Hopefully, in the distant future (as t -> inf), we will all become conservatives. Not out of resistance to change, but because we did so well: We have progressed to such an optimal point that any further step (progress) would lead to something worse. Maybe the trends reflect this?
Ah! I thought you guys wanted cheap, fast, and most importantly interpretable cell state determination from single cell sequencing data. My bad.
Yeah but now you gotta spend MUCH more time because of simple biology and logistics: You wanna eat the muscle of the animals, but the muscle tissue only develops if the animals move... you need much more animals and your feed is going to simple scaffolding stuff like bones and fur. Now you gotta grow more feed to feed your livestock. Welp, now you have smaller area per animal so they move even less (i.e., muscle growth is reduced even further)... what do we do? Vertical farming!
Can you give any other example(counter argument, whatever you wanna name it) but science, especially life sciences? I always try to find it myself, but nah. Are medicine-adjacent fields the only inherently good things we have made?
It isn't THE solution, it is A solution. The title is wrong.
Put a high upper limit only. Don't touch the bottomline.
For example, no more than 4 cars per person: Average Joe won't even know this rule exists but it will still reduce mineral mining due to people who collect cars.
Possible problems with my shitty example: Now a car is a controlled substance. Who decides the limit and how? What if there is a mental disease (with a better example this would make more sense) which requires a person to have 20 cars?
"Germany bans this already illegal thing"... So they double banned it?
Not adding to the conversation so it should be given negative weight and shown under everything else with better score.