Military spending, wealth redistribution, tax system changes and the Marshal Plan for rebuilding Europe are direct war results that caused the boom. Everything needed rebuilding and everyone wanted to work together, leading to economic agreements and the formation of the European Union. Everyone needed materials like steel for construction. The Korean War then seriously boosted countries like Japan and Australia again

Australia had a huge sustained boom from the late 1940s through to 1970s, which was also aided by the Korean war. The boom tapered off with the oil shocks and stagflation of the early-to-mid 1970s

The UK also had a boom, recovering from rationing into the 1950s they joined the global long boom until the 1970s but yes it was not as strong as other countries booms due to the damage and cost of the war

Harold Macmillan’s famous 1957 line “you’ve never had it so good” sums it up pretty well

Europe had a massive boom known as the golden age of capitalism, nfi what you are talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion

The United States, the Soviet Union, Australia and Western European and East Asian countries in particular experienced unusually high and sustained growth, together with full employment.

Unlike ww2, ww3 would not be a boon to production or the economy

Supply chains would be the first target, like how pulling the plug on rare earth metals is the goto now, and how much can be fully and entirely made at home?

We’d be sitting around scratching our asses wishing we had any form of modern appliance before long. Planes, ships, cars, generators, terbines, computers, microchips would cease manufacture without a comprehensive functioning global supply chain

Fuel, oil, fertiliser would be cut off for most countries

Without an incredible stockpile, most countries probably couldn’t sustain any world war

Everything is temporary when you think about it

No one is saying some authoritarian force needs to deny procreation rights

Yes, you agree on all points? So what is the point of this?

If you think that’s all that natural selection is

Are you just arguing for the sake of it now? What’s your point here? These replies are so incoherent and riddled with strawmen

At no point did I claim this to the exclusion of all other factors and you gotta be willfully misinterpreting to come to that conclusion

You are seriously missing the point…

I said we no longer have natural selection removing diseases like it was

I am not advocating for natural selection/genocide

I’m saying without action we’ll accumulate more, and there’s very real things we can do about it either as individuals or as a society

It’s pretty straight forward to select away almost all cases of Alzheimer’s by simply not procreating if you are positive for APOEε4, for example

No suffering required

Nothing specific, we just need to acknowledge that if people reproduce with serious diseases the prevalence increases. Medicine is fantastic at saving lives, this is no anti-medicine rhetoric.

Medicine is so good, and only getting better, that our genetic fitness as a species is going to be progressively eroded through the continued spread of negative mutations.

Generations will progressively suffer more and be more dependent on medicine to live a normal life compared to now.

There are two main ways to prevent genetic disease, either don’t reproduce or control genetics. Each with their own stack of moral dilemmas. Inaction is also a choice with its own issues and moral concerns, like in the trolley problem, except over such a long period of time the cause and effect is not abundantly obvious

They definitely make decisions on their own that can be unrelated or very indirectly related to the prompt, and then act that out on their own

It’s the paperclip problem

Especially with these new models that are left to run unsupervised for days

You are not running any machine generated code on your PC though?

Interesting to see Lemmy users who are normally “information should be free” supporters suddenly support the copyright system

Apply some context… It’s not going to be removing diseases from the gene pool at anywhere near the rate of before modern medicine

It’s a little complex in reality with men being able to reproduce for pretty much their whole adult lives (raising children that support the tribe, allowing elders to live longer and then reproduce with younger women)

But essentially yes

See flightyhobler’s link

You’re right, there’s no big correlation between IQ and wealth

That’s scientifically false though, it’s true in every dimension studied for zoomers

negative genetic muntions and diseases don’t exist because bananas are sortof similar to humans

Okay good argument I’m convinced science is entirely misguided

That’s almost true. I said natural selection only impacts odds of reproduction but there’s a few things that occur after reproduction age in a population that have been studied to be naturally selected tooo

Behaviours of gays and the elderly are selected for to an extent because they help raise children in the tribe/community/group whilst not affecting reproductive pressures

Improving survival odds through nurturing children/others leads to groups with those genes doing better, which selects for those genes via natural selection

If the older members of the group are fitter and can help gather food/hunt then those genes are selected for too through increased survival of their offspring