(yes, including the gay marriage, if we allow gay people to be gay, the gay gene will eventually die out as it cannot reproduce unless it's supressed)
Teehee. Oh my. This is among the more amusing things I've read all day. (... it's 11:00 right now, so that probably isn't saying much...)
If I'd not already seen Falkoner on the subject of homosexuality, I'd swear this a joke.
The gays themselves claim it is natural to be gay and that it is not outside influence or their upbringing that makes them gay.
Which ones do?
I think you'll find very few people to disagree with that there are a large number of factors in one's sexuality.
Rough sketch?
I honestly have no idea why, entirely, the following economic models popped into my head, and I've similarly little idea how much sense they make or how effective they'd be, but if I'm to give
something...
Hm. I imagine... countries (boundaries redrawn to account for natural resources, current current economic/technological strength, and population densities/characteristics), each with productivity quotas, funding a large, centralized, overseer government, but which are otherwise allowed a degree of internal free-market (possibly capitalized luxury/recreational markets with socialized "essential"s? Hard to define what goes where, though, I understand...).
Most nuclear arms would, of course, be disassembled (from what I read, the uranium from nuclear stashes has provided a large portion of the material for nuclear power generators). I leave open the possibility that someone would give me a good reason for keeping a few around.
Personal incomes would essentially be limited to a cap, based on general regional prosperity of the individual, increasable through general "charitable and altruistic efforts".
Of course, "green energy solutions" would receive major funding, although a general reduction of resource waste in general would also be highly emphasized (though I'm failing to imagine any methods towards that at the moment).
Education receives rehauling, with greater benefits to teachers and general decision-making school staff to hopefully encourage some degree of competency among them (a good enough teacher can work in a crappy educational system, but you need a mind-bogglingly amazing system to make-up for crappy teachers). Also, high schools would have a generally higher emphasis on 'thinking' subjects - critical/statistical analysis, scientific method, practical human psychology, philosophy(aha, people other than nerds and the well-educated would know what "hedonism" and "utilitarianism" are!), game theory come to mind.
Implementation of loose child-count laws, possibly involving intelligence brackets similar to Centreri's concept (intelligence testing may not be perfect, but we certainly could improve a craplot from where we are now), though also against genetic defects (personally, given my family history of shitty joints and the fact that I'm now essentially the most frail person I know, as despite my 115-pound body pushups place a ever-more-quickly painful degree of strain on my elbows and wrists and hands, I think that things would be rather unfair for any children I could potentially have, unless some nice progress in the particular field of medicine is made...).
And that's all that comes to mind which is atleast coherent(let alone good). Lots more I can think of, but I'm too lazy to work them out into anything sayable, and most of these are just random ideas that have popped into my head anyways.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 13 2009, 5:54 pm by EzDay281.
None.