Endward23

To be frank, I don't know. I just think we are in a situation where we can rule out some of the possibilities by making comparisons between earlier societies and today, as well as different countries. For example, if we assume that bad living conditions are the root cause, then we have the problem that in earlier societies with much less wealth, that has been more demanding for the average person, people tended to have more children. In addition, we see that people in quite poor countries have a lot of children. You could save the assumption by adding a hypothesis like "if people know that life could be better but cannot achieve that better life, they are less likely to have children". While this might work, we must note that inequality was even worse in earlier societies. The difference between a peasant and a member of the nobility may have been much greater than the inequality we see today (within most socienties). Maybe the peasant wasn't aware of it, or whatever.

Anyway, you need a more complex theory in this case.

Can this pages change to eucariotic lifeforms like human cells?

I quoted the article in order to comment:

One company is aiming to treat infections with a different strategy: arming tiny viruses called bacteriophages with Crispr.

I checked it just out: CRISPR is already part of the intra-celluar immun system of baacterias and archaea.

Whereas antibiotics kill bacteria indiscriminately—including the beneficial kind—phages have evolved to be selective in the strains or species of bacteria they target.

So, the phages would not attacke the "good" bacteria within the stomach but the evil ones. Could be a great idea.

The funny part is that regular taxi drivers have said the same thing about Uber drivers. I do not judge the situation. I just can't avoid to find the situation a bit ironic.

I believe it’s a much more complex topic than that.

I think, most likely, you overestimated the consideration of the majority. I may be wrong, though. Most opinion I read or heard about are more emotional drived.

I have googled it and I just found this report here.

Signal is offering the most accessible e2ee messenger right now.

Doesn't matter. In the reach of EU, some law about Chat Control. If they make this into law, no provider within the EU will have a choice in this matter.

And the majority thinks this way for what reason?

Because "Fake News" and missinformation has been framded as a danger for our societies for a long time.

Telegram has been banned in Russia, as far as I heared.

If you don't care for the guy, you will nearly certainly lose privat messaging in Europe. Maybe, it's even too late by now.

Is there somebody with more knowledge about the matter who could explain the algorithmus to me?

Back in 2016, MS was advertising Customer Lockbox as an answer to gov’t intrusion into customer privacy.

Got it. Sorry for the missunderstanding.