pull down to refresh
35 sats \ 1 reply \ @Fabs 13h \ parent \ on: Are humans responsible for climate change? To what degree? AskSN
Oh come on.
Meanwhile I'm daydreaming about a "Black Death 3.0" which selectively kills of bad genes in the populace; not only would the amount of humans decline, but the chances of conceiving children with a predisposition for developing serious / deadly diseases / handicaps would also shrink greatly.
What's "ZPT"?
It's absolutely human-caused, and I don't see us change anything to combat it - at least not in the dimensions needed.
Humans are egoistic by nature, thus I only see AI or fusion as a last-ditch effort to barely keeps things right; that, or we'll have to adapt to new living circumstances.
You do know that "back then" the world looked a whole lot different, right?
Human populations were sparsely spread across continents, and still partly nomadic.
People back then were not only tougher, but could also handle changes in landscape better; Who cared if the coastline was 5 km further inland or not? A few degrees warmer or colder?
In today's day-and-age, it's all a lot more complicated and damage caused by rising water levels, droughts or too wet seasons is felt much more then back then, hence why it's a big deal.
It's the amount of humans, not what we do per se, I'd say, which causes problems; but of course it's only good and wishful to try and cram even more people onto planet earth. (/S)
And here I am reading Warnet: Deploy and simulate large-scale conflicts... Gotta stop watching so much news.
Guess what: My purchasing power has greatly increase since then, and I still don't really know what to do.
I think that a "true" Artificial Intelligence won't bother about whether or not we simpletons share our rights with it or not; It'll be way ahead of us in pretty much everything anyway, why would it bother about archaic legal frameworks?