Have fun changinge any of those, even with all the intelligence in the world (well, you might change #2 by playing dumb). Your blaming the victim borders on the absurd.
You're lucky, since in your case the bullies were actually considered to be part of the party at fault.
And the teachers actions are easy to understand when you realize that they're not interested in justice - they want peace in the classroom.
Bullies either have advantage in numbers, or they're very, very good at playing victim once they encounter any kind of "defense".
Basically, the victim has three options:
1. Suck it up. Leads to all kinds of physical and mental scars.
2. Report it to the proper authorities. Victim gets punished. Bullying does not stop.
3. Defend themselves. Victim gets punished by authorities. Bullies resume bullying.
My personal bet is that the reproduction rate in industrialized countries dropped, but it did not drop uniformly. It dropped more sharply for people with fewer genetic risk factors for autism (which means they're less likely to be affected themselves) and less sharply for people with those risk factors.
The "increasing rate of autism" is actually an illusion caused by mostly two things:
1) Much finer detection methods (people diagnosed with autism today wouldn't have gotten the same diagnosis 30 years ago - "Autism? Huh, he can talk just fine.")
2) The nonuniform fertility rate drop mentioned above. Neurotypical people are just too busy to have kids, or don't want to burden themselves with kids, or whatever. Even a slight shift in the ratio will send the ratio of autistic kids to neurotypical kids through the roof, completely without any mystery chemical or completely new causes of autism.
I regularly scan pubmed for publications on the topic, and the case for genetic risk factor being a major, if not the major cause of autism is just overwhelmingly solid.
In fact, the amount of money is inversely proportional to the probability of bugs. A perfect developer costs an infinite amount of money.
In that case, you'd end up with a gaseous fraction that's mostly hydrogen, and a liquid fraction that's methane plus everything else.
I would assume you'd have to cool the mixture to a temperature between -161.49ÂC and -42ÂC (boiling point of the next heavier alkane, propane), so you get hydrogen and methane in the gaseous fraction, and propane and heavier alkanes in the liquid fraction.
And on how difficult (read: expensive) it is to avoid unwanted byproducts. And on the possible market value of the byproducts.
If you can sell the liquid hydrocarbons that you want to produce and the methane that appears as a by-product for almost the same price, it would be economically counterproductive to spend money on reducing the fraction of unwanted methane. Just produce both and sell both.
Sudden evacuation might be problematic. But with less serious problems, the lower transit time to Mars vs. Europa might be advantageous. You're dead anyway within about 24 months from the lower gravity and radiation (or suicide, if sickness doesn't get you first).
There's no experience with humans living in low gravity conditions for more than a few days. We have plenty of zero-g experience, but none that would tell us what a few months of 1/3 g would do to the human body.
Radiation is a problem, though. Shielded habitats would be a high priority. Either underground, or possibly by using water (produced on-site) as shielding.
In effect, for a few generations, you could introduce intentional mutations that are known to be somewhere between "marginally harmful" and "beneficial", until the gene pool is large enough that things can be left to random chance again, if the colonists desire.
If "one-way" implies using your favorite method of suicide after a few months, then no.