Mother nature put you at the top of her food chain in a highly competitive, equality crushing system which purifies the contenders inside the proverbial “thunderdome” until there isn’t any optimization left that can be made. This means that spot is a highly coveted position by all forms of life, not just bipeds or mammals. So to think that we might have some function of the body that can be removed like the fat removed from beef before being served for dinner without there being a loss in overall performance or a drop in the position held before the removal of that characteristic is asinine on its face. Meaning to imply that your initial assessment of the world with which we are presented from the totally inept and corrupt gaggle of self ascribed rulers of the era was far from a knee-jerk conclusion needing further investigation.

They hate you(us). They want you(us) dead. Sad to report this but as far as I can see there isn’t a force for good willing to stand against them. Suppose everyone is far too comfortable in their middle class lifestyle that is vanishing quicker than ever in history. Soon – and not the distant future soon either but right around the corner soon – that middle class lifestyle will disappear and no amount of wailing, moaning or crying will be able to end the relentless slaughter that will come from this. They have already ramped up their rhetoric towards the targeted group of people and the number of the “blind-to-reality” that are in this targeted group is disheartening to the notion that we will make it out the other end of this culling. The aforementioned “thunderdome” can be a place of purification, or the last stop before erasure. The choice on which of those it two it resembles has been left up to us.

https://archive.org/details/Watersheds

As a physicist, I know that every theory has a range of validity, beyond which one must use a different (possibly incompatible) theory. I remember Steven Weinberg elaborating that every theory we have is an "effective theory", useful for working with some level of the underlying reality.

Why do I mention range of validity? We are increasingly governed by slogan-hurlers. Their one-size-fits-all solutions must be challenged with the questions, "what are the natural limits?" and "when do the assumptions (on which this prescription is based) break down, and why?"

As an example from our libertarian side is: "competition keeps the market honest and benign" to which we must recognise there are cases where competition fails we have to examine why? Examples are: (1) incumbents rigging the market to raise entry barriers, (2) "Race to the bottom" scenarios (3) Network/brokerage effects where access to other customers is the chief benefit of a service offering.

That last one, "access to other customers" being the product, explains why "social media" platforms are like states that need to be limited by a "bill of rights."