#2 the less genetic materia (diversity) he fragile the species. One little change on the circumstances and the whole thing is wiped out.
if you want to dig deep, check the parasite-host coevolution.
and to be honest, 99% of the species are constantly destroyed. we are no different.
I like the philosophical theme though, globalist opt for the #1 option.
That's a good point... I guess I should've included a line like, "all else being equal / no other changes in the scenario." But that's true, and I think there's an argument that humans are already less genetically diverse than we should be because of the last big wipe out
yeah we were once around 10,000 or so humans. Crazy to think about.
I would turn the question around and say, what if we could make shitty people better, smarter, gentile and so on by implanting them with a smart chip or something similar?
Very slippery slope, and I think we're in for some hard lessons when cybernetics really take off. But I was thinking cybernetics might be the evolutionary path of the 1% when I asked the question
yeah, a man that is 10% better than its peers will take 80% of the spoils. iterate the a couple of times and you don't need to kill anybody, the selection would be done automatically.
in this case your scenario might be inevitable. First adopters of the technology and rich people who can afford it will benefit the most.
Bitcoin... People aren't having kids because fiat makes everything stupidly expensive. Bitcoiners are literally an evolutionary step forward
