Sex in space: Sex sells, so I thought to start with that :) I think we'll manage sex, what comes after it another matter. I think human babies will not be able to form a normal bone structure without gravity. For colonization in the future we'll have to solve ...
Sex in space: Sex sells, so I thought to start with that :) I think we'll manage sex, what comes after it another matter. I think human babies will not be able to form a normal bone structure without gravity. For colonization in the future we'll have to solve those issues and also related issues for plants and animals.
Think clearly: Humans make the same mistakes over and over again. A good book is 'The art of thinking clearly' from Rolf Dobelli (2014, ISBN 978-1-444-75956-3). Even he makes thinking mistakes when explaining other mistakes. Better read it and avoid most of those mistakes.
Keep it simple: rules, finance: For some reason people like to make things complicated. The want to solve problem with new rules and regulation even when the return on investment is clearly negative. Go for the pareto rule: 80-20, 20% of effort for 80% of the solution. Stop there unless human lives are at stake (1/10000 to die, also stop there). And only solve problems where more than 5% of the population has severe difficulties and history has proven that they can only be adressed by setting some rules.
For finance, make no debt as a nation, for firms it's fine if they have a fair chance that the interest payments are more than 5% lower than the added value gained. For individuals, there is a good book 'The richest man in Babylon' from George S. Clason (1926, free eBook on the internet).
To grasp how economy works look at 'How the economic machine works' from Ray Dalio (2013, video on youtube; there is also a paper that goes in more detail).
For terrestrial nations I find there should be only 2 taxes: on the amount of territory you use for your activities (like living, industry; i.e. 70 €/m2) and value added tax (i.e. 10%). Also I'm for a base income. It's a completely different approach but it's simple and effective. Companies would only need 2 registers: in and out. On buying products they pay value added tax like everyone, on selling the customers pay them. That is it: no tax on profit, financial transaction, wages, ... The strategic advantage that a nation would get over other nations that will still use the current system will be astronomical.
Vote for arguments, not rules: When making rules, the individual arguments (including those that were not followed) are almost never present or explained and why they are withoutheld and why not. So future generations always have to guess why a rule is made. This is also the case with the Asgardian constitution. I see rules that conflict each other so I'm missing information. With the opportunity for a new nation I find we need to get at least this right.
Language: When going to 1 language, it's better to make a new one. Start with the human side, an alphabet that is easy to write, a simple and consistent speech and then make it suitable for electronic communication. Just a few elements to consider: 1,i,l look too much alike; so keeping only figures, steno would be nice but will be impractical to adapt for electronic communication, spoken japanese is very consistent and has a logical structure (but maybe better not to put the verbs at the end) and don't forget people who are impaired.
Privacy: In these times where everyone finds it normal that everything is puplic, it's actually not such a good idea in general. It is essential that people have their private space. I'm strongly opposed to a world like in 'Brave new world' from Aldous Huxley (1932, free eBook on the internet). The way things go, we might end up there sooner than later.
Green-house effect: The solution lies in changing the refraction of the planet. Current measures won't do. I'm estimating a rise in sea levels in the next 10 years for at least a few meters.
Extra padding: Some people have aquired some extra padding. Look how glucose is processed in the body and realize that is prevent the buring of fat.
Last note: Time is precious, so I will only elaborate on these topics if it makes a difference. I'll defend the ways of logic while stressing that rules should be used sparsely so people can live instead of just survive.
My opinion: a base income allows people to focus less about money and more about opportunities. It can replace all other social benifits (child allowance, school tuition, unemployment pay, sick pay, pension). And if it's unconditional you save quite some administrative overhead. It could also be coupled to a ...
My opinion: a base income allows people to focus less about money and more about opportunities. It can replace all other social benifits (child allowance, school tuition, unemployment pay, sick pay, pension). And if it's unconditional you save quite some administrative overhead. It could also be coupled to a minimum wage.
Website in Dutch gives a proposal by age for the Belgian population: (cash per person per month) age 0-17: € 200, age 18-25: € 550, age 26-65: € 750, 65+: € 1300
http://www.tijd.be/opinie/algemeen/Het-basisinkomen-in-Belgie-is-wel-betaalbaar/9906133
It has been tried before. Mincome was an experimental Canadian guaranteed annual income project that was held in Manitoba, during the 1970s. University of Manitoba economist Evelyn Forget (/fɔːrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an quasi-experimental analysis that compared health outcomes of Dauphin residents with other Manitoba residents. These results would seem to suggest that a Guaranteed Annual Income, implemented broadly in society, may improve health and social outcomes at the community level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Despite my enthusiasm based on Rutger Bregman's work, recent studies on base income appear to deny the supposed benefits. Did you find any recent arguments pro?