That wouldn’t have impressed death. He is into goth girls.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I mean, he could have just created 200% more resources as well. Or he could have equually redistributed all the resources. The problem he was trying to solve would still eventually happen again, because solving the problem relies on everyone working unselfishly, which is simply not possible when humans are involved.
HessiaNerd@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Thief@lemmy.myserv.one 1 year ago
Actually a good point. He should have just done that.
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah, Dan Brown dealt with it in a much better manner.
lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I think he should have cut the birth rate to a third of what it now. No one would notice. No one would die or be missed. There’d just be a lot less people within fifty years.
AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com 1 year ago
OK while that would be a better idea the thought that no one would notice is laughable. We have detailed pregnancy rate records going back 75 years, an immediate 30% change would definitely raise a lot of red flags.