The Supreme Court would consider them less human than corporations.

If air could be owned, then air pollution is the destruction of property. I'm not sure they actually want that.

The largest ships are constrained by the size of the ports that can host them. The Suez Canal is the next biggest constraint. Panama is a distant 3rd.

It's not that some some people should be prevented from voting, but rather what they vote on should be significantly simplified. Evaluating the capabilities of a candidate who is significantly smarter than you are is very hard. That's what we're asking voters to do, and as expected, they do very poorly.

A better approach is to only ask questions that people can reliably answer. For example, since almost everyone knows whether their own life is getting better or worse, that should the one and only question on the ballot. If enough people agree that their life is getting worse, then the entire government is thrown out and a new one is randomly chosen.

Inflation is caused by the government's money printer. The government's money goes to the rich and well connected, shielding them from the effects of inflation. You on the other hand is not protected. In this way, the rich unfairly takes a larger slice of the pie than their contributions warrant.

Moreover, you must eat and therefore must acquiesce to the lower wages offered. In a real free market (as defined by economists), you would have the option to say "no" for as long as you'd like.

Cancer mortality is not the same as cancer incidence rate you dolt. Mortality can be improved by better healthcare technology. Instance rate is coming from environmental factors.

The best lies contain nuggets of truth. Do you remember them telling you that Teflon is safe? Well, it turns out Teflon is indeed safe, but the process of making it creates extremely toxic PFAS that they can simply release into the environment, where it will persist forever and can poison you even when it exists on the order of a few parts per trillion. They were able to do this because the government simply believed the industry's own "studies".

It's impossible to lie about GMO existing because they want to patent it and sue farmers who try to reuse the seeds. The next best thing is to lie about how safe it is or what they did to it. Maybe that particular change they patented is indeed safe, but they don't have to tell you about anything else they changed. Then 20 years from now we'll discover how many people they poisoned. The company will go bankrupt from all the lawsuits, but the company leadership will still retire to their tropical villas.

The fact is, life expectancy in the US is decreasing. The total cancer rate is stable or slightly increasing. Somehow it overcame the effects of almost everyone no longer smoking. We don't know what's causing this, and with scientific research being defunded, I suspect it'll be quite a while before we do.

How do you know that's the change they made to the crop? It's all self reported. Have you done the generic analysis yourself? How do you know the studies showing the pesticide is safe were not tampered with?

Water vapor increases global warming.

From NASA: Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The concern with GMO comes from a lack of trust in government. Some modifications causes the plant to produce its own pesticide, which clearly has a potential for harm if it ends up in the edible parts. So if the regulatory body has been bought out by the industry, how do we know they did the necessary investigation to ensure safety? Moreover, our understanding of genetics is pretty limited at this time so it's not possible to predict all of the side effects of any particular change.

If you remove half the workforce, society will undergo some sort of collapse. It doesn't really matter which half you remove.

That said, it's comparatively much easier to replace the blue collar half. You can retrain a doctor to be a nurse in a few weeks, whereas the opposite will take 6-10 years.

Some people dismiss the necessity of white collar work because they don't understand how that work affects their lives. But you really only have to look across the Caribbean at countries such as Haiti to see what it would be like without a well-educated workforce.

Why don't you just charge at work? When you get home you have a full battery ready to power whatever you need at home.

Why would that be? It's much more likely that some human driver crashes into the robotaxi.

Well, math actually has changed. There are countless advancements. We proved Fermat's Last Theorem for example. But even ignoring the new content, we have improved ways of teaching kids as a result of decades of more experience.

But that's still small potatoes, the big change is what knowledge will be useful. We still have history classes that spend most of their time getting kids to memorize important names and dates in history. Is that really a good use of time? I looked up a middle school test question and it asked when schools were desegregated. It took me literally 3 seconds to type it into Google, which told me it was 1954. This is information that takes minutes or hours to memorize (and probably forget within a few days) and most people will never use it again. Meanwhile, why schools were desegregated and why many people resisted desegregation are actually very important facts that they should be teaching. Many of those lessons are still applicable today, and not just on the race issue.

Likewise, there's certainly some value in teaching arithmetic, but rather than wasting time on difficult arithmetic problems, maybe higher level math could be taught earlier. Have them do a bit more algebra or geometry. Maybe even teach discrete math and statistics towards the end of high school. Leave the calculating to the calculator.

They have a "guide" to student ratio of 1:5.

If you look at their recruitment ad for "guides", they pay $100k annually and want prior experience in teaching.

So rather than improving the efficiency of education with AI, it almost seems like they've done the exact opposite. Even excluding facility costs, each student is paying $25-30k annually just for the "guide".