A rather unconventional use of the term GMO.

Are you just trying to make things fit your political bias?

Do you believe communism would do more good than bad to society?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 explicitly exempts ISPs and other online platforms like social media from being treated as publishers of the content shared on their platforms.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

This is literally the only reason such services are not liable for what they host. They would otherwise be treated the same as newspapers, magazines, or book publishers.

Did he ever predict when this second revolution comes around?

[removed]

Right! Yes! Okay, you've given enough words that I can use to provide more context. I'm not really looking for versions of tycoon games, rather the tier 2 of collective breakdown where you'd find things like city-building, build and race, and maybe a few more. I don't know what that is. It's a level below broad categories like simulation, racing, adventure, and so on.

Edit: spelling.

Bananas are not technically a GMO + they have been cultivated over several thousand years to be what we have today..You can argue that is still generic modification but it's no different to animal husbandry or the selective breading of wheat and so on that has also been going on for thousands of years.

Please read this entire message

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

• ELI5 does not allow guessing.

Although we recognize many guesses are made in good faith, if you aren’t sure how to explain please don't just guess. The entire comment should not be an educated guess, but if you have an educated guess about a portion of the topic please make it explicitly clear that you do not know absolutely, and clarify which parts of the explanation you're sure of (Rule 8).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

Hi! Adding to this (very cool) historical context: today “left” is generally associated with change, promoting social or common good (and the governments/economic policies that do so). Many say there’s a greater interest in a distribution of power, or more democratic access to power. There’s also a higher interest in significant change to the status quo. See the comment above for the roots of this in the revolutionary movement.

The “right” is focused on conservative (gradual/incremental) change, individual liberties, and the maintenance of power structures as they are, or a reversion to how they once were. See above, again, for the roots in supporting the monarchy.

It may be worthwhile to note that each of the constructs in your argument have more to them than just failing at natural selection. People are the ones fixing the problems listed in the question, and can trade goods or services like manufactured glasses, eye exams, currency manipulation, and lifting heavy objects for survival needs just like we do today. These skills are not removed due to catastrophe.

[deleted]

Sharing things other people wrote is just another way to say publication. The real reason is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which explicitly exempts them from being treated as a publisher: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”

This comes from the formation of modern democracy. There were parliments all over Europe with lots of smaller parties or even independent politicians. Parties that would agree with each other would often sit together so you often ended up with right and left wings of these parliments. As it happened they split on the great political debate on the distribution of power between the newly formed labor class and capitalist class. And in most of the parliments the labor friendly politicians sat on the left while the capitalist friendly politicians sat on the right. Obviously each parliment was different and political divides were different but this was the general trend. So the left-right divide became a common politican term.

They mean political descendants of the factions that sat on the literal left and right sides of the National Constituent Assembly during an early part of the French Revolution. Broadly speaking, republicans who wanted to get rid of the King and abolish feudalism sat on the left, and monarchists sat on the right.

Natural selection being a slow process is a myth. It can happen in just a generation - consider a global pandemic (I know - how original), killing 70 percent of the population. You only survive if your genes grant you immunity to the disease. Then bam, natural selection makes all the people in the next generation carry the same gene variant.

its the usual " trust me bro, communism bad" dribble.

Yep, exactly the same as climbing shoes (although in a seemingly much more extreme way)

Thanks for the insight.

Humans are evolving right now, and very rapidly.

As you say, we've mostly left disease and predation behind. The main drivers now are mate selection, and population size, which are far higher than they've ever been.

Until relatively recently, people almost always married within their local communities. You had to make a choice from perhaps 10 or 20 people (see Jane Austen etc.). Many people now live in large cities, and those cities are full of people from all over the world. The level of mixing of the gene pool is astonishing, and the number of partners we can pick from is almost unending (see Tinder etc.).

The combination of huge choice and very rapid global mixing means the human genome is shifting very fast indeed.

Writers, especially SF writers, have been talking about the long-term consequences of this change for a 100 years or more. The Time Machine (1895) imagines a future where (spoiler alert) mate selection splits humans along class lines into a useless but beautiful idle middle-class who are farmed for food by the evolved bestial working classes. Brave New World (1931) has a designer future where people have abandoned evolution entirely and degenerated into decadent folly.

if they were "publishers" in legal terms they would be liable for the content that gets posted. that is REALLY bad for their business model as if you know the internet you know its not a matter of "if" but "when" someone posts something that they really shouldnt have.

so these businesses push hard against being defined as publishers and instead coin the term " platform" to remove them from legal liability.

[deleted]

I recently came across this example: An object is worth $100. 100 coins are produced so each coin represent 1/100 value. If you subsequently print 100 more coins, each coin becomes less valuable at 1/200. The total value of the object remains the same, there are just more coins representing that value. So think of the "object" as a country's value globally. In the global market, the value of the country stays the same. Printing more coins results in each coin being worth less. Does that make sense? I'd like others to chime in if I missed the mark.

Enjoyed this explanation thoroughly, as a big fan of watching ballet! Thank you!!

Thank you, it makes sense

Human ingenuity may be just as natural, but it's benefits are still notably different to adaptations gained via genetic success stories. In evolutionary adaptations, the changes themselves and the benefit gained are inherently linked - a creature develops wings which allow it to fly, an octopus develops the ability to blend it to its surroundings itself which allows it to hide, a giraffe's has a long neck which enables it to reach tall leaves etc. There may be situations where reaching tall leaves isn't actually beneficial (eg in a field with no trees), but the benefit of being able to do so will always exist with a giraffe with a long neck.

​

This isn't really the same with human intelligence and ingenuity, which has a much more diffuse relationship between the driver and the outcomes much of the time (and certainly in most of the cases in which people specifically survive when they wouldn't normally, rather than simply elongating or improving their existence). For instance, human ingenuity means we're able to synthesise insulin for the benefit of diabetics, but my possession of human intelligence doesn't allow me to spontaneously create insulin in the middle of a field. I can't cross a furious river simply because humans are capable of building bridges, or survive a fall because we can build parachutes.

​

Case in point, we know that people 10,000 years ago were no less intelligent or ingenious, yet lived lives far more ravaged by 'natural selection' than we do today. We benefit from a huge accumulation of knowledge, skills, relationships, transportation, standing-on-shoulder-of-giants research, supply chains etc any parts of which could be potentially be taken away. So the fruits of our ingenuity are huge - leading the OP to ask his question - but if all the libraries and servers were burnt down tomorrow we'd potentially see ourselves back to the living standards of 10,000 years ago, eschewing these huge benefits in a way the giraffe and his long neck don't really have to worry about.

Publishers choose what content to distribute and in what way. Platforms provide a place where people can distribute their own content.

No social media platforms corrects your spelling or advises you to change the name of your main character.

At most, they remove content that is highly inappropriate or illegal