Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redpoint5
I'm looking forward to the day when you can't tell what "race" someone is by looking at them because we'll all be mutts.
|
Not me. I like diversity.
Quote:
|
Isn't it amazing how sometimes "genius" can't see the blindingly obvious? (For instance, the major flaws in his "Dymaxion" house and car.) A great deal of what goes into the poorly defined "standard of living" is provided by nature rather than being produced by machinery, and so has a fixed upper limit. Supply more humans, and at best the amount available per capita goes down. Then figure that humans thoughtlessly destroy much of the capacity...
|
Trash-talking Bucky? Well...
Look into it sometime.
- 'metaphysically engendered materials'
- 'wired to wireless, tracked to trackless'
- 'doing progressively more with less, until...'
You're right about "standard of living", of course. A person used to purchasing and consuming might not understand or value a standard based on life in mental spaces or virtual spaces.
Then there's this:
The Case for Making Humans Smaller - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus
TLDR: A human 50cm tall would consume 2% the food and fuel.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose everyone was given a choice at age eight; go through puberty, bulk up, have kids and die. basically the deal now. Versus decline puberty, stop growing at 50lb and live forever.
What choice would your eight-year-old self make? What choice would eight-year-olds make two generations from now?