Many of the diseases that predominantly affect the older generations often arise not simply because of the passage of time, but as a consequence of the aging process itself... That is not to say that aging is necessarily the sole cause, but it is extremely obvious that declining health as one ages plays a very large factor. If certain medical treatments existed to genuinely halt or even reverse the effects of aging, then one's overall health would be expected to remain at otherwise "youthful" levels (in fact, if it did not, then the treatment doesn't actually do anything), and people would not tend to die from illnesses that are typically associated with declining healthy levels as one ages any more than people who have otherwise lived only to a relatively young age already do.

You don't seriously think the that rich and the elite wouldn't bend the rules for their own families do you?

Or do you really think that unwanted pregnancies only ever happen to the less wealthy?

Some morbidly obese people would no longer necessarily continue to be morbidly obese... since some weight gain can be caused simply by a slowing metabolism associated with aging. If the aging process can be reversed, then some fat people may eventually be able to become skinny again, without even necessarily any significant change in their diet or lifestyle, since no such change is necessarily required to become fat in the first place.

The logistics of trying to hava a mandatory vasagel procedure on every single male that reaches puberty is so outside of the realm of what is practicable that you should not need to consider it for more than a moment to realize that it would not be effective.

Oh, and of course there isn't any chance at all that such rules won't get broken.... and over time, get broken with increasing regularity until such point in time that nobody even really pays attention to the rule.

I would think also that there would be no small number of kids born simply because... well... accidents happen, and the parents do not want to simply terminate a pregnancy on the grounds that having it amounts to what is just a large inconvenience for them.

I would suspect that there is a very sizable percentage of the world's population that would not exist if people only ever had children when they intended to.,

I see that as less of an issue over measures that may be morally reprehensible than a matter of measures that are not seriously likely to ever prove to be actually effective.

I sincerely believe that is one bridge that is best to cross when you actually get to it... worrying about something like this is liable to only keep you from enjoying the life that you have, here and now.

For employee monitoring, you don't require face recognition... presumably, the company knows who its own employees are. The purpose of the monitoring is not to catch people they don't know, it would be to be able to ensure that people that they *DO* know are doing their jobs properly.

One would think that if one were liable to want to use such info for criminal purposes, that one would tend to be reasonably expeditious about it, since the more time elapses while you are trying to use that information, the greater the chance that you will be discovered. The reality is, however, that there's a whole heaping mountain of red tape that even someone who has genuinely lost their wallet will have to go through just to prove their identity in today's society, and if you lose your wallet within about one year or so of having moved, and nobody has your current address on record yet, you can wind up completely screwed for months. I can't imagine that in practice, it would generally be possible for someone else to do anything useful with such minimal info.

It doesn't have to necessarily be hidden, employees and for that matter anyone who bothers to look directly at it may be able to know exactly where it is, but the camera can still be discreetly placed, so that in general you will only ever notice it if you bother to consciously think about it or its location in the first place. The ideal location for such purposes is typically in a corner, and mounted either on or else very near to the ceiling. In practice, it just becomes part of the background environment of where you work and you don't even generally notice it unless, as I said, you spend any time actively thinking about it.

... is if the camera is placed in an obtrusive location.

You can know you are being monitored, but still have to explicitly go out of your way to find the camera... and if that's what's really distracting them from doing their job, then that's a conscious choice on their part to stop doing their job in the first place, and look for the camera (and if they already know exactly where it is, then it's a still a deliberate choice to think about the camera's location instead of concentrating on their job). Either way, the camera or its location are not to blame for the distraction.

Lots of people work at jobs where they are continuously monitored via cctv, and in general being monitored by a camera that is out of the way of where one needs to work does not really interfere with one's productivity or effectiveness at all. The union's president is being a whiner.

Perhaps... but there's no scientific credulity to such a notion... and as this whole matter is more than just somewhat linked to science, your post in that context comes off as a sounding like you are either a lunatic or a troll or both.

How can others "take advantage of the loss" when they wouldn't be polinated either?

Can't that be said for everything?

Bees.