## Mathematics of your polygamous dystopia, part 1 of 2

Consider this a deep dive into the sexual component of the Pyrrhic cycle, where the economic considerations are ignored.

P_1 = Population of first generation
P_2 = Population of second generation
M_i = Male population of generation i
W_i = Female population

P_1 = M_1 + W_1

You can either assume that women and men reproduce at approximately the same age, so that P_2 = M_2 + W_2, or if you’re Mycroft you may change this detail of the simulation. However, we will be assuming an ideal case where the number of male and female births is the same (empirically, we see that humanity and nature both prefer slightly more male births).

A_m = Male polygamists
B_m = Male monogamists
O_m = Male losers (slaves, incels, or people who otherwise engage with the group but fail to have sex)
D_m = Male castoffs (men who die young or are boiled off from the group, such as young soldiers who die in war or criminals in a lawful country)

Using the same designations for women, p_w, m_w, s_w, c_w, we have for each generation…

M = p_m + m_m + s_m + c_m
W = p_w + m_w + s_w + c_w

I want to dispel the Manichean utopias imagined by self-ingratiating thought leaders who think you can have *some* sleeping around and not be a 3rd-world country. To do this, I’ll demonstrate the delusion of their position by allowing them to choose their own variables for the society they want to live in, subject to the empirical observation that female divorce rate depends on number of sexual partners. So…you get to choose the number of partners you want to have as an Alpha male, what proportion of men in your society are Alphas, Betas, Omegas, and killed off, how many partners you want your polygamous population of sluts to have, and what proportion of Alpha males you think should settle down and have children.

Then we’ll try to distribute the consequences of your immorality among the slaves, the dead soldiers, and the divorce rate, and see if it’s mathematically possible to imagine the sort of society you’d want to live in. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that Alpha males who externalize responsibility and blame Betas and Omegas for their civilization’s woes are extremely disingenuous, because the only peaceful, prosperous society which can support polygamy would require them to be polygamous only with female dregs and we all know they would never do that.

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

### 57 Responses to Mathematics of your polygamous dystopia, part 1 of 2

1. fuzziewuzziebear says:

Thank you.

• Aeoli Pera says:

Creativity is noticing something that should exist, and doesn’t, and taking it personally. Which is to say, you’re welcome.

• fuzziewuzziebear says:

It is past time to review Red Pill Theory. There are people who have distorted it. Anyway, to be accepted, it needs to stand up to scrutiny. Good to know that I am not alone in this.

• Flights of Fancy says:

One easy critique is that George S. Patton Jr. did not lift. Stalin most certainly did not lift either.

2. Mycroft Jones says:

Aeoli, your whole thesis is bunkum. You conflate polygamy, which is the Biblical, patriarchal form of marriage, with promiscuity, aka “soft harems” aka “sleeping around”. Rectify the names, and you’ll get no argument from me. You have a bug up your butt against “polygamy”, but your discourse consistently shows you are talking about promiscuity, not polygamy.

• bicebicebice says:

Women can be manipulated which means that polygamy is a spook. If the best thing to be in the current year is a fraud, women will flock to that fraud, because sapery. They are not interested in tomorrow at all. “Oh how horrible who would want to even life after a nuclear war?!?”. Nagasaki and Hiroshima have never been wealthier.
Those offspring frauds then perish en masse when reality hits because tehy have no skills for the next current year, it is not future proof. Soyboys think they can circumvent this via racemixing, a notion shared with nwo-overlords now rapdily backpedaling when that eveidently turns out even worse for themselves faster.

IF everyone is a computer expert, an ooga booga armed with a rock can finish on an entire country. Many such cases. Sad! Also telegony is real, super resistant std’s will patroll the roasties irragardles of their sex.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Social pressures are dividing people between promiscuous on the one hand, and neutered eunuchs on the other. The survivors will be those who rise about eunuch hood to breed and reproduce without falling into the promiscuous camp. Recognizing these social pressures is very hard for those wedded to Churchianity.

• Aeoli Pera says:

More specifically, it will be sexually moral GROUPS of men who can work together without fear of cucking each other, enabling trust.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Yes, and in every group there is alpha, omega, and points in between. The morality has to enable trust and cohesion between the classes. People try to limit the alphas beyond what God Himself did, and then complain when the alphas turn around and soil the nest bigly.

• bicebicebice says:

The irony here is that nu-males would choose super mario, over a hoe breaking up his circle of bing bing buddies. It is very strange, it can’t be described, but such an outlandish thing can be set up. Between children and super mario, women can not destroy, they come last.

It sounds like “AHAHA YEAH GOOD LUCK WITH THAT”, but It is doable. Then you just create some fake jobs for women and give them the vote, but all public conduct is done in latin in the sauna on benis inspection day. Kinks to be worked out are racemixing and std/telegony, the majority can be salvaged and some people are foreign genetically but whiteish on the outside, hard too accept but that is the genetic pill side-effect, the truth at the core of being. A passing sape is still a sape, guess why it is called the genetic lottery. Sad to see some folks go but hey can’t force a guy to win.

Women are so full of pride that it just might work. I am oldfasioned in that i don’t think a few minutes with loose lips is worth sinking ships, especially not the one I am on nor my buddies.

Now that some have worked so hard in their way to certain positions in society, lets keep them there and never allow them to leave. Women have never had as little worth in all of history as today in the current year era. I am optimistic the entire scenario is so perfectly problematic that turning it upside down solves it. Really.

• Aeoli Pera says:

>You conflate polygamy, which is the Biblical, patriarchal form of marriage, with promiscuity, aka “soft harems” aka “sleeping around”.

The math will only care about number of sexual partners.

>Rectify the names, and you’ll get no argument from me. You have a bug up your butt against “polygamy”, but your discourse consistently shows you are talking about promiscuity, not polygamy.

I expect that the Biblical scenario was a case of “because your hearts were hard”, but regardless we can see that Israel lost enough wars to bleed off excess males (and then some, in some cases). So it fits the model I’m proposing.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Your expectation doesn’t match up with the Bible. 2 Samuel 12:8 shows what God thinks of a man having multiple wives:

2 Samuel 12:8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more of these.

There is God telling David “you wanted more than the dozen wives I already gave you? I’d have given you more!”

3. Craig says:

You already proved it mathematically cannot be done (the Manichean utopias imagined by self-ingratiating thought leaders who think you can have *some* sleeping around and not be a 3rd-world country.) Unless it is like cooking the books type of accounting. Oh and Akuma is a loser so you don’t think I’m one of his sock accts.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Aeoli proved nothing, he was just setting up the groundwork for what looks like an epic computer simulation, if he is up to coding it. I already did the work of coding up population simulations for Biblical polygamy and found that every man who is patient enough to wait until age 27, can have 2 virgin 17 year old brides.

• SirHamster says:

Meaning a 17 year old young man has to wait 10 years before he can marry and have sex, so that some 27 year old “Alpha” (relatively speaking) can have a second wife now.

No downsides there, obviously. /sarc

Send the young men off to war, hope they die off to imbalance the sex ratio, and expect population growth to help mask the fact that each generation of young men is getting beggared by the previous.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Two virgin brides in their nubile prime… Yeah, waiting until age 27 is to be “beggared” like that is cruel and unusual. No man can wait that long to get married. Ever in history. Ignore the Bible patriarchs who waited until age 40. Ignore Aeoli who actually has waited that long already.

Your comment about sending young men off to war to die is complete non sequitur. Unrelated to reality, the mathematics, or anything I said. Age differential (sexual dimorphism) is all it takes.

• Aeoli Pera says:

This attitude comes from conflating sexual hopelessness and late loss of virginity. The statistics indicate real concern here, although it is likely not “sexual starvation” (not a real thing) so much as despair from growing self-awareness of massive dysfunction:

“To add insult to injury, those who lose their virginity at a later age—and we are talking around 21 to 23 years old—are candidates for experiencing sexual dysfunction problems later in life, according to researchers at Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute’s HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies.”

• Mycroft Jones says:

I’d like to read that study. Sounds dubious. Columbia University has been at the heart of a lot of shit Marxist social engineering. Despair comes from social configuration, not from actual facts on the ground. Availability of virgin brides has to do with society encouraging promiscuity and obesity and discouraging marriage, not from actual lack of females. The Word says “My people perish from lack of vision”. Attacking Biblical marriage isn’t the way forward out of this current mess.

• Aeoli Pera says:

I agree, it likely comes down to correlation. People who wait until 23 are more likely to be damaged goods, therefore virgins, rather than the other way around. If you look at the statistics, there is no one who actually does Biblical thing in America (sectarians like Mormons possibly being an exception, see: https://www.unz.com/isteve/where-to-get-your-mrs-degree/).

• SirHamster says:

> Two virgin brides in their nubile prime… Yeah, waiting until age 27 is to be “beggared” like that is cruel and unusual. No man can wait that long to get married. Ever in history. Ignore the Bible patriarchs who waited until age 40. Ignore Aeoli who actually has waited that long already.

Two prime virgin brides 10 years in the future is the promise. Pay you tomorrow for a burger today.

2:1 for every single man requires a 2:1 female to male ratio. Ah, but no one’s ever thought of pulling a Social Security and borrowing from the future! So we give extra women to the men in their prime today, and promise the young men of today that in 10 years time, they can do the same to the next generation of young men.

It’s a decent spiel if your target audience thinks of themselves as the 27 year old getting two beautiful virgins. Makes it easier to not think too hard of where those extra women will come from.

But is this actually sustainable? The fact that it’s comparable to Social Security is not promising. I hope to suffer the loss of SS so that the next generation won’t deal with it, so you get an idea of where my sympathies lie.

Feel free to lay out your proposal in detail, or even share your excel spreadsheet model. I bet I can poke holes in it. Are you willing to put your ideas to the test?

• Heaviside says:

Social Security is completely sustainable. The federal government can always print money to cover its liabilities. (I am not being sarcastic) If SS spending causes excessive inflation then you’ve got other problems.

It’s impossible to “borrow from the future”, because the future doesn’t exist yet. Borrowing is always between different groups of people in the present.

• Mycroft Jones says:

You are the only one comparing it to social security. I ran the simulation for thousand year periods and pasted the source code online. Anyone can run it for themselves and see the stability of the system.

• SirHamster says:

> I ran the simulation for thousand year periods and pasted the source code online. Anyone can run it for themselves and see the stability of the system.

• SirHamster says:

> Social Security is completely sustainable.

It could be. As designed, it isn’t. That’s why they’re raising taxes and cutting benefits.

> The federal government can always print money to cover its liabilities. (I am not being sarcastic)

Duh. That’s just another form of taxation.

> It’s impossible to “borrow from the future”, because the future doesn’t exist yet.

It’s not literal. It means you’re using resources in the present in a way that you expect someone else in the future to pay for. The future is future generations.

Two problems: One is that you mis-estimate the ability of the future to fulfill the commitments you make. The other is that morally corrupt abuse the delay to put unpayable burdens on future generations.

This is what the current blackpilled set are looking at. The past spent our future. Hence the Boomer hate.

• Heaviside says:

>Duh. That’s just another form of taxation.

No, it isn’t. Taxation takes liquidity out of the economy and government spending injects more into it.

>It’s not literal. It means you’re using resources in the present in a way that you expect someone else in the future to pay for.

Which is not a given. Critics of welfare spending pretend that there exists some kind of perfect fungibility between capital goods and consumer goods, so that production of consumer goods in the present immediately detracts from the production of capital goods in the present, but this isn’t true. It should be intuitively obvious that producing more shirts is not incompatible with producing more automatic looms. In fact, increasing the demand for consumer goods increases the amount of cash corporations have to invest in new equipment and the demand itself creates a market for the products of that investment.

• SirHamster says:

@Heaviside

Refresh my memory – were you the one who thinks the Nazis won WWII?

> No, it isn’t. Taxation takes liquidity out of the economy and government spending injects more into it.

Switching terms there. Printing money is a wealth tax (dilute value of all dollars) combined with government spending. Printing money is both government spending and a form of taxation.

Taxation is all forms of government demanding and taking money from non-government entities. Liquidity and the economy are not relevant to whether or not an act is taxation. That the government claims money from individuals is a tax.

> Which is not a given.

What are you saying is not a given?

• Heaviside says:

>Printing money is a wealth tax (dilute value of all dollars) combined with government spending.

Then you would agree that taking money from non-government entities and removing it from circulation via taxation is a wealth “subsidy” that increases the “value” of all dollars, right?

>Taxation is all forms of government demanding and taking money from non-government entities.

When the government prints money and gives it to non-government entities, that is the opposite of taking it from non-government entities.

>What are you saying is not a given?

That current consumption detracts from future consumption.

• SirHamster says:

> Then you would agree that taking money from non-government entities and removing it from circulation via taxation is a wealth “subsidy” that increases the “value” of all dollars, right?

No. Not a subsidy. Government doesn’t “remove money from circulation via taxation”, because that’s government doesn’t hoard tax dollars.

> When the government prints money and gives it to non-government entities, that is the opposite of taking it from non-government entities.

Printing money devalues money, which is effectively taking it from those who own them. Eg: non-government entities.

> That current consumption detracts from future consumption.

When the program is literally designed so that people pay in now for the promise of future benefits, this is an explicit present/future trade-off.

• Heaviside says:

>Government doesn’t “remove money from circulation via taxation”, because that’s government doesn’t hoard tax dollars.

Every dollar collected via taxation is removed from circulation in the private sector, and the government can hoard dollars; that’s called running a surplus.

>Printing money devalues money, which is effectively taking it from those who own them.

This is like saying that adding water to an aqueous solution and diluting it is the same as removing water and dehydrating it.

>When the program is literally designed so that people pay in now for the promise of future benefits, this is an explicit present/future trade-off.

That’s how we designed it, but that’s not a law of nature.

• SirHamster says:

> that’s called running a surplus.

TFW you think you’re smart for pointing out that a thing called “surplus” exists. Not interested in your theorycrafting about a fantasy government that runs a continuous surplus and builds up a giant chest of money.

> This is like saying that adding water to an aqueous solution and diluting it is the same as removing water and dehydrating it.

Your model of taxation as increasing the value of money is stupid. Taxation is the transfer of money from individuals to government. Printing money accomplishes the purpose of taxation without making people directly pay the government.

> That’s how we designed it, but that’s not a law of nature.

Did I say anything was a law of nature?

• Heaviside says:

>Not interested in your theorycrafting about a fantasy government that runs a continuous surplus and builds up a giant chest of money.

Real governments know it’s a mistake.

>Your model of taxation as increasing the value of money is stupid.

That’s not very specific.

>Taxation is the transfer of money from individuals to government. Printing money accomplishes the purpose of taxation without making people directly pay the government.

The federal government does not need to collect taxes in order to spend money; it has a printing press. The purpose of taxation is to strengthen the dollar and control inflation. Why else would it bother to collect taxes when they are so totally unpopular?

>Did I say anything was a law of nature?

So you agree that current consumption does not necessarily detract from future consumption.

• SirHamster says:

> Real governments know it’s a mistake.

“Real” governments run a large deficit by printing money. Venezuela is Best Real Government.

> That’s not very specific.

Don’t need to be. If you think that’s an accurate and useful model of taxation, there’s not much conceptual common ground for discussion.
.
> The purpose of taxation is to strengthen the dollar and control inflation. Why else would it bother to collect taxes when they are so totally unpopular?

Why don’t you provide a graph of the strength of the dollar, inflation, and level of taxation for an example nation or two to demonstrate that relationship. (but if you can’t, that would be why I think it’s stupid)

On the other hand, a couple reasons on why government might collect taxes even if it were economically unnecessary:
– Dominance move (you are the government’s bitch)
– Coerce behavior (people will act differently if taxes make some activities more expensive)

If you’re going to ask a rhetorical question with such obvious alternative answers, your thesis needs work.

>

• Heaviside says:

The whole reason why you have to fork over your cash every April is because our current income tax system was instituted during WWII to control inflation.

“This means, first, that the new Revenue Act must help to check inflation, for nothing in the economic field can interfere with the war effort as much as an uncontrolled rise in prices. An inflationary price rise is a source of grave social injustice. It undermines morale and impedes war production.” — Henry Morgenthau

http://www.taxhistory.org/Civilization/Documents/Fiscal/HST29036/29036-1.htm

“Under the new tax system, the number of individual taxpayers grew from 3.9 million in 1939 to 42.6 million in 1945, and federal income-tax collections during the period leaped from \$2.2 billion to \$35.1 billion. By the end of the war, nearly 90 percent of the members of the labor force submitted income-tax returns, and about 60 percent of the labor force paid income taxes. In 1944 and 1945, individual income taxes accounted for roughly 40 percent of federal revenues, whereas corporate income taxes provided about a third—only half their share during World War I. Mass taxation had become more important than class taxation.”

W. Elliot Brownlee, Federal Taxation in America: A Short History

• Aeoli Pera says:

Mycroft’s belief is that, properly understood, his model provides an average of two wives for every man. I’m skeptical, but we haven’t hashed it out yet.

• Mycroft Jones says:

You don’t have to “properly understand”. You just have to run the simulation and watch things play out.

• Aeoli Pera says:

Please remind me where it is.

• Mycroft Jones says:

I think the old forum is down. I sent you a link on Skype with the code. Since Hamster asked respectfully, I request you share the code with him by email or whatever means of communication he has with you. I’d have emailed you but not sure what your email address is.

• SirHamster says:

@Mycroft

The handle @gmail.com will do it. Thank you.

• Aeoli Pera says:

>Aeoli proved nothing, he was just setting up the groundwork for what looks like an epic computer simulation, if he is up to coding it.

The difference between “proof” and “argument” in math is drawn arbitrarily (see the example in Lockhart’s Lament), but I take your point. What I’ve done is merely to provoke an “oh shit” reaction in the stomach, but there’s no harm (to neanderthals) in explicating the implicit.

It’ll end up being an Excel spreadsheet, which I’m up to.

• Aeoli Pera says:

>You already proved it mathematically cannot be done (the Manichean utopias imagined by self-ingratiating thought leaders who think you can have *some* sleeping around and not be a 3rd-world country.)

I set up the model, which is enough for some people.

>Oh and Akuma is a loser so you don’t think I’m one of his sock accts.

I remember you from way back. Cognitive berzerker, right?

• Mycroft Jones says:

It only seems enough because it is conceptually hard to mentally model systems that self-interact over time. That is where simulation software comes in. Chaos and fractals. You don’t know what will happen until you extensively wargame and play the scenarios out.

4. Mycroft Jones says:

Quote: You can either assume that women and men reproduce at approximately the same age, so that P_2 = M_2 + W_2, or if you’re Mycroft you may change this detail of the simulation. However, we will be assuming an ideal case where the number of male and female births is the same (empirically, we see that humanity and nature both prefer slightly more male births).

These two things are not the same Aeoli. Differential between male and female live births is not the same as men and women reproducing at the same age. In my simulation I let age of reproduction establish itself according to nature; I set certain minimums and maximums, but they were quite low and reasonable, in the teen years for both. As for ratio of male/female births, my population was accurate to life; I had MORE males being born than females. Age differential was sufficient so that there was STILL a huge surplus of females.

• Aeoli Pera says:

No argument there, different things same paragraph. Poorly written is all.

• Brilliand says:

What did you have as ratio of children born to parents reproducing? (Rate of population growth)

• Mycroft Jones says:

It is variable. Try different settings see the outcome.

• Brilliand says:

I haven’t found your simulation, but I can make my own:

[Functions named with a (male/female)(parent/child) scheme]
[x represents time in generations]
mp(x+2)=mc(x)
fp(x+1)=fc(x)
mc(x)=fp(x)*growth_rate
fc(x)=fp(x)*growth_rate

This assumes that men reproduce at exactly twice the age women do, which is a bit extreme but it works. The important factor here is how rapidly the women multiply – they’re the bottleneck to reproduction, after all. I’d say a 1.5x growth rate (each woman has 3 children, and 50% of all children are female) is reasonable.

It follows mathematically that:

fp(x+n)=fp(x)*growth_rate^n
mp(x+n)=fp(x)*growth_rate^(n-1)
fp(x)/mp(x)=growth_rate

More generally, the number of wives each man can have is equal to (growth_rate)^(male_age/female_age-1)*(female_child_rate/male_child_rate). I think that’s every variable that can be played with, if we require that all men are equal and all women are equal.

I’d be willing to look over your model to compare it with mine, if you’d be willing to send it to me – my email is my handle @gmail.com.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Email sent.

• Brilliand says:

Well, I tried it with 3 children per woman, 2 women per man… and it settled into a pattern of men marrying at 33, women marrying at 17, and 40% of all children being male, which would allow 2.2 wives per man according to my formula. This is actually pretty reasonable and does show that polygamy can work, but it’s also subject to the critiques already mentioned here (it’s only sustainable with significant population growth, and it is a bit late for the man/early for the woman).

I did find a bug – if a man has a child the same year he dies, that child has a 100% chance of being female. This seriously messed with the results when I set it to 2 children per woman.

Your simulation is somewhat dependent on more female births than male births due to men having children old – when I set it to 4 children per woman, and a flat 50% birthrate across the board, the male age of marriage jumped to 52.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Interesting findings Brilliand, I’ll recheck it. I’ll point out that in traditional societies like Yemen, the mean age of marriage for males is 35, not 33, so that is historically plausible. It takes a man that long to really get socially and financially established.

• Mycroft Jones says:

I sent you a fix just now for the daughters-only-in-fathers-dying-year bug. It didn’t affect my results appreciably, but it was present in more cases than just the 2 children per woman case, so glad to have it fixed. Thanks for finding it.

Subject to critiques already mentioned here; which ones are those? It may appear late for the man, early for the woman, but that lots of traditional societies operate exactly this way. And where monogamy is “official”, like in Catholicism, the extra women end up being mistresses, generally a man marries in his 20’s, then takes a mistress in his 40’s. I see this as socially degrading and not good at all. Every child should be the legitimate heir of his father.

You are also right about population growth. I put in a figure of 8 children per woman, as I come from religious communities where that was actually a reasonable norm. As birth rate falls, the surplus of women shrinks (but is always present).

As for the male/female birth ratio, I used the best available data; a straight 50% ratio isn’t realistic. And note, during times of high population growth, a large portion of births would be during the time when a man has more sons than daughters.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this.

• Brilliand says:

The critiques mentioned here are that it’s a long time for the man to wait (which you’ve already given your answer to), and that it works only during times of population growth – if the population goes into decline, waiting longer won’t make more women available. (Though, probably the solution in that case is to go to war, which both kills off men and gains resources to possibly reverse the decline.)

• Mycroft Jones says:

Brilliand, I did the simulation originally to show the spergs and betas that NO, polygamy doesn’t mean “some men won’t get a wife!” With that established as fact, now we can wargame more scenarios, and see how different moralities play out. Of course, I believe in Team Bible; God’s way is always the most kind and benevolent for everyone. So, once you break the mental barrier of polygamy == poor betas never get a wife! then you can progress to the Biblical marriage model where polygamy is allowed so excess women get “soaked up” by the marriage system instead of becoming destructive cat ladies, and so that the occasional alpha male doesn’t turn the nations virgins into whores. And depending on population growth rate, economic pressures keep the system humming, as much or as little polygamy as circumstances dictate.

• Mycroft Jones says:

To expand on the previous comment a bit more, IF EVERY MAN can have TWO virgin brides, and all they have to do is marry at a later age (but still young enough to enjoy vigorous sex in every aspect), then the logical followup is, well, if one man in ten has 2 wives because he is some super sexy alpha male, that doesn’t stop other males from marrying at age 22 or something. But tying down the “alpha males” with two or three wives stops them from deflowering 20 or 30 virgins in the promiscuity system we have now, and when you try to enforce monogamy you get the same thing in a sexual black market of secret trysts and assignations. Because women are impossibly feral and instinctual. It takes a village to raise a child; it takes a whole society to make a woman into a wife.

• SirHamster says:

I was forwarded the link. Thanks.

@Mycroft, since you gave out your code by email privately, I would like to know what sort of restrictions you have on posting snippets publicly for analysis and critique.

@Aoeli, perhaps this thread is not a very good place for dissecting Mycroft’s simulation. Please let me know if you prefer I do it elsewhere on blog or off.

• Mycroft Jones says:

Look at the license that the code is released under.

• Brilliand says:

…Why didn’t you just put the link to the code in this blog’s comments?

5. bonniejohnson says:

Not enough people use math to tackle social issues. I think that this format makes math more accessible to those who otherwise wouldn’t be interested. I think trying to really figure out the consequences for actions in a society is great exercise to get a glimpse of where we are heading and which variables need to change.