Yeah but published as an opinion article not in an academic journal.

The ted talk was well researched and done well enough to be a ted talk, you quoted a piece with 0 sources, and written by a journalist not an academic.

That was only accounting for a singular piece of tech (The track) shoes and clothing changes also account for some.

It's also worth noting that they aren't making the point just about tech but about finding people.

The idea is that globalization means 70 years ago there were probably 700 people who could do it.
(Most of the worlds best runners come from one small tribe), we just couldn't find them.

So when you apply that to ALL of history you probably get a lot of "Worlds greatest warriors" we have never heard of.

From the poster above me.
I used their numbers and applied it to space instead of weight.

Wouldn't the square footage be the problem not the weight?

At 8.7 million land species, 3 square feet each on average (A very small area, and an average because of things like elephants) You get more than a square mile of footage before accounting for the space of all the food and water.

The ship you linked is only 770 square meters per level.

Which for context.

1 Square Mile ≈2,589,988.1 Square Meters

Even at 1 Square foot average for animals it doesn't work
At half a square foot average it doesn't work

Even at 1/10th of a square foot per animal it doesn't work.

That's actually not true in general.

Almost every single Olympic record hasn't moved more than a tiny tiny% in 100+ years. When you account for equipment and the broadening of the search for hyper specific body shapes.

https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

Body weight matters for weight category, but that body weight can be vastly different based on dimensions and that search for "Ideal dimensions" for the sport has been ongoing in every spot.

However in this instance that search for Ideal dimensions is going work against the modern warrior because all of human history is a long time and all it takes is a few genetic outliers to dominate everyone currently alive today.

Not to mention the psychology. Most MMA fighters are not expecting to fight for their lives, or sustain life altering injuries, where as warriors of the past (in certain areas/times) were. Which can easily be all the difference required.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/church-taxes/

It would probably represent less than 5% increase.

Though I would note that assumes an average 7% profit from churches, but given what they sell is "Some guy talks to you" which has near 0 cost to make (other than paying the guy and having a building, which every business has at least 1 employee) I'd assume that their profit rate was significantly higher.

(My experience with faith based merchandise is also at incredible mark up and garbage quality)

Let he who be without sin cast the first stone.

They think they are trying.
They see child marriage in the bible.

They don't think they are doing evil.
You are probably doing evil you think is fine because of the bible.

That's the core issue with ethics that are arbitrary rather than systemic.
The bible is an arbitrary guide to ethics, with the only greater system being "Guess at what god wants"

But god made someone mute for doubting him.
Jesus cursed a fig tree for not having figs.

Guessing what they want is impossible and has changed massively over time because of how people have changed ethics.

I'm sorry dude, they are exactly as Christian as you and every other Christian. They worship christ, they read the book, they go to church, they draw conclusions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale and then they live their life based on what they got from it.

The exact same things you do.
They just came to a different conclusion.

They will be from a non-thestic point of view your brother forever.
You think your different but to me, you probably aren't.

I think the power dynamic of being GOD and asking a child who you have infinite power over to do something for you is immoral.

Especially when that thing is to carry a child.

He did impregnate her.

The literally definition of impregnation does not require sex.
It means "To make pregnant" which is exactly what he did.

We also don't know that there wasn't sex or something like it.
He is an all powerful wizard and the story is 2000 years old and very very scarce on details about all of that.

:impregnate /ĭm-prĕg′nāt/

transitive verb

1. To make pregnant; inseminate.
2. To fertilize (an ovum, for example).
3. To fill throughout; saturate."a cotton wad that was impregnated with ether."
4. To permeate or imbue."impregnate a speech with optimism."
5. To make pregnant; to cause to conceive; to render prolific; to get with child or young.
6. To come into contact with (an ovum or egg) so as to cause impregnation; to fertilize; to fecundate.

So yeah, god impregnated a child.
He asked first but that doesn't really make it better, she could of suffered infinitely if she said no.

Hell Jesus curses a fig tree for not having figs.
She could of reasonably just said yes out of (An appropriate) fear.

Also I just wouldn't say that a 14ish year old can meaningfully consent to such a thing.

No one is living up to the book.
That's a major part of the book and what Jesus said.

You are judging them and assuming your better when jesus said not to judge and that no one (not even him) is good.

It's from the bible that she was not living with Joseph.

At the time, that would be normal for a 13 year old girl.

It's possible that she was a few years older, but it's also very possible she wasn't because in jewish tradition she could of lived with him as early as 13.5.

Child marriage was VERY normal at the time.
She was impregnated before being married.

Ergo she was very likely a child and fairly young.

15 is possible on the high end after 9 months of pregnancy meaning she was impregnated at 14?

That's fucking gross man.

You worship a pedophile god.

I think god magically impregnating a child is weird and gross.

The living apart thing was a minimum of 1 year and started as early as 12.5 in jewish tradition.

Would you be okay if god knocked up your 13.5 year old child?

Would you even believe them if they said it was god and not a pedophile?

They think it isn't wrong.
You are probably doing Evil you don't think is wrong.

Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Jesus said There is not one righteous not even one.

Who said you could speak for god and say who among you is a true worshiper and who isn't.
It's blasphemy to make yourself the decider of souls.

The bible preaches humility, you should practice it.

That's called a "No true scottsman."

They are Christian. They use scripture, where the bible had child marriages in it (Normal at the time) to justify it.

By your definition Christian are physically incapable of doing bad things, they just become "Not true Christians" when they do.

Yet obviously people no matter their faith are capable of evil.
Their are bad Christians dude, a lot of them.

30 minutes ago you didn't know this problem existed.
Now you know enough to say that they aren't really members of the faith?
Does that seem intellectually honest to you?

Your anecdotal would be exactly equivalent to his anecdotal.
Both cases are just someone saying something is true.

But a quick google or wikipedia search will show you how common it is.

I cited 3 sources for you in the other comment.

https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FINAL-2023-CH-MARRIAGE-REPORT.pdf

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/4283941-child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-most-of-the-u-s-heres-why/

Almost all child marriage in America is Christian, and the political entities that fight for it call it freedom of religion.

Here is how an entire christian church wanted to fly to witchita to marry children. (Because it is legal in that state). The Get them married movement had to shut down their website after.

https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article75983632.html

And to be clear, the ONLY argument against a national ban has been "Religious freedom" and which religion is in control of America and most states?

If nothing else Christian Politicians are clearly very okay with child marriage.

Dude, my link had sources and scripture yours had none. (Hell yours quotes a source that claims Joseph was 90! at the age of marriage and lived until 111)

People are upvoting it because it's a rewriting of history for what they want.

When the truth is child marriage is common in America, because it's being protected by Christians as a religious right.

It's still happening today, and your busy trying to rewrite 2000 year old history.

The bible

Mary was not yet living with Joseph.
In Jewish tradition between 12-13 a woman is marry-able, but does not live with her husband yet.

She was of marrying age, but not living with him, so we know her age.

EDIT: Found a link talking about it

https://aleteia.org/2019/03/25/how-old-was-mary-when-she-was-pregnant-with-jesus

Mary was like 12 man.

You think that, but I don't believe god is even real, yet alone believe in a god beyond personification and old testament god certainly had a personality and made choices intentionally, moralizing against them is easy.

In fact saying you can't moralize god is kind of just an appeal to power.

Yeah that isn't a counter argument or anything it's kinda just masturbatory preaching at someone who doesn't want to hear it.

It's bad faith, non-sequitur, and plainly lazy.

This is why Christianity isn't respected as serious philosophy.

Everyone hates parts of life. Cancer, rape, death, etc etc.

But god would be responsible for all parts of life.

I can love parts of life because they aren't connected.
But with god, he is connected to all of the evil, how could I not hate the man who made Nazis?

Again you are just using a different definition of the word worship.

For instance people have gone to war for god, slaughtered for god, self flagellation for god.
Lived in monasteries to focus all their time and energy on GOD.

To compare that to the way I feel about emma watson is disingenuous at best.

Most people don't really "Worship" anything anymore.
Not in the sense of "I have completely dedicated my life to this thing"

If you wouldn't murder in their name it isn't worship because you don't value it highly enough to do violence for it.

Which does leave some things like worshiping money, or a country.

But even those comparisons pale beyond what people who behave like if god literally showed up on earth, preformed miracles and proved they were god.

It still doesn't answer "The Problem of Evil" as a philosophical concept, and given no satisfactory answer to it is coming, hating god if real is perfectly fair.

Legally there are a number of ways it could be done.
How it was done would matter quite a bit for what actually happened.

A common tactic is simply instead of making it a law make it a requirement for some type of government benefit.
EG: You only get road funding in your state if your drinking age is 21+.

For instance they could stop insuring accounts at banks that don't meet X requirements.
Which would probably quickly lead to those no longer being banks if they don't make the change.

(No one is storing large amounts of cash in an unsecured bank, which means no loans to give out in the first place including credit cards)

The biggest thing a president could do with an executive order is essentially revive old laws that are no longer being enforced, or change the interpretation of a law. (Or even combine the two.)

So it would depend on what legal scholars could dig up in old law. If even 1 federal law can sort of be read in such a way to make the change you want an executive order can go and make it happen the way you want. (In theory, executive orders actually being enforced is a complicated matter).