So the gigantic incumbents with retail distribution being inefficient makes sense to me. What about the long tail of D2C brands that live on Meta ads? AFAIK, they live and die by their ROAS. I would have to believe that these companies just don't really exist to buy that Meta ads are a "con".
I kind of expected a sober stoicism from mathematicians. Feels silly in retrospect. This is just the math version of the "anti-ai" movement by "artists".
Last sentence doesn't make sense if this is what OP meant. "Once your maintenance drops, running a tiny surplus of just 100 ..." You don't need to drop your maintenance calories, with or without GLPs, to gain weight as you eat at a surplus.
Your maintenance calories would rise as you gained weight. I don't think you're getting 20kg out of a fixed +100. I'm suspicious of a lot of your claims, but this really jumped out.
"I feel good about the vision, because it builds towards a more human future" I wonder if the author truly believes this. I could maybe buy some sort of inevitability argument, but this current framing is very hard to take seriously.
This routinely happens for professional athletes. Don't have any stats, but American professional athletes seem well known for having many children (with many people).