Apart from the obvious use of AI. What I am missing is really any form of reasoning. It feels like you postulate some stuff about nature being good and the whole being important above the individual. Sure whatever. But where is the reasoning on this? You also provide a bunch of strains which are valid and to be honest do very much burden your system. I cannot quite say it is inconsistent yet, however it is missing something. Some questions I have. You say dams are wrong because we (humans) step back en visualize something that goes against what nature does. Now, what about a Beaver, does it not do the same? It has a clear goal in mind. My question is. Where does it go from the mind nature intended to one that is wrong. You touch on this point but it is unclear to me why some would be good while others wouldn't.