161–170 of 504 posts
We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.
Or maybe AI will just nuke humans to fix climate change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Mother' Gaia will wipe all complex life from this planet with 1 to 1.5 Billion years if her 'undisciplined' puppies don't find a way to leave this ball of dirt. She's also got quite a lead with killing off 99.99999% of all species that ever lived, when compared to us.
Everyone hell bent on leaving is actually distracted from the real less immediately glamorous challenge, which is learning to sustain life and exercise restraint.
An asteroid/comet impact big enough to wipe us out is a statistically certainty - not science fiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nature is out to kill us. We’re doing a far better job in this fight than we ever have. I’d rather deal with problem of climate change than the problems of our ancestors.
That's not true at all. Remember CFCs and the ozone layer? That was a comparable problem, except people actually stopped that one, by no longer emitting the gasses causing the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#1 is very real #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved by human ingenuity I have a more positive outlook. :)
The idea that we are going to technology our way out of climate change is hilariously naive. That would require us to remove more co2 from the atmopshere each year than we add, which is just a laughable idea to achieve within the required time frame of the next 15 years or so.
> “We think they are caused by a dramatic collapse of the North American ice sheet. This sets into motion a chain reaction that involves changes to the tropical monsoons, the Southern hemisphere westerly winds and these large burps of CO2 coming out of the oceans.” Right. CO2 lags temperature increase, it does not drive temperature increase. Unless 'ice sheet collapse' is driven by something other than an increase in…
It actually does both. The increase in CO2 causes temperature increase which is well documented in the literature. But increase in temperature also causes the release of CO2 which further increases the temperature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Mother' Gaia will wipe all complex life from this planet with 1 to 1.5 Billion years if her 'undisciplined' puppies don't find a way to leave this ball of dirt. She's also got quite a lead with killing off 99.99999% of all species that ever lived, when compared to us.
Everyone hell bent on leaving is actually distracted from the real less immediately glamorous challenge, which is learning to sustain life and exercise restraint.
Unless you're willing to exterminate people who don't comply, the incentives are such that maintaining the status quo will give economic (and military) advantages.
Besides, over long time scales there's more to fear than a few degrees of climate change.
We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.
Letting off a few nukes could slow climate change a bit right? I vaguely recall that all the dust kicked up by the hundreds of tests in the 50s and 60s had an effect.
But volcanic eruptions that cause a winter like that tend to be quite a bit more powerful than your average nuclear weapon. More importantly, not all dust is created equal. Sulphur containing compounds tend to have the biggest cooling effect. One neat (in a terrifying sort of way) geo-engineering idea is continuously injecting large amounts of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere.
We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.
#1 is marketing hype. #2 is very real. #3 is happening and could cause #2 if wars for livable land and water resources break out.
The weekly news regarding AI are always adding new things to ai.
We started pouring billions into ai.
The amount of new research papers regarding AI are exploding.
I would argue that it is not marketing hype or aluminum hat thinking to take that serious
Great visualization from Randall Munroe: https://xkcd.com/1732/ Literally everyone should see this. Edit: Evidently many people still do not get the point The point is that yes, climate has changed in the past, and the individual values are not the problem. The PROBLEM is that it has never changed this FAST . By orders of magnitude. Velocity changes everything. Consider just taking a sip of your coffee 1000X as fast…
The choice to start at 2000 BC is interesting, because as soon as you zoom out more, the story completely changes: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356606430/figure/fi... https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt... Randall chose one of the lowest point every in the history of earth as the "baseline". We are still in one of the coldest period ever for earth. The recent rise of temperature i…
Randall's graph starts at a little over 4C lower than current temperatures. The most recent minimum on your first graph is 7C below current temperatures.
Your 2nd graph couldn't be shown in Randall's format because it would either take too long to scroll, or it wouldn't have the resolution needed to show the dramatically higher rate of change.
> The recent rise of temperature is significant, but not unprecedented.
The rate of change is unprecedented.
> Before we reach a point that one could qualify as a "hot earth", we would need to warm up by an additional 10 to 15 C°
Billions will die before that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumption isn't a perfect knowledge game (although people are more educated now than they used to be). Individuals are never going to be perfectly equipped to evaluate the ramifications of every purchase they make. Regulations on production and the impact of delivering certain goods are the only real solutions. Because production itself can induce demand, it has to take at least part of the responsibility.
We are well past being equipped to know the ramifications of using energy to move mass long distances. Using more space, traveling further distances, and moving more mass is all it comes down to. In order of impact, it means detached homes, individual huge car and air transport, animal food products, and shipping things across oceans (aka things stamped with made in China). Approximately no one is willing to give up…
You can see the same thing if you look at the energy cost of food shipping: perishable goods like asparagus are shipped in refrigerated planes, and the added energy of shipping is huge, whereas bananas are shipped on cargo ships.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-transport-by-mode
For example