This is a mechanism by which some oil deposits are thought to have formed, and by which a large quantity of biospheric carbon was sequestered during earlier warm spells, refered to as the Eocene Azolla Event.
Essentially: arctic seas formed fresh-water "lenses" through meltwater, which promoted plant growth (in particular azolla, though likely also algae and plankton). This growth then sank to the sea-floor, depositing as oils (and much ultimately undergoing keroginisation to form petroleum).
Similar mechanisms have been proposed for addressing carbon sequestration goals in the present, e.g., "CO2 sequestration by propagation of the fast-growing Azolla spp. " <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8520330/>.
This is how effective propaganda works best generally.
Find existing propagation lines (whether positive or negative), and gently encourage them.
Much recent online propaganda, particularly from Russia and China (though those are hardly the only actors) operates along these lines. Russia generally tries to stir up fracture points amongst its adversaries, China seeks more to distract through diversion (e.g., TikTok) though it also has active antagonistic campaigns.
Another classic CIA tactic was not to seek out intelligence, but to plant it, through manufactured journalism. This came out in several 1970s US Congressional investigations of the Agency, by the Church Committee and others.
See "CIA and the Media: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence" (1978):
Biometrics might be useful in establishing a (PKI) key, but are not suitable for the key itself.
"Something you have" is far more useful, especially if that something is itself cryptographically-based. Yubikeys, RSA fobs (generating one-time codes), and wearable NFC tokens (rings, amulets), and the like, which may be autheticated in part based on biometrics and other attestation, but are themselves revokable, would be a far better standard.
What the General Public can be expected to utilise willingly and effectively seems to be the larger problem, as well as what commercial and governmental standards are established.
The automobile's net effect on behaviours has (as others have noted) evolved over that period, as has its net effect on transportation and urbanisation patterns.
Up until the end of WWII, automobile ownership was relatively limited. It was just beginning to accelerate at the beginning of the war (in the US), but rationing and war-time defence manufacturing curbed that trend, and sustained rates of alternative transport, particularly rail.
Post-war, there was a mass-consumer blitz, much of it revolving around automobiles, and changes such as commuter suburbs (based around automobiles), superhighways, self-service grocery stores, shopping malls, and strip-mall based retail development began, all trends which evolved over the next 50+ years.
In the 1970s and 1980s, it was quite common for children to walk or ride bikes to school, or take a school bus (which involved walking several blocks to a nearby stop). Since the late 1990s, far more seem to be ferried in private cars, usually by parents, who spend a half-hour or more in pick-up lines. It's not uncommon for children walking along neighbourhood streets to be reported (and collected) by authorities by concern for their safety, and their parents subject to investigation or worse. Suburban, and even urban development patterns have been to ever-lower-density and far more bike- and pedstrian-unfriendly modes.
Recreational, occupational, educational, and other transport and activity patterns are largely away from self-powered movement (walking, cycling, etc.) and toward motorised options (sometimes including e-bikes, electric scooters, or equivalents, though most often automobiles).
Societal change and consequent impacts take time and have long lags.
reply