111–120 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth is AI going to help?
AGI will make the economy far more efficient, increase the rate of scientific innovation, etc. For example, some ancestor of alphafold could spark a revolution in genetic engineering, creating crops which are far more efficient and resilient, etc.
> The findings do not represent a break of the landmark Paris Agreement, which aims to “limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels” over the long term. It seems safe to say we are now locked in to a path that will break the Paris Agreement, unless "long term" includes space sunshades, scattering reflective particles in the upper atmosphere, or other simi…
I guess at some point we will start geoengineering which will either work or kill a lot of people.
The big advantage is that it could be done unilaterally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't humanity survive an increase in 10 degrees? I understand polar bears or other animals that need specific levels of Ice or vegetation in specific areas, but humans are an extremely adaptive species. Edit: I'm getting a lot of responses. It seems like there is a general misunderstanding of what happened during the previous ice age. Humans existed during the previous ice age and humanity survived a major incre…
Such an event would render swaths of the planet truly uninhabitable and much more land un-farmable. Humanity must abandon the tropics entirely. Every costal city is now 300 feet underwater. Billions die in mass migrations and wars on a scale hitherto unseen. The ecosystem of the planet is ravaged by this rapid change, being unable to evolve quickly enough to adapt. The life that remains is agriculture that directly s…
If you're going to talk about the dangers of climate change it would be nice to stick to evidence-based scenarios, not just the scariest unsubstantiated things that can be pulled out of one's ass for the sake of doom fetishism.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2020/10/IPCC_SR15_Wo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. It is all just distraction. Only way is one that will never happen: de-growth.
I agree, except I am pretty sure de-growth will happen, it just will not be under voluntary or controlled conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. It is all just distraction. Only way is one that will never happen: de-growth.
> New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. Those two statements are in direct conflict. Look at these two graphs, one for UK CO2 emissions [0] and the other for England's population [1] (Sorry I couldn't get a UK population graph, but to the best of my understanding they're proportional). Population is up 20%, CO2 emissions ar…
And meanwhile require a complete redoing of all interior finishes, including the finish carpentry, in the home. IMO, that's the real barrier (no pun intended) here.
Near Boston, I live in a 1920s structural brick house (I think what the UK would call cavity wall construction). The house was built without any explicit "this material is insulation" and has been retrofitted with attic fiberglass, attic floor cellulose, and I spray foamed one room we renovated. Some of my rooms are painted, which would be manageable cost-wise, but still would have a 20+ year payback period if money had no cost to borrow. Other rooms have intricate wallpaper or decorative wood paneling which would be much more expensive to recreate (pushing the payback period much farther out).
With interest rates above 5%, a 20-year-at-0-interest project literally never pays to do. Even grant programs will often cover the direct insulation work but don't (and frankly, probably shouldn't) pay for intricate finish carpentry work or wallcoverings.
I'm a technological accelerationist simply because I'm certain, with the 30 years of warming baked in from this point + the impossibility of carbon emissions lowering on average anytime soon, the only way to save the world's species, our state and growth of civilization and such is through technological advances, AI, terraforming, etc. There's no hope simply through austerity, things are too screwed already.
Why can't humanity survive an increase in 10 degrees? I understand polar bears or other animals that need specific levels of Ice or vegetation in specific areas, but humans are an extremely adaptive species. Edit: I'm getting a lot of responses. It seems like there is a general misunderstanding of what happened during the previous ice age. Humans existed during the previous ice age and humanity survived a major incre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expen…
Sure, let’s lower everyone’s standards of living - except for the richest people who won’t change their behavior at all. That’s so politically toxic that its effectively a fantasy. That’s the problem with these tax and prices based economic nudges. They’re effectively punishments, and everyone fucking hates unjust punishments. Think about the person who has to fly to visit a sick family member. Now they’re still flyi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth is AI going to help?
A race of machines doesn't need to eat food, drink water, breathe clean air, and doesn't die from wet bulb temperatures. I bet it's a lot easier to build nuclear reactors when radiation poisoning doesn't matter. The perfect candidate for carrying our cultural torch forward.
AI, which is data-centers have been first-class citizens on this planet. All DCs have air conditioning, which most humans don't have. Without AC, these race of machines will fail often.
Also, this race of machines is refreshed every 3 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you connect the dots a bit more than that? To me this just sounds like self-serving hand-waving.
Technological innovation allows the same amount of consumption with far less collateral impact. For example, before AC, electrification required 1000x more wire than it does now. Streets were covered in poles and electrical wire. Cars produced far more and worse pollution. Every technological innovation in the aim of efficiency reduces the negative collateral impact of human civilization. Likewise, more recently, the…
It was all brought by "technology". We live better than before but not in a sustainable way, replacing every gas car by an EV won't do much, it'll buy us a couple of decades at best, you still need batteries, plastic, steel, energy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expen…
The car one is the most frustrating for me just because global warming is but one of the many problems associated with car-only infrastructure in countries such as the United States. Your point about bunkers is kind of interesting. If society collapses the bunkers are really pointless. I think deep down the “rich people” building them know that. It’s just the same kind of silly doomsday prepping that regular folks do…
Although, if society doesn't collapse I'm not sure if the bunkers are all that useful, maybe for the stockpile of tradable goods? Or as a castle?
> We went from a notable history of great public works to satisfy the ego, libraries to the glory of mankind, beautiful commissioned artwork and sculptures, and more to… well… “my name on a hospital/university”, effective altruism, bigger yachts and doomsday bunkers, and sprawling McMansions filled with boring bowling lanes for boring people.
I'm not all that convinced we aren't just remembering the nicer parts of turn of the century wealthy philanthropy instead of their gold toilets. And effective altruism is at least supposed to be helpful in a different way.
> Of course this is a generalization and, I think a lot of good work is going in to funding research projects and things like space exploration (making fun of wealthy people trying to launch rockets is way too nihilistic for my taste). But on the whole it really seems like our civilization hates itself and the actions of the wealthy seem to reflect that quite clearly.
Oh yes. But the "I want to run away from this doomed planet" is way too obvious. But aren't a bunch of the tech billionaires at least somewhat techno-optimists?