I’m not sure I agree. Pure math is not useless because a lot of math is very useful. But we don’t know ahead of time what is going to be useless vs. useful. We need to do all of it and then sort it out later.
If we knew that it was all going to be useless, however, then it’s a hobby for someone, not something we should be paying people to do. Sure, if you enjoy doing something useless, knock yourself out… but on your own dime.
There are complete formulae for all prime-order Weierstrass curves. The work for secure implementation of prime-order curves is now simpler than for Edwards elliptic curves.
Even if Indians ate 2x the meat that they do now, they wouldn’t consume anywhere as much as Americans do. Increasing meat consumption in America is not necessary.
India would do well to consume more protein, and the US would do well to consume less
And that wouldn’t be abused? We already means test access to basic necessities; you don’t think “access to producing offspring” wouldn’t be similarly gated?
Wouldn’t it be better for society if it were gated, at least compared to our current system which encourages those least able/suited to have children to have the greatest number of them? If we as a society are uncomfortable with society dictating how/when you have kids, society also shouldn’t be on the hook for providing for them - “no say, no pay”.
The modern welfare state is the compromise reached by capitalist democracies to stave off communist revolutions. If you’re going to kill of the welfare part, be ready for the uprising part.
That's where the surveillance and the militarized police force(s) come in. Especially the former now has reached extraordinary levels, given that almost all communication now is easily trackable.
Compare that to when we still had revolutions, where it was very hard for government to know what is going on, and to find individuals without a huge effort.
I think revolutions have become next to impossible, unless it is lead by significant parts of the elite that controls at least part of the apparatus.
That's not even counting the far more sophisticated propaganda methods, so that many of the affected people won't even begin to target the actual culprits but are lead to chase shadows, or one another.
We still have revolutions because if enough people go out on the street it doesn’t matter how good your surveillance state is. You can’t kill/arrest 25% of your population. That is why Russia/China/etc are so scared to let any protests begin even with 5 people because if they grow there comes a point it can’t be stopped with violence.
See Arab spring. It does not matter how many people go out in the street, unless the elites voluntarily give up control, as happened in East Germany (which I experienced). The only thing that matters is if influential parts of the elites want a change too.
> You can’t kill/arrest 25% of your population.
Unnecessary.
> That is why Russia/China/etc are so scared to let any protests begin
Especially Russia's issue is that lots of the elites want change too. But you also underestimate that what the population also does not want is a repeat of 1990s chaos, and Russian weakness.
You forgot gun control. Is it really a coincidence that the highest concentrations of rich people seem to be the places where citizens have the fewest rights to own guns?
Ridiculous "argument". You and your puny gun against organized forces, especially the military - laughable! The only one your privately owned guns threaten are other citizens.
reply