default choices kill people

" There are two main methods for determining voluntary consent: "opt in" (only those who have given explicit consent are donors) and "opt out" (anyone who has not refused is a donor). Opt-out legislative systems dramatically increase effective rates of consent for donation (the so-called default effect).[1] For example, Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%.[1][2] "

From wikipedia

-

References[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:a b Johnson, Eric J.; and Goldstein, Daniel G. "Do defaults save lives?" (PDF). Science 302 (5649): 1338–1339.doi:10.1126/science.1091721. PMID 14631022. Retrieved 2012-05-19.
2. Jump up^ Thaler, Richard H. (September 26, 2009). "Opting in vs. Opting Out". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 8, 2014. Retrieved March 7, 2014.

physiological not social

The problems of North American aboriginals (Nai's) can be summed up in one word, unskilled. To achieve wealth ,on average, a population here must have skills. However skills are mostly correlated to IQ. Tis better ,skill wise, to have a high IQ and come from a broken home than a low IQ and a good home in this society. It is difficult to get a low IQ'ed group to pass tests which are often not designed for a low IQ group. It is similar to asking a group short legged people to  out run a group of long legged people. Why conjectured low IQ'ed? Diet. A group of people who have evolved on a mainly omega 3 meaty diet up to as little as 500 years ago, some less, are now switched to a mainly processed carbohydrate diet. The result is certainly diabetes but why IQ? -http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v63/n3/full/pr200860a.html#tbl1- shows a variation in verbal IQ with a slight change in diet to a group who has eaten far less a variation than the Nai's. Certainly there are other issues, brought on by despicable, misled and idiotic actions but I conjecture this as the biggest.

activist

The American Association for the Advancement of Science says biotechnology is safe. The French Academy of Science agrees: "All criticism against GMOs can largely be rejected on strictly scientific criteria." The national science academies of Germany, Brazil, India, China as well as Britain’s Royal Society share the same view. And the World Health Organization (WHO) States: "No effects of human health problems have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods..."

no oppression

Just because millionaires are in a room with billionaires, its still doesn't make the millionaires oppressed.