Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Not just volume would be an issue: tiny vocal folds would produce ''very'' high-pitched sounds, probably too high for unshrunken humans to detect even with amplification. And tiny cochleas probably couldn't hear normal-sized human voices, either.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
* Why in the world would anybody think that having all human beings at the bottom of the food chain be a good thing???
to:
* Why in the world would anybody think that having all human beings at the bottom of the food chain would be a good thing???
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
** Why would we think that the poor people would be told that? Poor people are usually at a disadvantage in affording or acquiring information such as through education or access to information resources like the Internet. Those who are more aware and better informed of income inequality are usually the ones who make the most income. It actually makes perfect sense that poor laborers would be more agreeable in getting downsized than the rich or middle-class.
to:
** Why would we think that the poor people would be told that? Poor people are usually at a disadvantage in affording or acquiring information information, such as through education or access to information resources like the Internet. Those who are more aware and better informed of income inequality are usually the ones who make the most income. It actually makes perfect sense that poor laborers would be more agreeable in getting downsized than the rich or middle-class.
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
** It comports with the theme of conservation which is the point of downsizing.
to:
** It comports with the theme of conservation conservation, which is the point of downsizing.
Changed line(s) 23 (click to see context) from:
** The entire movie is basically taking [[ArtisticLicenseBiology artistic]] [[ArtisticLicensePhysics license]] on the entire shrinking process and it's results.
to:
** The entire movie is basically taking [[ArtisticLicenseBiology artistic]] [[ArtisticLicensePhysics license]] on the entire shrinking process and it's its results.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* If a regular downsizer could afford a mansion, why were the ride sharing cars tiny Smart Cars? Why couldn't they be luxury vehicles?
to:
* If a regular downsizer could afford a mansion, why were the ride sharing cars tiny Smart Cars? Why couldn't they be luxury vehicles?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The entire movie is basically taking [[ArtisticLicenseBiology artistic]] [[ArtisticLicensePhysics license]] on the entire shrinking process and it's results.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6,7 (click to see context) from:
* Apparently the long term goal of the scientists who created the downsizing process is to have all of humanity voluntarily shrink. How does they plan to have everyone agree to that? Humans can barely agree where to go to lunch half the time. All it takes is for one nation to not go along with it and they’re giants on a planet of Lilliputians, which I’m sure most governments realize.
** Given how it didn't even cross a single persons mind that oppressive governments would weaponize this tech, it is not unfair to say that they were ''incredibly'' naive.
** Given how it didn't even cross a single persons mind that oppressive governments would weaponize this tech, it is not unfair to say that they were ''incredibly'' naive.
to:
* Apparently the long term goal of the scientists who created the downsizing process is to have all of humanity voluntarily shrink. How does do they plan to have everyone agree to that? Humans can barely agree where to go to lunch half the time. All it takes is for one nation to not go along with it and they’re giants on a planet of Lilliputians, which I’m sure most governments realize.
** Given how it didn't even cross a singlepersons person's mind that oppressive governments would weaponize this tech, it is not unfair to say that they were ''incredibly'' naive.
** Given how it didn't even cross a single
Changed line(s) 13,14 (click to see context) from:
** Why would we think that the poor people would be told that? Poor people are usually at a disadvantage in affording or acquiring information such as through education or access to information resources like the Internet. Those who are more aware and better informed of income inequality are usually the ones who make the most income. It actually makes perfect sense that poor laborers would be more agreeing to be downsized than the rich or middle-class.
** Also if nothing else their tiny amounts of money they have are going to go a lot further when shrunk, not to mention the tax break stated in the movie.
** Also if nothing else their tiny amounts of money they have are going to go a lot further when shrunk, not to mention the tax break stated in the movie.
to:
** Why would we think that the poor people would be told that? Poor people are usually at a disadvantage in affording or acquiring information such as through education or access to information resources like the Internet. Those who are more aware and better informed of income inequality are usually the ones who make the most income. It actually makes perfect sense that poor laborers would be more agreeing to be agreeable in getting downsized than the rich or middle-class.
** Also if nothingelse else, their tiny amounts of money they have are going to go a lot further when shrunk, not to mention the tax break stated in the movie.
** Also if nothing
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added
Added DiffLines:
* Why in the world would anybody think that having all human beings at the bottom of the food chain be a good thing???
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Given how it didn't even cross a single persons mind that oppressive governments would weaponize this tech, it is not unfair to say that they were ''incredibly'' naive.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** We later learn that the downsized don't really make huge comfortable incomes, so they can't afford luxury cars.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also if nothing else their tiny amounts of money they have are going to go a lot further when shrunk, not to mention the tax break stated in the movie.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Why would we think that the poor people would be told that? Poor people are usually at a disadvantage in affording or acquiring information such as through education or access to information resources like the Internet. Those who are more aware and better informed of income inequality are usually the ones who make the most income. It actually makes perfect sense that poor laborers would be more agreeing to be downsized than the rich or middle-class.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I probably didn't make the best folder names, go ahead and change them if you can think of better names.
Added line(s) 7 (click to see context) :
[[foldercontrol]]
[[folder:Universal voluntary downsizing]]
[[folder:Universal voluntary downsizing]]
Added line(s) 7 (click to see context) :
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Income inequality]]
[[folder: Income inequality]]
Added line(s) 7 (click to see context) :
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Smart Cars]]
[[folder: Smart Cars]]
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** It comports with the theme of conservation which is the point of downsizing.
to:
** It comports with the theme of conservation which is the point of downsizing.downsizing.
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Big people can hear small people?]]
* How is it that people's voices haven't been lowered in volume when they have been downsized? Even if they were to shout out on the top of their lungs, us normal-sized people would have difficulty hearing them.
[[/folder]]
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Big people can hear small people?]]
* How is it that people's voices haven't been lowered in volume when they have been downsized? Even if they were to shout out on the top of their lungs, us normal-sized people would have difficulty hearing them.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* If a regular downsizer could afford a mansion, why were the ridesharing cars tiny Smart Cars? Why couldn't they be luxury vehicles?
to:
* If a regular downsizer could afford a mansion, why were the ridesharing ride sharing cars tiny Smart Cars? Why couldn't they be luxury vehicles?vehicles?
** It comports with the theme of conservation which is the point of downsizing.
** It comports with the theme of conservation which is the point of downsizing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's an explicit and repeatedly-stated point that people -- especially victims of oppressive regimes and refugees -- are being downsized against their will.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* Apparently the long term goal of the scientists who created the downsizing process is to have all of humanity voluntarily shrink. How does they plan to have everyone agree to that? Humans can barely agree where to go to lunch half the time. All it takes is for one nation to not go along with it and they’re giants on a planet of Lilliputians, which I’m sure most governments realize.
to:
* Apparently the long term goal of the scientists who created the downsizing process is to have all of humanity voluntarily shrink. How does they plan to have everyone agree to that? Humans can barely agree where to go to lunch half the time. All it takes is for one nation to not go along with it and they’re giants on a planet of Lilliputians, which I’m sure most governments realize.realize.
* Why did the poor laborers agree to be downsized? You would think that, since middle-class people become rich, the poor people who downsized would be told that they'd at least become middle-class. But why were they still poor?
* If a regular downsizer could afford a mansion, why were the ridesharing cars tiny Smart Cars? Why couldn't they be luxury vehicles?
* Why did the poor laborers agree to be downsized? You would think that, since middle-class people become rich, the poor people who downsized would be told that they'd at least become middle-class. But why were they still poor?
* If a regular downsizer could afford a mansion, why were the ridesharing cars tiny Smart Cars? Why couldn't they be luxury vehicles?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
!!Headscratchers
* Apparently the long term goal of the scientists who created the downsizing process is to have all of humanity voluntarily shrink. How does they plan to have everyone agree to that? Humans can barely agree where to go to lunch half the time. All it takes is for one nation to not go along with it and they’re giants on a planet of Lilliputians, which I’m sure most governments realize.
* Apparently the long term goal of the scientists who created the downsizing process is to have all of humanity voluntarily shrink. How does they plan to have everyone agree to that? Humans can barely agree where to go to lunch half the time. All it takes is for one nation to not go along with it and they’re giants on a planet of Lilliputians, which I’m sure most governments realize.
