia" till we hit a trillion.
The technology to move beyond our solar system will happen before the technology to support 1 trillion people in this solar system though.
The problem here is no matter how effective that kind of filtering would be, it would not be limited to only firearms or parenting. Once someone is determined to be unfit for anything, they will be blacklisted by employers. Just because someone may be unfit to be a parent doesn't mean they can't be a kick-ass employee, but employers (and more importantly insurance/liability) won't see it that way. At all. You will be blacklisted, and that will become the problem that dismantles the program altogether, putting us right back to square one.
If the data were used as a public social score like China already has in place, yes. I would suspect that any accurate algorithm of trustable gun owners would not be the same as any accurate algorithm of trustable parents... so we're already talking about 2 separate groups. Someone you can trust with a gun you can't necessarily trust with a child and vice versa.
I'm not proposing we legislate any of these social scores for allowing guns or children... the thought creeps me out- but I am proposing it just as a running thought.
What if the scores were only shown when trying to become a parent or when trying to get a gun? I guess people might discriminate against couples without kids anyway assuming they failed the "child permit". Employers in this theoretical scenario couldn't see gun or parent social score tests.
If anyone could see your social score we would end up with a system like China where you are restricted employment, and even what hotels you can stay at based on social score. That is mainly used for controlling the masses by giving dissidents a low score and anyone who is friends with dissidents- certainly government could use the parent/gun permits the same way.
Not for many millennia. Even if we colonise the moons and the planets and the asteroids. No planet is going to be able to support as many as Earth for millennia- and population growth is slowing on earth due to resource costs of raising children here. When we hit 1 trillion we will be a multi-system race. We may never hit 1 trillion within our solar system because there really isn't enough resources here to justify that many people.
There may be 1 trillion living humans oneday but I doubt it will all be in our solar system- not for millennia at least.
So what? Who said that was the purpose of the primary?
So you agree the system is broken?
And then when THAT person loses, you've gotten to vote for someone else, too. Two votes. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?
That's no more than with a primary. And... who cares? So what? You let people vote who they want to vote for instead of one of two people they don't. That is inherently a better system.
Nobody is forced into a two party system. In fact, do you know how you get completely away from a two party system?
Actually they are, because the two parties primaries are funded by the state but no one else's is. The system is inherently rigged to be difficult to third parties and the parties have changed very few times over the life of the US.
Voting and how people are elected is easily one of the most broken parts of US democracy and doesn't accurately represent the people.
How soon until a bureaucrat uses this data to determine that you shouldn't be permitted to own a firearm or are not fit to be a parent.
How long until they're right?
Obviously, I understand the concern here- and it is something to be concerned about... but what if the data could determine with 99.9% accuracy that someone wasn't fit to own a gun or be a parent...
I'm not proposing they use data for those purposes... but if the data could say accurately- would it be right to use it? (assuming no constitution violations- it gets updated as need be).
Here's how it works.
You will end up looking a lot like your mother or father, depending on your birth gender.
You will have the problems your parents have (propensity for dementia, alcoholism, diabetes, cancer, etc.).
If your grandparents live past 80 take care of yourself and you can too (eat well or exercise, one or the other works, generally). Pay attention to dementia, get your paperwork in order depending on how you want to handle that, just in case.
If you want, ask potential child-birthing partners about their family history. I wouldn't suggest this, let love lead the way and have a good time.
I know a few people who were adopted that don't know who their biological parents are (and by extension grand parents). It's not that uncommon in current society for the dad not to be known to a lot of people in poor groups of society.
Even in my own case, I don't know who one of my biological grandfathers is. (I was able to determine he wasn't biologically related to us through basic understand of dominant and recessive genes... but also because he was away fighting in WWII the whole year when my father was conceived and born).
So lots of people have missing ancestry information- and even for those that don't, recessive genes can go hiding for many generations.
Do we need a lot of genetic counselors? Can computers not do this for us more accurately?
Who cares what the other party's members think about the candidate? Isn't it almost a "by definition" that one party will think the candidate that wins their primary is better than the one that wins the other party's?
The purpose of a primary is not to make the other parties happy. It's to nominate someone who can BEAT the other party's, which will, of course, make them UNHAPPY. In fact, the more that the other parties whine about the candidate I've help select for mine, the better I know mine is.
Clearly Trump wasn't the most electable republican- and Hillary wasn't the most electable democrat as almost no one voted FOR a candidate but rather AGAINST a rival. All projections showed that there was a lost stronger support for almost every other republican candidate compare in a 1v1 against Hillary- and clearly Hillary was not very popular either even amongst democrats but got through because of the democrats' shady primary process.
As happens usually- you end up with extremists that only a handful of people are happy with and the majority of people are unhappy with.
if you pick the lesser of the two main evils for your second pick- your vote still counts rather than being "wasted" on a third party.
So you essentially get to vote twice. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?
You get to vote for who you really want to get elected rather than the best of the worst, the person you think is more likely to "beat the worst". There would be a lot more spread of votes in America if we weren't forced into a polarized binary system. The majority of people who aren't extremists have to vote for an extremist on the left or an extremist on the right. Rational and common sense politicians aren't given a chance. If you vote for someone decent in the middle your vote is wasted because they stand no chance.
Instead of stable or gradual change we get wacko on the left followed by wacko on the right and back again every 4 to 8 years.
I would like to get rid of primaries too as they tend to polarize the parties and get the worst* overall candidate nominated from each party. Actually, I think George Washington had the right idea- he wanted political parties to play no part in American democracy. Votes should be about an individual's ideas- not a party's ideas.
* Worst from a neutral's perspective or the other parties perspective- best from that party's hardliners normally.
I like the French system personally, where you cast two votes, and if your first vote isn't for one of the 2 most popular candidates, then your second vote gets used. It's ideal because, you can vote for who you really think is best... so if you think Hillary and Trump both stink, you can pick someone else... but at the same time it's not a wasted vote because, if you pick the lesser of the two main evils for your second pick- your vote still counts rather than being "wasted" on a third party.
It also means two conservative or two liberal politicians can run without taking votes away from each other and means the electorate as a whole picks the best candidate... not the party.
For my money I want to see voting made mandatory,
I understand the "it's not really the people's will if only half the people vote" philosophy.
However, a part of me feels like if voting was mandatory there would be a lot of people voting for the first name on the ballot, or the name that sounds the most familiar- or more just straight-party voting without knowing anything about the candidates involved.
I know a lot of this goes on already; but I feel like, if you don't know anything about the candidates, you're doing more of a disservice by voting than you are by not voting. I've not voted in the past in several races where I either didn't know the candidates or didn't know enough about them- because I feel it would be wrong to do so.
I'd prefer everyone get informed and vote rather than not vote. However, I'd rather people who are not informed or "don't care" don't vote.
On the one hand, whoever is in power is automatically hated by whoever is not in power.
On the other hand, there are just as many people biased against democrats as there are people biased against republicans.
On the third hand, people who identify with a group will naturally exaggerate the level of bias that is present against that group.
I do think those are all 3 very accurate points. It's easier to make fun of and dislike the guy in power. You can't blame your problems on someone who isn't in power.
Google's on their team, so who cares if they fuck everyone?
As a centrist can some someone please explain something to me? Not intending this as a wind-up- just something that amuses me and I'm curious to know the answer.
If IT is biased against republicans,
and news media is biased against republicans,
and Hollywood is biased against republicans,
and women are all biased against republicans,
if sports is biased against republicans,
if social media is biased against republicans,
immigrants are biased against republicans,
and recently I'm told industry is biased against republicans...
If the republicans are perpetual victims of such bias from everyone- how do they have the current president and hold both houses? How can you be the "victim party" that faces everyone's bias and be the party in power?
I like that. I'm emailing my representative with these ideas.
I'll email your representative whilst in Russia using an American IP address.
Obviously you don't know much about women.
Any man who claims he does is mistaken.
You mean data like this?
It's hard to pull % of from that... but that actually looks like less than 10% overlap there. Besides a few outliers there are two separate bands of strength there. (for that one particular test there).
I'm a bit over 50 now.
More than lets say 3 times a day, and 2 times in a row, I really don't want.
I mean, don't want to make love ... so being responsible for 10 "girl friends" would mean half of them only have sex every second day, and I would "work" at my full capacity.
Not sure if that is fun for any of us ...
You could always double up on them from time to time. All it takes is a velvet robe and a thick moustache and you will have all the correct attire for hosting threesomes.
I'm referring to the parent post which appears to be taking all men and women regardless of age group. This means at the extremes we can take the very strongest women, be they athletes or female body builders or whatever and compare them to bedridden nonagenarian men.
If we're comparing all of humanity including women in their prime and men post decline... sure there would be significant overlap healthy young women will be stronger than a lot of older men.
They can only create female offspring in this manner as women do not have a Y chromosome. I would assume the converse (boys only) would hold true for children of two males.
As long as we don't go into a technological darkage and forget how to make test tube babies- are men even needed? I say this, as a man, if we can reproduce without men- is that really a problem? Yeah, men have more physical strength, but is that necessary in the future going forwards with everything automated.
If you're setting up a colony on Mars or a moon, or something else... maybe that would be a place to just leave out men entirely if you can have two female parents. Men are much more likely to be on extreme ends of any social spectrum. Men are more likely to express genetic diseases and defects (mostly because we're missing half a chromosome).
On the other hand- the fact that men have only one copy of a number of genes means men are more likely to be geniuses (or retarded) than women too. So it's probably best not to eliminate men altogether. Maybe keep males at 10% of the population- a safety net for humanity if we ever lose the ability to reproduce in the lab- and because sometimes extreme expression of genes is beneficial. Plus- one man for 10 women sounds perfect numbers for humanity to be equally sexually satiated.
If we were starting a new colony on Mars, or an asteroid, or... wherever though- a population of all females for the first few generations might actually be a good idea though.
Most of them can't read a tape measure or put a donut on a car.
I did that once... I was mad as hell when I drove off and forgot the doughnut and the coffee on the roof of my car.
Let's not forget that men and women have their roles in society
So barefoot, pregnant, and making wax molds for Rolls Royce? That's actually 33% more progressive than I would have expected.
Is the kitchen really the right place to be making wax moulds for Rolls Royce?