Oh don't get me wrong, I'm equally untrusting of all industries!
In this case, the study was done at oxford so industry is less likely. However, the "wildly optimistic projections based on ignorance and inexperience" part appears to be more true based on the 2014 comments.
also tho, there are many studies showing that beef fed on grass is much healthier. So I'm doubting that artificially grown beef would be good for much more than flavor and raw protein.
While I agree with your basic point keep in mind it's more like:
a [untitled, unreferenced] 2011 study [probably funded by the industry] calculated [based on a bunch of wildly optimistic, untestable assumptions made in almost total ignorance and inexperience] that growing meat in labs would cut down on the land required to produce steaks, sausages and bacon by 99 per cent and reduce the associated need for water by 90 per cent. What's more, it found that a pound of lab-created meat would produce much less polluting greenhouse-gas emissions than is produced by cows and pigs, even poultry.
"One tissue-engineering researcher I spoke with scoffed at claims that cell culture techniques could deliver an edible hamburger for a reasonable cost, with a lower environmental footprint, than a cow.
âoeIf you ask anyone who has actually worked in a lab,â he says, âoewho has seen how cells are grown in a lab and how artificial tissue is made, the amount of energy and resources that go into it â" theyâ(TM)ll tell you, itâ(TM)s never going to happen.â
Post, the scientist whose cultured cells went into the celebrity burger, disagreed, but he acknowledged that there are still unanswered questions about the production process. The largest one is this: What will we feed animal tissue cells, cultured in a lab?...
Of the researchers I spoke with, Post was the most optimistic, and even he admitted that it hasnâ(TM)t been done yet, and that âoewe canâ(TM)t be 100 percent sure that cells, in culture, can be more efficient than a cow. That is something that needs to be proven.â
For now, Post and others in the industry feed their burgers fetal bovine serum, which currently is produced from blood collected in slaughterhouses and processed in a lab. Footprint analysis hasnâ(TM)t been done on that method, but even the scientists involved say they donâ(TM)t think the numbers would look good â" and itâ(TM)s not a sustainable, animal-free solution in the long run."
a) the government can make me unlock it. b) Anyone with a rubber hose can make me unlock it. c) There is a non-zero inducement to cut off my finger. d) If someone figures out a way around it, you'll have a very hard time arguing it wasn't you who unlocked the device.
Making proclamations about it the way Snowden did is the way you get people emotionally engaged.
Then you go watch John Oliver for something deeper with more analysis.
Then you contact your representatives and give them hell about it and you donate to pro-privacy groups because you are emotionally engaged.
Your position is that he should keep his mouth shut and say nothing of substance. That's not going to be very productive at getting people engaged to address the problem (government and corporations stripping away our privacy).
And just today we have evidence that secret financial data/reports are being leaked prior to their release. And select individuals are getting to invest based on that information before everyone else.
It is literally like being able to look into the future and invest based on tomorrows headlines.
Exactly, this is already done at $75 per gallon (maybe less on some other plans) under the title of roadside assistance.
So somewhere between $75/gallon and $2/gallon is the sweet spot where this can be done. If only by a someone with a 5 gallon can driving back between your house and the local gasoline station a couple times.
Restructuring plumbing to be machine friendly would address most of the issues around automating it.
This has already been the case in many fields. Sure... it's impossible as designed but... trivial when you change constraints.
The definition of "repeatable actions in a defined space" has gotten considerably looser.
Besides, it doesn't matter if you can't automate 62% of jobs over the next 20 years. It's the 38% of jobs which can be automated in the next 20 years which is way too fast for society to adapt.
However, ultimately, A.I. is a minor worry given the larger concerns headed our way like a freight train.
There is no point in advocating killing anyone or doing anything at this point.
It's too late. It's too fucking late. It's too late by almost three decades.
Requested Cite:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... "There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100. https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2014/... Demographers from the United Nations Population Division and several universities published a paper in Science last week that argues the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. They calculate that there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100, with the median at 10.9 billion.... These projections indicate that there is little prospect of an end to world population growth this century without unprecedented fertility declines in most parts of Sub-Saharan Africa still experiencing fast population growth."
Every prior projection projection of maximum human population has turned out to be on the low side. Just during my lifetime, the prior projected "maximum" has risen a billion at a time every decade. http://www.worldwatch.org/node... U.N. Raises âoeLowâ Population Projection for 2050
I actually agree on the logarithic growth but it's not asymptotic as has been projected.
We are already well past overshoot territory. Read limits to growth, then the updated one, and then do some research on chromium and other metal reserves. Oil isn't the only non-renewable. We are going to have to find replacements for every industrial metal at roughly the same time.
It's like Global Warming. It's also too late on global warming. Tropical diseases and pests range will definitely increase by thousands of miles over the next 100 years. The north west passage will open. And the sea is going to rise by at least a foot by 2100.
We are on a train with no way to stop it and the bridge is out a mile ahead.
People actively try to avoid thinking about this because it's so horrible.
The UN recently raised the maximum population to 12 billion and gave an 80% chance that human population had no maximum.
In 1972, the limits to growth was published and it listed various limits humans might hit to their growth. It's computer models made some interesting predictions... like CO2 being above 380ppm by now which have proven to be correct.
For example, we might outgrow the food supply, we might pollute ourselves to death, we might run out of industrial metals, etc.
We've done okay with the food supply and pollution but the result is a much higher than projected population. And that is driving us faster towards the limits of industrial metals, ferilizers, and pesticides.
We used more of many industrial metals in 2014 than we did from 1900 to 2000 combined.
For one example, when chromium becomes insufficient for demand, then you have no stainless steel.
The big takeaway is that a) It's too late to do anything to fix things now (that should have been done back in 1990). b) An overshoot is the most likely scenario. c) After the overshoot, the carrying capacity of the earth will be billions lower and have much less industrial potential. d) Thru recycling we can only get a little bit further because recycling is never 100%.
It's really a "kiss your ass goodbye" situation. It's likely to hit when current children hit middle age (but maybe sooner).
It's an exponential growth problem. If it takes 29 days for algae to cover half a pond, how long before algae covers the entire pond? It's not 58 days... it's 30 days. So by the time you see the problem, it's going to be way too late.
And it won't be a 'fast' disaster either. It'll grind out over a decade with rising prices. By the time things fall over, you won't be able to easily move from where you are geographically.
Many ethnic groups do not believe in an afterlife. There are many african gods who simply manage a portfolio and have no afterlife. Some don't even have directions for believers except don't mess with their temple or they'll hurt you.
Many agnostics and atheists live lives filled with compassion, love, and a helpful attitude. I give about $2000 to charity per year, I've built houses for the homeless, sorted food at the food bank, donated money to slain police officer's families, rescued people whose cars had died- pushing them out of traffic, and so on.
By christianity, showing compassion, love, and a helpful attitude isn't at all sufficient. Either you have faith in jesus or you are not saved. You can't pretend to have faith. Yahweh is omniscient and will know if you are faking it.
And there are MANY MANY exclusionary religions (including christian sects) which say if you don't believe there way- fail. you are either exiled from yahweh's presence for an eternity of solitary confinement, or to an eternity of torture, or a near eons of torture in purgatory.
Pascal's wager is a major fail.
An even if a god created the universe exists, tying that god to your particular values or what body parts can be stuck where is impossible. There's a huge gap between the position 'a god created the universe' and 'that god cares about humans' and 'that god cares where humans stick body parts and whether they eat shelfish'.
And why would an omniscient, omnipotent being not simultaneously have spoken to all humans all over the planet and kept them on the same religion. The fact that that religion comes from one specific incredibly tiny part of the earth is really good evidence that the people there just happened to make up a religion that became a popular meme.
And have you considered how many inhuman creatures will outnumber humanity in heaven? Every stillbirth, every child that died before it reached 12 months, every miscarriage and every abortion (by the current christian faith) will be there. These beings which were never humanized, have no language, and have no culture will outnumber humanity by 20 to 1 (conservative estimate, it could easily be 100 to 1). So you'll live eternity surrounded by a sea of non-humanity.
And what kind of eternal life? Reading revelations, there's a good chance you'd be standing around for large parts of eternity doing nothing but praising yahweh along with the angels. OTH, other parts of the bible strongly imply (and some christian sects teach) that only your soul will be saved- not your personality. That's great for yahweh but not so great for you as a person.
Hard work plus being born on at least 2nd base. Most likely attended private schooling with other ceos (I was reading a retrospective on a CEO who died a few years ago and it had 3 other CEO's who went to the same junior high school (middle school for most of you whipper snappers under 35) with him.
We don't have that many CEO's in the country. Yet multiple CEO's went to the same prestigious middle school
Likewise, the boards are stocked with people from old money and some celebrities (who might be new money but may have inherited their celebrity status from their parents).
CEO compensation is excessive. It doesn't need to be as high as it is to get the same results. But basically the wealthy decide what the wealthy will be paid in one of the last 'old boy's' clubs left in the U.S.
The shareholders be damned. The employees be damned.
It's been over 20 years since I reread the book the last time so it's entirely fair to say my memory is not likely entirely accurate (esp. since I've seen the movie about 5 times since I last read the book).
I don't see communism as applicable. It's clear that all property wasn't publicly owned and that individuals could become wealthy even if they were not citizens.
You can always try to be free. You can always try to be happy.
The pursuit of happiness you are talking about is simply an enumerated right in the declaration of independence.
They could have listed dozens of such rights but it would have been silly.
You have a natural inalienable right to do things that they can't stop you from doing without killing you. Even imprisoned and shackled you can still try to be free.
One basis is taking from the existing public domain and then not ever returning the resulting products to the public domain.
Different countries have different policies but in the u.s. a clear standard was 14 years plus a 14 year extension.
The purpose was to incent the creation of new works.
Now, the policy is essentially "forever" long after the creators are dead. Hate to break it to you, but John Lennon isn't going to make any new songs.
Is it illegal? Sure.
But many view copyright as corrupted, unfair, and immoral.
Normally, they would vote and have new laws passed making their behavior legal. But a small number of people with lots of money have immorally bought legislators and prevented democracy from working as it should. So people are driving around it.
Personally, I can't keep up with the new content now. I'm swamped by a huge glut of content. I just spent almost 20 hours watching Cracked "after hours" for free and then another 20 hours watching "Film Theory". I had to watch Limitless and GoT on the DVR but cable has become so expensive that I'm likely to:
a) Drop cable and borrow a friend's GoT, b) or check it out from the library, c) or buy a copy and donate it to my library system if they don't have one. d) or wait to buy it until it's down to $12 a season in three or four years.
I could torrent it I guess- but I agree that doing so now is both illegal and immoral. But anything over 28 years old is open season imho.
I think we have more of an Oligarchy than corporatism.
In any case, too much money is piled up on one side of society. If it is moved to the bottom again, it willl create a lot of activity as it moves back upwards. And it might reduce the massive downward pressure on bond yields.
Outside of that, trends in offshoring, outsourcing, robotics, and automation are set to destroy over 50% of jobs in under 20 years.
Eventually, wages will even out and we'll stop offshoring and outsourcing. (2065- almost two generations).
I'm not sure we'll create a society full of jobs which can't be automated or done with robots. But if so, it will take at least 20 and maybe up to 40 years with a lot of misery on the way.
The current extreme imbalance of wealth is not just unhealthy- it's also dangerous. As in I worry about dying from civil unrest caused by it. I'd prefer to make it out the rest of my 28ish years.
And on top of all of that we are coming up on limits of most industrial metals and people arent' even talking about THAT. We used more chromium in 2014 than we used in 1900 to 2000 combined.
Actually, I think you are looking at Verdorhovens overlay.
The book had a high degree of individual freedom, service was only 1/9 or 1/10 military (the rest of service was basically peace corps). People were assigned to their skill set so a math expert might end up teaching.
In fact, Radick was a high school teacher. The kids in his class were allowed to use free speech to express their opinions.
Does the book rely on magical reality? Maybe to some extent- but as a non-religious person, I must say that the U.S. relied on religious moral values to keep it going. Corruption and cheating was "just wrong" by fiat. It was also oppressive to many citizens. As shame fell to the wayside, we see many people prey on other citizens without any moral limitation.
I dislike religion telling me to not buy skillets on sunday and where I can stick my dick. But I also dislike the loss of restraint and civility that kept the wheels turning. There isn't a best path. Having multiple truths mean that some are going to disagree on what's cheating and bribery or even if cheating and bribery are wrong.
The society in Starship Troopers is free, well run, has low corruption, has good public services, clearly a lower GINI than ours, the wealthy don't own the system of government so it's not an oligarchy like ours. It was one form of stable democracy. And stable democracies pretty rare.
The biggest problem with it is that it probably wasn't realistic. Not that it's facist.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm equally untrusting of all industries!
In this case, the study was done at oxford so industry is less likely. However, the "wildly optimistic projections based on ignorance and inexperience" part appears to be more true based on the 2014 comments.
also tho, there are many studies showing that beef fed on grass is much healthier. So I'm doubting that artificially grown beef would be good for much more than flavor and raw protein.
While I agree with your basic point keep in mind it's more like:
a [untitled, unreferenced] 2011 study [probably funded by the industry] calculated [based on a bunch of wildly optimistic, untestable assumptions made in almost total ignorance and inexperience] that growing meat in labs would cut down on the land required to produce steaks, sausages and bacon by 99 per cent and reduce the associated need for water by 90 per cent. What's more, it found that a pound of lab-created meat would produce much less polluting greenhouse-gas emissions than is produced by cows and pigs, even poultry.
A more recent article 2014
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/0...
"One tissue-engineering researcher I spoke with scoffed at claims that cell culture techniques could deliver an edible hamburger for a reasonable cost, with a lower environmental footprint, than a cow.
âoeIf you ask anyone who has actually worked in a lab,â he says, âoewho has seen how cells are grown in a lab and how artificial tissue is made, the amount of energy and resources that go into it â" theyâ(TM)ll tell you, itâ(TM)s never going to happen.â
Post, the scientist whose cultured cells went into the celebrity burger, disagreed, but he acknowledged that there are still unanswered questions about the production process. The largest one is this: What will we feed animal tissue cells, cultured in a lab? ...
Of the researchers I spoke with, Post was the most optimistic, and even he admitted that it hasnâ(TM)t been done yet, and that âoewe canâ(TM)t be 100 percent sure that cells, in culture, can be more efficient than a cow. That is something that needs to be proven.â
For now, Post and others in the industry feed their burgers fetal bovine serum, which currently is produced from blood collected in slaughterhouses and processed in a lab. Footprint analysis hasnâ(TM)t been done on that method, but even the scientists involved say they donâ(TM)t think the numbers would look good â" and itâ(TM)s not a sustainable, animal-free solution in the long run."
Compared to most news media outlets these days, with pieces literally produced by corporate media departments, he's Edward Fucking R. Murrow.
His pieces have cast light on some dark shadows and resulted in change. Civil Forfeiture for example.
I would never want a fingerprint secured device.
a) the government can make me unlock it.
b) Anyone with a rubber hose can make me unlock it.
c) There is a non-zero inducement to cut off my finger.
d) If someone figures out a way around it, you'll have a very hard time arguing it wasn't you who unlocked the device.
It's more like risky performance theater art.
Making proclamations about it the way Snowden did is the way you get people emotionally engaged.
Then you go watch John Oliver for something deeper with more analysis.
Then you contact your representatives and give them hell about it and you donate to pro-privacy groups because you are emotionally engaged.
Your position is that he should keep his mouth shut and say nothing of substance. That's not going to be very productive at getting people engaged to address the problem (government and corporations stripping away our privacy).
And just today we have evidence that secret financial data/reports are being leaked prior to their release. And select individuals are getting to invest based on that information before everyone else.
It is literally like being able to look into the future and invest based on tomorrows headlines.
Exactly, this is already done at $75 per gallon (maybe less on some other plans) under the title of roadside assistance.
So somewhere between $75/gallon and $2/gallon is the sweet spot where this can be done. If only by a someone with a 5 gallon can driving back between your house and the local gasoline station a couple times.
Restructuring plumbing to be machine friendly would address most of the issues around automating it.
This has already been the case in many fields. Sure... it's impossible as designed but ... trivial when you change constraints.
The definition of "repeatable actions in a defined space" has gotten considerably looser.
Besides, it doesn't matter if you can't automate 62% of jobs over the next 20 years. It's the 38% of jobs which can be automated in the next 20 years which is way too fast for society to adapt.
However, ultimately, A.I. is a minor worry given the larger concerns headed our way like a freight train.
You need to engage your brain...
There is no point in advocating killing anyone or doing anything at this point.
It's too late. It's too fucking late. It's too late by almost three decades.
Requested Cite:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... ...
"There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100.
https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2014/...
Demographers from the United Nations Population Division and several universities published a paper in Science last week that argues the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. They calculate that there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100, with the median at 10.9 billion.
These projections indicate that there is little prospect of an end to world population growth this century without unprecedented fertility declines in most parts of Sub-Saharan Africa still experiencing fast population growth."
Every prior projection projection of maximum human population has turned out to be on the low side. Just during my lifetime, the prior projected "maximum" has risen a billion at a time every decade.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
U.N. Raises âoeLowâ Population Projection for 2050
http://www.globalchange.gov/si...
Population Projections: Reasons for Uncertainty
I actually agree on the logarithic growth but it's not asymptotic as has been projected.
We are already well past overshoot territory. Read limits to growth, then the updated one, and then do some research on chromium and other metal reserves. Oil isn't the only non-renewable. We are going to have to find replacements for every industrial metal at roughly the same time.
It's like Global Warming. It's also too late on global warming. Tropical diseases and pests range will definitely increase by thousands of miles over the next 100 years. The north west passage will open. And the sea is going to rise by at least a foot by 2100.
We are on a train with no way to stop it and the bridge is out a mile ahead.
People actively try to avoid thinking about this because it's so horrible.
That wasn't real anyway. Just another layer of the matrix.
And Agent Smith was ... the one... who was born in the matrix and whose code was reinserted into the matrix.
The UN recently raised the maximum population to 12 billion and gave an 80% chance that human population had no maximum.
In 1972, the limits to growth was published and it listed various limits humans might hit to their growth. It's computer models made some interesting predictions... like CO2 being above 380ppm by now which have proven to be correct.
For example, we might outgrow the food supply, we might pollute ourselves to death, we might run out of industrial metals, etc.
We've done okay with the food supply and pollution but the result is a much higher than projected population. And that is driving us faster towards the limits of industrial metals, ferilizers, and pesticides.
We used more of many industrial metals in 2014 than we did from 1900 to 2000 combined.
For one example, when chromium becomes insufficient for demand, then you have no stainless steel.
The big takeaway is that
a) It's too late to do anything to fix things now (that should have been done back in 1990).
b) An overshoot is the most likely scenario.
c) After the overshoot, the carrying capacity of the earth will be billions lower and have much less industrial potential.
d) Thru recycling we can only get a little bit further because recycling is never 100%.
It's really a "kiss your ass goodbye" situation. It's likely to hit when current children hit middle age (but maybe sooner).
It's an exponential growth problem. If it takes 29 days for algae to cover half a pond, how long before algae covers the entire pond? It's not 58 days... it's 30 days. So by the time you see the problem, it's going to be way too late.
And it won't be a 'fast' disaster either. It'll grind out over a decade with rising prices. By the time things fall over, you won't be able to easily move from where you are geographically.
No by current christian belief, ensoulment begins at conception.
How human is a fetus that never had parents, has no language, nationality, no experience at all with what it is to be human.
Many women miscarry multiple times in their lives without even realizing it. Miscarriages greatly outnumber live births.
Many ethnic groups do not believe in an afterlife. There are many african gods who simply manage a portfolio and have no afterlife. Some don't even have directions for believers except don't mess with their temple or they'll hurt you.
Many agnostics and atheists live lives filled with compassion, love, and a helpful attitude. I give about $2000 to charity per year, I've built houses for the homeless, sorted food at the food bank, donated money to slain police officer's families, rescued people whose cars had died- pushing them out of traffic, and so on.
By christianity, showing compassion, love, and a helpful attitude isn't at all sufficient. Either you have faith in jesus or you are not saved. You can't pretend to have faith. Yahweh is omniscient and will know if you are faking it.
And there are MANY MANY exclusionary religions (including christian sects) which say if you don't believe there way- fail. you are either exiled from yahweh's presence for an eternity of solitary confinement, or to an eternity of torture, or a near eons of torture in purgatory.
Pascal's wager is a major fail.
An even if a god created the universe exists, tying that god to your particular values or what body parts can be stuck where is impossible. There's a huge gap between the position 'a god created the universe' and 'that god cares about humans' and 'that god cares where humans stick body parts and whether they eat shelfish'.
And why would an omniscient, omnipotent being not simultaneously have spoken to all humans all over the planet and kept them on the same religion. The fact that that religion comes from one specific incredibly tiny part of the earth is really good evidence that the people there just happened to make up a religion that became a popular meme.
And have you considered how many inhuman creatures will outnumber humanity in heaven? Every stillbirth, every child that died before it reached 12 months, every miscarriage and every abortion (by the current christian faith) will be there. These beings which were never humanized, have no language, and have no culture will outnumber humanity by 20 to 1 (conservative estimate, it could easily be 100 to 1). So you'll live eternity surrounded by a sea of non-humanity.
And what kind of eternal life? Reading revelations, there's a good chance you'd be standing around for large parts of eternity doing nothing but praising yahweh along with the angels. OTH, other parts of the bible strongly imply (and some christian sects teach) that only your soul will be saved- not your personality. That's great for yahweh but not so great for you as a person.
Hard work plus being born on at least 2nd base.
Most likely attended private schooling with other ceos (I was reading a retrospective on a CEO who died a few years ago and it had 3 other CEO's who went to the same junior high school (middle school for most of you whipper snappers under 35) with him.
We don't have that many CEO's in the country. Yet multiple CEO's went to the same prestigious middle school
Likewise, the boards are stocked with people from old money and some celebrities (who might be new money but may have inherited their celebrity status from their parents).
CEO compensation is excessive. It doesn't need to be as high as it is to get the same results. But basically the wealthy decide what the wealthy will be paid in one of the last 'old boy's' clubs left in the U.S.
The shareholders be damned. The employees be damned.
Daj qech. nuvpu' lo' tlhIngan qa'majvaD tho ghewmey Har jIH.
It's been over 20 years since I reread the book the last time so it's entirely fair to say my memory is not likely entirely accurate (esp. since I've seen the movie about 5 times since I last read the book).
I don't see communism as applicable. It's clear that all property wasn't publicly owned and that individuals could become wealthy even if they were not citizens.
Inexpensive silicone cases protect both my devices which i drop constantly.
Fortunately, I don't have a problem with water.
they are both natural rights.
You can always try to be free.
You can always try to be happy.
The pursuit of happiness you are talking about is simply an enumerated right in the declaration of independence.
They could have listed dozens of such rights but it would have been silly.
You have a natural inalienable right to do things that they can't stop you from doing without killing you. Even imprisoned and shackled you can still try to be free.
Grr..
Ideogram / Tien.
Is there some way I can change slashdot not to mangle unicode?
æ®
TiÇZn
you always have an inalienable right to pursue freedom.
you have no inalienable right to freedom.
One basis is taking from the existing public domain and then not ever returning the resulting products to the public domain.
Different countries have different policies but in the u.s. a clear standard was 14 years plus a 14 year extension.
The purpose was to incent the creation of new works.
Now, the policy is essentially "forever" long after the creators are dead. Hate to break it to you, but John Lennon isn't going to make any new songs.
Is it illegal? Sure.
But many view copyright as corrupted, unfair, and immoral.
Normally, they would vote and have new laws passed making their behavior legal. But a small number of people with lots of money have immorally bought legislators and prevented democracy from working as it should. So people are driving around it.
Personally, I can't keep up with the new content now. I'm swamped by a huge glut of content. I just spent almost 20 hours watching Cracked "after hours" for free and then another 20 hours watching "Film Theory". I had to watch Limitless and GoT on the DVR but cable has become so expensive that I'm likely to:
a) Drop cable and borrow a friend's GoT,
b) or check it out from the library,
c) or buy a copy and donate it to my library system if they don't have one.
d) or wait to buy it until it's down to $12 a season in three or four years.
I could torrent it I guess- but I agree that doing so now is both illegal and immoral. But anything over 28 years old is open season imho.
1) Paintball guns.
2) Spray paint cans
3) Sticky opaque food
4) Bumper stickers
Trump likes to quote Mussolini. (true but j.k.)
I think we have more of an Oligarchy than corporatism.
In any case, too much money is piled up on one side of society. If it is moved to the bottom again, it willl create a lot of activity as it moves back upwards. And it might reduce the massive downward pressure on bond yields.
Outside of that, trends in offshoring, outsourcing, robotics, and automation are set to destroy over 50% of jobs in under 20 years.
Eventually, wages will even out and we'll stop offshoring and outsourcing. (2065- almost two generations).
I'm not sure we'll create a society full of jobs which can't be automated or done with robots. But if so, it will take at least 20 and maybe up to 40 years with a lot of misery on the way.
The current extreme imbalance of wealth is not just unhealthy- it's also dangerous. As in I worry about dying from civil unrest caused by it. I'd prefer to make it out the rest of my 28ish years.
And on top of all of that we are coming up on limits of most industrial metals and people arent' even talking about THAT. We used more chromium in 2014 than we used in 1900 to 2000 combined.
Actually, I think you are looking at Verdorhovens overlay.
The book had a high degree of individual freedom, service was only 1/9 or 1/10 military (the rest of service was basically peace corps).
People were assigned to their skill set so a math expert might end up teaching.
In fact, Radick was a high school teacher. The kids in his class were allowed to use free speech to express their opinions.
Does the book rely on magical reality? Maybe to some extent- but as a non-religious person, I must say that the U.S. relied on religious moral values to keep it going. Corruption and cheating was "just wrong" by fiat. It was also oppressive to many citizens. As shame fell to the wayside, we see many people prey on other citizens without any moral limitation.
I dislike religion telling me to not buy skillets on sunday and where I can stick my dick. But I also dislike the loss of restraint and civility that kept the wheels turning. There isn't a best path. Having multiple truths mean that some are going to disagree on what's cheating and bribery or even if cheating and bribery are wrong.
The society in Starship Troopers is free, well run, has low corruption, has good public services, clearly a lower GINI than ours, the wealthy don't own the system of government so it's not an oligarchy like ours. It was one form of stable democracy. And stable democracies pretty rare.
The biggest problem with it is that it probably wasn't realistic. Not that it's facist.