What's the significance of the numbers?
Or people would simply be divided over what race they used to be.
That actually matches with how most people view things though. The utility of eating anyone is going to be extremely small, especially compared to the opportunity cost of a person's life, so the only time you're going to get that situation is when someone can be expected to cause so much harm to others in the future as to outweigh their own life, such as, for example, how someone who kills someone that's attempting to commit mass-murder is usually considered justified in doing so, or if you're in trolley-problem scenario where saving multiple other people necessarily requires the death of one person.
Setting the scale to not have negative values in a non-relative sense is just to prevent issues like it becoming a good thing to kill sufficiently unhappy people, even if they object and there's no danger to anyone else averted by doing so.
We can print DNA iirc, and I'd imagine that tech will only improve with time, so if we really needed to keep some DNA from before some event that degrades all DNA afterwards, it might just be kept around as a computer file and synthesized as needed rather than frozen in living cells.
Unfortunately, quite a few guys end up obsessed with that one.
And this kind of thing is why I think it makes more sense to define utility in a way analogous to how the Kelvin scale defines temperature, such that negative values are impossible and more desirable outcomes are just considered more positive than undesirable ones.
Money disappearing would do the opposite Id imagine.
I dont think it does address one, but the people that campaign for such things seem to think that the ability for children to find adult content is one addressed by such a law.
Honestly the surprise for me is that this implies that wage growth is exceeding inflation for a (slim) majority of the country. Like, sure, I would expect it of like the 1%ers or so these days, but not a majority even if a small one.
Im of two minds about this: on the one hand, I am absolutely against this internet ID verification thing, but on the other, if you have some widespread social problem, saying "the solution to this problem is for everyone to stop doing X" never works, because if people were going to just do that, they would have done so already. Its a bit like saying "the solution to child neglect is for parents to not neglect their children". Technically true, but not actually a solution because it doesnt actually propose anything, it just assigns blame and then expects that other people will just magically be inclined to behave differently.
I just dont think that kids accidentally finding porn is nearly as significant of a problem as people think it is. Theres the notion that kids will get unrealistic and possibly unsafe ideas over what is sexual stuff is actually like if their initial exposure is finding some exaggerated fantasy, and thats a valid point, but I think the much more obvious solution, that the government has a much bigger control over, is comprehensive sex-ed that explains what the reality of the situation is and what ideas are in fact common misconceptions, instead of just trying to keep a significant aspect of human biology with profound health and social implications a secret from everyone during their formative years.
Can you prove I havent done so already and my post doing so hasnt been sneakily blocked and erased by the aforementioned CIA?
Climate change is an ongoing process that takes decades to centuries. That's very fast as far as evolution and natural climactic shifts are concerned, but on a human scale long term. Given that it's not stopping within the lifespan of one person, and contributes to virtually every health problem in subtle ways, it'd seem a bit difficult to say if a given person has "survived it" or not, even if they live to an old age.