The very rich have the means to support large families and often do so. The very poor are irresponsible and have large families, many of whom survive in better countries. It's the responsible middle class, who try not to have children they can't afford, that has a low reproduction rate.
The French Revolution is primarily a result of bad philosophy, and only secondarily a result of forced "extreme income inequality."
BTW, "extreme income inequality" is a neologism of little value. "Income" - money being acquired - is not a measure of wealth. There are many people with inherited wealth and negligible income that are the object of extreme jealousy.
A rich man who has only 1/1000th the wealth (or income) of another rich man is at the low end of extreme inequality, but unless he has a mental problem he's not suffering on account of the inequality. A dirt-poor person with 1/1000th the wealth or income of a middle-class person sees the same "extreme inequality", but he's suffering.
Furthermore, your central premise (Historically, extreme income inequality has been solved with bullets...) is demonstrably false. For most of mankind's history, there have been two types of societies, loosely speaking. One is tribes so poor that no wealth stratification is possible. The other is areas where a small dominant group hires bully-boys to steal from and oppress the remainder (and make war with neighboring societies), and in those areas the downtrodden do not have the means to overthrow the rulers. The extreme wealth-income inequality reinforces itself, and does not get "solved".
In modern free and just societies wealth and income are a result of production and responsible behaviour. There is nothing to be "solved" by killing the rich, and doing so does not make most people's lives better.
Isn't life going to get pretty boring for the 1% if they let everyone else die off?
Geez, don't you think before you post? Assume a world population of 10 billion, and then assume that all but the top 100 million die off. Are all those 100 million the top 1%? Of course not, now there are 1 million that are the top 1% of 100 million.
The obvious error taken care of, there's still a defective assumption that the "top 1%" will all want to do the same thing, and that they will all find maintenance and repair distasteful. 'Tain't so.
Boredom is more often a problem of the stupid than the intelligent; the latter have more vistas of challenges to explore than can be dealt with in a hundred lifetimes.
the real problem is reduction of genetic diversity
This is atomic-scale stuff. Do you really think that the number of errors by gene-splicers will be so low that diversity is reduced?
There are a great number of risk-takers in the world who would be willing to experiment with their children.
Year after year more diseases are discovered that are caused by genetic flaws that have no plausible compensating advantages. This aspect of "genetic diversity" is in no way an advantage for humanity. It lowers lifespan, reduces quality of life, and places a burden on those who help the sufferers.
-
There is and will be a wide range of opinion about what the best genes are. Consider those perverted blind parents who want their children to be blind also.
Tetrachromacy in women, arguably a genetic advantage, is correlated with color blindness in men. Where does that stand in the ordering of "best genes"?
I don't understand why any tax dollars go to any for profit business.
You wasted a post to proclaim your ignorance?
Governments require goods and services of all sorts. Electricity. Paper. Desks. Firearms. Uniforms. Vehicles. Buildings.
Why do you insist that all these things be provided by non-profits?
You get what you pay for.
Higher education has become expensive because government gifts and loans have removed spending constraints and the schools have become wasteful.
Do the math yourself to calculate what schooling (outside of lab courses) should cost: Classrooms (use typical rent prices, heat and electric and water) and a teacher, costs shared among 30 students. Don't count room and board. If the answer comes to more than $3000 a year, there's either theft or incompetency involved.
The problem with philosophy is that there are dozens of philosophies ( and an immense number of sects within each philosophical system ) and at most one of them can be true.
In some sense, philosophy is the basis of all knowledge and you ignore it at your peril. The challenge is choosing the right philosophy, which requires - sigh - the right philosophy.
Here are two clues: reject philosophies that lead to murderous dictatorships. Reject philosophies that claim it's impossible to learn the nature of reality, whether the excuse is that your senses are defective or reality doesn't exist.
One area within philosophy is politics, and even if you don't want to be a politician, it's good to know some history of political systems so that you can recognize the lies. Don't get fooled again.
Read the Constitution. The President is supposed to be an administrator, not a leader (except in time of war, when he's Commander in Chief.) The concept of "leader" in government is disjoint from the United States. FREE PEOPLE ARE NOT LED.
In areas where elections can go either way, both major parties have poll watchers to guard against known forms of rigging like ballot-box stuffing. As long as the process is monitored by opposing interested parties, undetected rigging is very difficult.
With electronic voting, many forms of fraud are possible without any visible symptoms; all that is required is that someone with enough knowledge of the system and adequate tools comes into unmonitored possession of the system at any time of its existence - even months or years before an election.
It's not clear that Putin wants to weaken the US so much as he wants to strengthen Russia. He may regard Trump as being less erratic and therefor easier to account for in his plans.
Given how open Hillary Clinton is to bribes, Russian or Chinese businesses may see an advantage to a Clinton presidency. This is counter to what appears to be Russia favoring Trump.
Unlike many other weapons, cyber weapons can be developed and used by anybody with a computer and an internet connection. The idea that Obama has, that his efforts or the efforts of nations can prevent the development of cyber weapons, is just plain funny. Cluelessness on this scale by someone considered by many (including himself) to be a god, is delightful.
Slashdot Mirror
Short of an impact that shatters the earth, your phrase is utterly devoid of meaning.
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger during an Indian attack, "What do you mean we , white man?"
How many people have to suffer and die before your "working model" is a reality?
The very rich have the means to support large families and often do so. The very poor are irresponsible and have large families, many of whom survive in better countries. It's the responsible middle class, who try not to have children they can't afford, that has a low reproduction rate.
It isn't even to be "treated equally"; it's to have the law apply uniformly to all people.
The French Revolution is primarily a result of bad philosophy, and only secondarily a result of forced "extreme income inequality."
BTW, "extreme income inequality" is a neologism of little value. "Income" - money being acquired - is not a measure of wealth. There are many people with inherited wealth and negligible income that are the object of extreme jealousy.
A rich man who has only 1/1000th the wealth (or income) of another rich man is at the low end of extreme inequality, but unless he has a mental problem he's not suffering on account of the inequality. A dirt-poor person with 1/1000th the wealth or income of a middle-class person sees the same "extreme inequality", but he's suffering.
Furthermore, your central premise (Historically, extreme income inequality has been solved with bullets...) is demonstrably false. For most of mankind's history, there have been two types of societies, loosely speaking. One is tribes so poor that no wealth stratification is possible. The other is areas where a small dominant group hires bully-boys to steal from and oppress the remainder (and make war with neighboring societies), and in those areas the downtrodden do not have the means to overthrow the rulers. The extreme wealth-income inequality reinforces itself, and does not get "solved".
In modern free and just societies wealth and income are a result of production and responsible behaviour. There is nothing to be "solved" by killing the rich, and doing so does not make most people's lives better.
Geez, don't you think before you post? Assume a world population of 10 billion, and then assume that all but the top 100 million die off. Are all those 100 million the top 1%? Of course not, now there are 1 million that are the top 1% of 100 million.
The obvious error taken care of, there's still a defective assumption that the "top 1%" will all want to do the same thing, and that they will all find maintenance and repair distasteful. 'Tain't so.
Boredom is more often a problem of the stupid than the intelligent; the latter have more vistas of challenges to explore than can be dealt with in a hundred lifetimes.
This is atomic-scale stuff. Do you really think that the number of errors by gene-splicers will be so low that diversity is reduced?
There are a great number of risk-takers in the world who would be willing to experiment with their children.
Year after year more diseases are discovered that are caused by genetic flaws that have no plausible compensating advantages. This aspect of "genetic diversity" is in no way an advantage for humanity. It lowers lifespan, reduces quality of life, and places a burden on those who help the sufferers.
-
There is and will be a wide range of opinion about what the best genes are. Consider those perverted blind parents who want their children to be blind also.
Tetrachromacy in women, arguably a genetic advantage, is correlated with color blindness in men. Where does that stand in the ordering of "best genes"?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You wasted a post to proclaim your ignorance?
Governments require goods and services of all sorts. Electricity. Paper. Desks. Firearms. Uniforms. Vehicles. Buildings.
Why do you insist that all these things be provided by non-profits?
You get what you pay for.
Higher education has become expensive because government gifts and loans have removed spending constraints and the schools have become wasteful.
Do the math yourself to calculate what schooling (outside of lab courses) should cost: Classrooms (use typical rent prices, heat and electric and water) and a teacher, costs shared among 30 students. Don't count room and board. If the answer comes to more than $3000 a year, there's either theft or incompetency involved.
By whom? You? The government? I don't trust either one of you.
By what right?
The problem with philosophy is that there are dozens of philosophies ( and an immense number of sects within each philosophical system ) and at most one of them can be true.
In some sense, philosophy is the basis of all knowledge and you ignore it at your peril. The challenge is choosing the right philosophy, which requires - sigh - the right philosophy.
Here are two clues: reject philosophies that lead to murderous dictatorships. Reject philosophies that claim it's impossible to learn the nature of reality, whether the excuse is that your senses are defective or reality doesn't exist.
One area within philosophy is politics, and even if you don't want to be a politician, it's good to know some history of political systems so that you can recognize the lies. Don't get fooled again.
I've never lived in a state where it was not possible to write in my preference.
Read the Constitution. The President is supposed to be an administrator, not a leader (except in time of war, when he's Commander in Chief.) The concept of "leader" in government is disjoint from the United States. FREE PEOPLE ARE NOT LED.
In areas where elections can go either way, both major parties have poll watchers to guard against known forms of rigging like ballot-box stuffing. As long as the process is monitored by opposing interested parties, undetected rigging is very difficult.
With electronic voting, many forms of fraud are possible without any visible symptoms; all that is required is that someone with enough knowledge of the system and adequate tools comes into unmonitored possession of the system at any time of its existence - even months or years before an election.
Your level of knowledge is indicated by the use of "past time" in place of pastime (something that serves to make time pass agreeably)..
That will please Monica.
It's not clear that Putin wants to weaken the US so much as he wants to strengthen Russia. He may regard Trump as being less erratic and therefor easier to account for in his plans.
I think you may have hit on a brilliant point worthy of further development.
We must not have a mine shaft gap!
Given how open Hillary Clinton is to bribes, Russian or Chinese businesses may see an advantage to a Clinton presidency. This is counter to what appears to be Russia favoring Trump.
Unlike many other weapons, cyber weapons can be developed and used by anybody with a computer and an internet connection. The idea that Obama has, that his efforts or the efforts of nations can prevent the development of cyber weapons, is just plain funny. Cluelessness on this scale by someone considered by many (including himself) to be a god, is delightful.
They didn't have to "break", but they did. Success!
I'm telling you now, if you've been a tourist there, you can say you've done the Freddie.