On Sep 17, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 07:57 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Dave Land wrote: >> On Sep 17, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: >>> On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero >>>> or >>>> less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being >>>> penalized: >>>> >>>> 0 children -- 3 deductions >>>> 1 child -- 2 deduction >>>> 2 children -- 1 deductions >>>> 3 children -- 1 penalty >>>> 4 children -- 2 penalties >>> >>> Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the >>> very >>> people who are not even currently producing a replacement >>> population, >>> and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly >>> opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything >>> else they say on the matter. >> >> That's OK, I'll just go back to the last save point and try again. > > I imagine most politicians wish it were that easy in RL . . . > > Do Over Maru > > . . . ronn! :)
There's a lot to be said for the concept of test simulations, alpha and beta testing, and staged rollouts for social policy. Those are foreign concepts to most politicians, who seem to prefer the equivalent of making a full-scale production run of duplicates of the first-generation prototype and releasing them to the public with no testing at all, and when people unsurprisingly call tech support to ask "WTF?!", screaming at them for being a "bunch of whiners". I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
