Now, we could have another variation. Let's put in something different. So that was sugar escape, let's call it sugar escape version number 4. That said sugars escape version number 5. There's here a very interesting button, inheritance button. So what this inheritance button does, this new rule that we introduced in our artificial society, is that when an agent dies, the remaining wealth that this agent has is divided among all his or her children, just like in reality. What do you think will happen? What do you think is different in our society? What effect, think about it, what effect does inheritance have, for example, on the number of agents and also on the evolution of agents. Is there more or less evolutionary pressure? Let's check it out. So we have our setup, and we go, and we see, the number of agent also increases at the beginning, we increase our number of agents. Started, again, with 400 agents, and then we see, so we reach same here 1,200, 1,200 something agents, 1,300 agents, and we also max out. Then what happens after we maxed out? Yes, we do fluctuate. We do fluctuate too. We're going down. We're going down from 1,300. But we don't bottom so much. We stay above a 1,000, so we don't go down to 800. In the previous simulation we went down to 800, and here we stay above a 1,000. Actually, now even get higher, we're at 1,400 now. I've never had so many agents. We're 1,400 and we fluctuate down again, the predator-prey dynamic has an effect, but we don't bottom as much. We're now here in 1,100, that's the bottom, we don't go all the way to 800. Previously fluctuated to 800 somewhere down here. So the fluctuations are not as pronounced as you can see. Evolution is still going on. We optimized our metabolism, that seems to be very sensitive metabolism. So that optimized very quickly. Our vision is still increasing. It is still increasing. Maybe if we can now accelerate a little bit, interesting the fluctuations, yes, become less and less. Let's stop it. So it's 600 ticks, let's stop at around there. We're now at 600, 601 time steps. Let's look at it. Maybe you can compare it without inheritance rules. So that's the dynamic that we get. It bottoms out much quicker. Metabolism optimized to vision increased from 3.5, which is just the random set up, up to 5.2. But up to 5.2 that's how far we got in vision after 600 time steps. Let's compare that with when we turn the inheritance setting off, and we go. We see, yes, we increase our population as we've seen before. We can accelerate that maybe a little bit. We optimize it, and then, yes, again, we have a deeper dip so that was not coincidence. We're down at 800 tier, maximum 1,300 and we dip 800. The fluctuations, the predator-prey Lotka-Volterra fluctuations are surely more pronounced. We optimize our metabolism very quickly, very sensitive, and let's see what happens to our vision. So we're now here at 500 time steps. [inaudible] 50 times steps, let's go all the way up to 600 to make it comparable. 601 we had. We see, well, we basically, we optimized our vision quite a bit, we are in 5.6, 5.7. So note in 5.2 there is much more evolutionary, well, significant much more evolutionary pressure if we turn the inheritance mechanism off. So if we don't inherit to children, there's more evolutionary pressure, our society evolves quicker. Why is that? Well, it is because if you inherit to children, even the ones who are not the fittest, rich daddy, rich mommy gives them the money, and even though they're not the best of their breed, they can still hang in there. They don't need to make the best effort, have the best vision, or whatever, they can still survive. So actually the inheritance mechanism reduces the amount of competition that we have. We don't have to compete for the best in society with inheritance. We can just give it to children who are not the best in show, and they can still survive, so it slows down inheritance mechanism, slows down the speed of evolution in society. In the role of public policy, inheritance mechanism and how to regulate inheritance mechanism, that's very powerful, and very useful, and very common policy tools that you have. It's regulated in different societies differently. One thing that I'm always fascinated about is, if you ask the rich, the super-rich, the multi-millionaires, and the billionaires, especially the self-made ones, the ones that made the fortune themselves during their lifetime, if you ask them about taxes, of course, nobody likes taxes. But if you do an anonymous survey about what taxes are they particularly bothered by, or what taxes they find hindering, and what taxes they don't mind so much actually, I always find it fascinating that if this survey is anonymous, it turns out that the self-made multi-millionaires and billionaires, they do not mind inheritance tax at all. So basically, they say, after me, I made this money by myself and when I'm dead, take it from me. You can take it from me and distribute. What I want to give to my children, I can give to them during my lifetime and make sure they're on the right path and they have everything they need. But actually, if you then take the money from me and distribute it for the people who really need it, who also want to be self-made, that I don't have a problem with it. Now, they also say you have to force me and nobody should know. Because if my children would know that I would like you to take these hundreds of millions of dollars from me, I want them to respect my grave stone. So obviously, there has to be anonymous survey and respect their privacy or family relationships. But in that case, inheritance tax and regulation is actually something that I'd say could be a very powerful tool to make more just societies and more prosperous societies as you're seeing it right now. Basically, when people die, redistribute. That's what we played with, if that's useful or if it's not useful.
