Honest question. Why make meat? Why not use your resources to create nutrition bars? You have to source everything the meat needs to grow anyway (and what are those sources/impacts?), why not just press it in a bar and be done? If you're afraid folks will really miss their meat, so you want to ply them with meat, let me just say - folks who love meat will find the meat they love. They won't likely shift to reactor meat for environmental reasons.
Conscientious meat lovers will invest in regenerative agriculture, lobby for ending corn feeding, reclaim all that land, return it to natural grassland, and let ruminant animals do what they do best -- feed the soil and make meat.
Just throwing one option in here, if lab-grown meat can be grown cheaper than regular meat is produced, there's definitely a market. I like beef. Beef is getting VERY expensive where I live. If I could get lab-grown beef that's, say, 80% the experience at 50% the cost, I'd happily do that.
I think achieving a future where eating real meat is treated like a special occasion, but lab-grown meat is the norm is possible.
Finally, very few people would eat nutrition bars as regular meal replacements. Maybe there's a (vaguely dystopian) future where people replace most their meals with joyless supplementation, but I think a lot more success will be found in replacing real-meat with lab-meat.
"Taken together, our data on the interaction between ivermectin and viral proteins indicated that ivermectin majorly acts by interfering with the viral entry through inhibiting the function of spike protein and protease. "
You think adding more people to the room in an already-dissonant chamber will make thing more coherent? We moved to a modified republic precisely because a huge-scale town meeting isn't practical.
Hmm. I'd say the biggest argument I could see is that it would result in less stupid bills, e.g. fewer "bridges to nowhere". Maybe less federal bureaucracy. You probably shouldn't really be able to pass something if you can't convince at least 15,001 Americans. On the other hand, logistics would be an insane challenge, and you'd have a huge issue with the inability to have an actual in-person debate. Also, who wants to pay 30,000 people six figures a year? We'd have to stop paying them for it to be practical.
For reference, the current wage is $174,000/yr (a stupidly-high amount). $174,000 * 30,000 = $5,220,000,000. I'm severely disinclined to pay over five billion dollars per year (plus additional logistics costs) for pencil-pushers to sit around deliberating what bureaucratic idiocy they will next hand down from on high.
As a counter argument I say the place to skimp out on payment isn't in the people making our democracy 30k is a bit OTT in my opinion but 5 billion isn't that much in the grand scheme of the US budget coming in at just .1% of our current spending.
There's loads of ways to solve it though. Let them form groups and pool money to pay for analysts and staff as blocks or beef up the OMB to provide better faster analysis of bills and let them use those. The pooling makes a lot of sense to me because with groups that large you're going to have to form shared interest groups just to have reasonable length debates.
Not if actual experts get elected. With 30,000 reps you are going to get a wide variety of people elected many of who will know something about the world outside of politics.
If you include the staff there already are 30,000 reps, just that most of them are not elected. The current system is more like having 450 mini corporations running the place.
Set expansion rules so the number of reps is always equal to the cubed root of the population rounded down. They would provide adequate scaling rules imo.
If the UK can stomach well over 600 MPs the so can we.
Many Gen IV nuclear designs can use the 10K year waste fuel and turn it into 300 year waste. If you believe climate change is killing us, this is the answer. If you don't believe that but believe clean, free electricity in abundance is best for a developing world, then this is also the answer.
I'm the biggest proponent of Gen IV nuclear. But believe me that the level of partitioning and transmutation required to get to 300 year waste requires reprocessing processes of a sophistication that are contrary to the concept of "free" anything. In fact, there's SO much nuclear fuel on Earth and in the seawater, and seawater uranium extraction is getting cheap enough that it's now reasonable to envision world-scale nuclear fission without heavy reprocessing. Deep burn/modified once-through cycles or limited recycling can get you really far with this kind of resource.
