Ten oz

Seems to me like it does matter to you. This thread has become lengthy, several members have responded , yet you continue against the grain pushing a singular idea no one here has agreed with. You are playing very loose history and don't seem to have a firm understanding of evolution and the various conditions that led to change. If you could provide a single example in all of history of people relocating south do to health concerns related to vitamin D it would really go a long way to supporting your idea. As of yet no data has been provided illustrating the obstacles to survival you are insisting upon. I also still don't understand the imaginary total collapse of society which would include the loss of all knowledge and language (if language was still around why couldn't people read books to re-obtain the knowledge) yet somehow still would leave humans with so few concerns Vitamin D would be a priority Which is long enough to reproduce and wouldn't lead to a reduction in gene diversity.

Any examples will do. I can not think of any so whatever you got would be good.

I think some sort of law requiring bots (to include information shared, liked, or tagged by bots) be identifiable. Social media companies could more easily just delete accounts or remove post from those in violation. I also think the propaganda would be far less effective if the person receiving it understand it was generic info routed to them by a marketing algorithm. Just as product labels in stores must contain information about their origins and contents so too should products online.

I agree but how would that law work? For example if I started PM'ing Fake news to every member of this board it wouldn't be a crime. The mods would eventually kick me off the site but no crime would have been committed.

Insider trading laws are directed towards people who work for or are directly affiliated with a corporation using knowledge which isn't yet public. They don't cover ones ability to influence the market by spitballing policy ideas via Twitter. Full disclosure I own shares of FB, AAPL, and NFLX. I have a great year. Post Trump a lot of laws will change. Even Conservatives don't want anyone to be able to do what Trump is doing ever again.

By now we all understand that Trump often lies on twitter. One of the more Machiavellian things he does is proclaim policy changes which he hasn't actually made. Like when he proclaimed the military would not accept trans-gendered individuals yet it is or his repeated tweets about his travel banned which has actually been blocked, rewritten, blocked, and rewritten some more. The genius of the tweets of course is that his follows often assume the policy changes have been made. It is a way for him to gloat about things his supporters wish were happening whether they actually happen or not. Those tweets, while ugly and dishonest, I view as politics as normal. A politician lying about what they've done or will do isn't new. What is new is Trump using Tweeter to threaten international partnerships and confuse the status of global economic trade. For those who do not follow Stock Markets closely the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is down over 2,000 points since January (3 trillion dollars) which is the longest sustained losses in 9yrs. Not merely yesterday but all year Trump has been tweeting out various threats concerning trade and tariffs often changing his mind or the target of his attacks week to week. The Stock Market reacts every time he does this something his economic team absolutely is aware of. If anyone had any advance warning, even 30 minutes, of what Trump might tweet next regarding Steel, Aluminium, China, media mergers, or etc they could use that information to make a lot of money in a very short time buying or shorting stocks. Is this ethical? If it was discovered that Trump was using his influence to swing market via a tweet to enrich himself or others is that insider trading? In a post Trump world what laws should the U.S. put in place to ensure a repeat of this can never happen again? *DJIA is a stock market index that shows how 30 large, publicly owned companies based in the United States have traded during a standard trading session in the stock market. It is the most commonly used index to gauge the status of U.S. markets.

Yes, but you continue to ignore that fact that vitiman D deficiency has never stopped any group or groups of humans from living someplace. There have been people of color in northern areas for a few hundred years now. Slaves in the U.S. use to flee North to settlements in Canada for example. Whatever "modern" comforts you think people today have certainly weren't available to runaway slaves. The vitiman D issue simply doesn't matter are the scale required to force a migration.

From everything I have read it is recommended by health officials that everyone in the UK take a vitamin supplement with people over 65yrs of age, child, pregnant women, and darker skinned people being at greater risk low levels. Nearly everything I have seen lists spending more time outside with skin exposing as a solution to the problem along with things like eating eggs or fatty fish. I have found nothing which indicates separate guidelines for darker skinned people or eluded to a more systemic problem for darker skinned people. In this case I think the lack of evidence, despite years of data collection, tells us enough answer the OP's question.

Life long unhealthy people don't typical live long as healthy people do. If you are aware of a study showing that people with darker skin in the UK have health issues which significantly impact their lives please provide it.

Do you have examples of those corrections?

Society defines things too. I was under the impression the OP was referencing society at large and not ones individually relative perspective.

Mortality rates for different groups in the UK are fairly consistent across all groups. So we at least know they live as long as is to be expected for humans in the UK.

There is a big difference between setting money aside to pay for your kids to go to college or retiring at a young age and owning a garage full of exotic cars you use to show off with. Enough would be the point where oneself and their family is comfortable. That doesn't require Billions of dollars. Doesn't require gold plated toilets, private jets, and trophy hunting animals in Africa.

When one has enough but continues anyway. A very long time ago. Bibical times.

And yet 7.5 million black people live in the UK.

Even peopt less effecient at producing Vitamin D in northern areas are still able to do so. Rather than 20 minutes outside each day in the sun perhaps they'd need an hour. The issue of vitamin D in a world post civilization is being greatly overstated by the OP.

If civilization fell and no one was around to maintain Nuclear power plants, chemical storage facilities, and etc the remaining people would have much bigger problems than optimal Vitamin D levels. I think the OP is simply searching for a scientific reason to say races shouldn't be living together.

I would like to see a none satirical version of that made. The Craig films have changed so much about Bond's back story and motivations it only makes sense to continue the pretense Bond is a single person. Connery is definitely the best actor to have ever played Bond and From Russia with Love might be the single best Bond film. However You Only Live Twice and Diamonds are Forever were poorly made films. The Moore film contained some of the best stunt work for their time. The opening plane scene in Octopussy is possibly still the best Bond opening to this day with the Snowboarding chase scene from View to a Kill being a close second. Brosnan's films did a good job capturing those great Moore openings with Goldeneye's being the standout. I didn't like Skyfall. I don't like what they have done with Bond's backstory in the new films. Bond was supposed to have been a Naval Commander. That is a fairly aristocratic position where one is well educated, disciplined, and experienced. I would really enjoy a one off film where they bring back Brosnan or Dalton and do an old man Bond story. One where a retired Bond is forced back into the mix. As for a replacement to Craig the only 2 British actors I think have the correct levels of masculinity and oration are Christian Bale and Idris Elba. However I doubt either would be selected. Bale possibly being too well known and Elba being black.

No more than is currently the case. Hundreds of thousands of years ago the only mode of transportation was ones feet. As previously mentioned migration came with many dangers and unknowns. Groups of humans being isolated from each other wasn't a social choice. Soon as better modes of transportation we're developed humans established global relationships. I think you are seriously misreading history. And yet entire populations of people throughout Central and South America are essentially bi-racial going back to the error of your initial post which identified Mexico as a race. Additionally Neanderthal and denisovan DNA is present in billions of people. Humans are a mixed bag and have been for millenia. Your picking and choosing of social norms isn't consistent. You are imagining some apocalyptic situation where all technology and knowledge is lost to the point where people migrate based on skin tone (which has never happened in history) yet still strictly follow loosely held societal norms. It doesn't make any sense.

Humans can live in nearly all environments. Being set back a generation or 2 wouldn't change that.

Half the world population lives on less than 2 euros a day. They absolutely do not all have those things. People from the Netherlands and England have been living in places like Africa and India several hundreds of years. Long before cars and commercially available sunscreen. They did things like wore hats and kept to the shade much as possible. Sun exposure doesn't limit where people can live. It never has.

Who was the best James Bond? Below are my impressions of all 6 who have played bond. Sean Connery - Everyone's default #1 choice. While Connery had the most impressive body of work through his long career his Bond films themselves often appeared cheaply made (Thunderball being an exception) and were rather silly. Austin Powers satire of them was so hilarious in part because of how accurate it was. Sean Connery in my opinion is far and away the best actor to play Bond but wasn't the best Bond. George Lazenby - I have never seen his Bond film in its entirety so I can't judge. Roger Moore - First Bond I saw. I think who was Bond in the first Bond movie or two one saw impacts who they think was the best. As a kid Roger Moore's Bond films had made there way to TV and were the first Bond films I saw. Moore's Bond was less physical than Connery's. For Connery gadgets often seemed like an after thought but with Moore's Bond gadgets were critical. Lacking Connery's physicality gadgets saved Moore's butt many times. Roger Moore was good Bond. Timothy Dalton - If Bond were a real person Timothy Dalton is exactly who I'd imagine him to be yet Dalton's Bond films lack Bond-esque storylines. They felt as if action films written for an American action hero had been recycled and Bond's name tossed in the mix. For the first time Bond was primarily motivated by things like Revenge rather than his mission. Neither Connery or Moore's Bond took things personal to the distraction of a mission. Dalton's Bond films are among the worst despite Dalton himself being a good fit. Pierce Brosnan - He was the best of Connery and Moore. Plausible as a form Naval Commander yet pretentious and snooty. The Brosnan films remembered that Bond stories are playful while at the same time making sure to keep high stakes. However they failed to deliver quality villains. Overall Brosnan's films were my favorite. It I had to sit down and watch just one actor's Bond films back to back it would be Brosnan's. The last one left a lot to be desired though. Daniel Craig - I can't stand him as Bond, lol. Bond is suppose to be to life long professional. Bondis suppose to be intelligent, persistent, well trained, classy, and clever. In Craig's films Bond is clumsy, moody, raw, indifferent, and dry. As with the Timothy Dalton films the Craig films give Bond strange emotional motivations which compete for his attention and focus equal to the mission at hand. I don't them.

True, but information wasn't as well distributed then. Burning down a single library wouldn't set culture back any today. Plus far more people are literate. Literacy for thousands of years was a skill only elites had. Not just that but instructions are so good nowadays a 5yrs kid could assemble Ikea furniture just following along with the pictures. The scene the OP seems to be painting would be better suited for scenario where people were standard on a massive never before inhabited island without any tools or access to record information.

I understand your point I just don't agree with it. Skin tone would not force people to migrate. The risks posed by migration, especially is a dystopian world without panes, trains, or auto, would be far greater than those posed by not having sun glasses. Half the worlds population is Vitiman D deficient. You are overstating the matter. In a dystopian world things like clean water and clean air would play a much bigger role in where people lived. Here is a video on how to make a welder from parts salvaged from an old microwave. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrlvqib94xQ