It wouldn't matter because it was an arbitrary scale to begin with. As long as we can reestablish a means to measure the passage of time, we'll be able to function just fine.
I would take the the IQ boost after I confirm that it would actually boost my intellectual abilities. The reason is very simple. It would mean that I can continue being my lazy self and still not fail out of med school. If that works out, I would be a doctor and have enough money to make whatever cosmetic changes I feel like making later on.
I would like a trained monkey
It is also very irritating when everyone thinks that you are the person with who has the potential to be much more if you ujust tired and won't keep their nose out of your business. Maybe you want to be where you are for some reason or another.
As a very hairy female, yes, yes I do.
Unless you are complaining about how records sound "deeper" than digital music, which isn't really true, you make very little sense. Older music/art does not mean it is better. It just makes it older and different from modern art. Though it is true that the style of art will probably noy be recreated again, that is true for the art of any generation. What we have now will be ancient in a few decades. But we'd still enjoy it and call whatever it is that our kids would be listening to garbage. Even classical music was considered popular trash for rowdy young men at one point.
If that is thhe case, why do some of us have such cushiony butt cheeks?
It truly depends on every person's situation. Someoe for whom money isn't an issue, wealth does not ensure happiness. However, if their wealth is lost, recquiring it would surely grant transient happiness.
For someone living below the poverty line, money would allow them to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves as well as get medical care. The fact that they can finally ensure that their family/children don't have to die because of lack of resources would provide them with happiness.
For me, money allows me to buy things which lets me fill the voids that my family has left me with. In the moment that I finallya acquire something new, I am truly happy.
Yeah. Same here. I do not advocate polygamy/polyandry and will never participate in it. However, there are a lot of places where polygamy is legal but polyandry is not. Many of the Islamic states allow and encourage polygamy but if a woman is even seen with another man, she would be killed. Even in the States, the fundamentalist mormon church encourages polygamy but scorns upon polyandry. I just wanted to make the point since disparities in multiple marriage laws/ideologies already exist.
As long as polyandry was legalized along with it.
Insects lack the ability to feel pain.
In both scenarios, the cure for cancer is not trapped. It is non-existent.
Yeah, unfortunately they do. However, Darwinian natural selection is not even close to eugenics. The closest thing to that is artificial selection used for farming. I do understand your point that if we go around saying that the world should adhere more to the principles of Darwinian selection, people would misuse it. However, if a society was truly Darwinian, we won't have the opportunity to misuse it because it would be beyond us. We would understand what is happening but there would be no way to misuse it. Also, we still are inadvertently utilizing artificial selection because everywhere other than developed countries, the poor do struggle much more for survival. Although the differences in survival are due to socio-economic status, it is still not natural as the rich do not necessarily have all the genes that made their parents successful and rich. In a true Darwinian society, an individual, regardless of their families monetary standing, would not survive if he/she didn't have the right gene. Do understand that the key for Darwinian evolution is natural selection. The "natural" part of natural selection is kind of necessary for the process to work.
It seems that you don't understand natural selection very well. In a Darwinian world, no one would have to make that decision. Nature will "choose" the best of genes. The "best genes" will obviously change with the changes in conditions, thereby leading to constant evolution instead of the stagnation that the human race has been plunged into since about 2000 years ago (reference to that study that claimed people are getting stupider).
somebody doesn't understand sarcasm. lol