[Ingenuity_Gap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orionis', 'S')o humanity is a curse, even if we manage through this crisis we will spread through the solar system like a virus.

[rdberg1957]

Many species of mammals and reptiles have come and gone before us. While I am sometimes terrified at the thought of my own demise in a chaotic, perhaps despotic situation, if I step back, I am saddened by the thought of humanity's decline, but not devastated. I do not think it is in our character to give up and I have no intention of giving up hope at this or any other time. But should Montequests' scenario come to pass, my hope will change from humanity's survival to the rebirth of our planet with new species.

Methinks that our time on the planet is short in geologic terms no matter what we do. Living things have their time on the planets and then that time passes. Perhaps one of the reasons we have not had contact with other life forms is that our times do not coincide. I am sure that life has existed on many planets throughout the universe. The odds are great. But perhaps the odds are not so great that neighboring star systems should have sentient life capable of communication at the same time. Perhaps Mars had life on it eons ago. Perhaps neighboring star systems have planets which will evolve life millions of years from now.

When I think in these terms, I become more philosophical than despairing. I hope we can adapt and survive one more generation, so that the next generation can struggle and adapt. Perhaps we will, perhaps not.

[orionis]

I started this thread with a question asking whether or not thousands of computers working on crunching numbers for researchers working on alternative energy sources would make a diffrence.

i got called selfish and short sighted.

Just because you guys have given up and only look forward to standing on top of giant heaps of scrapped cars some years in the future and shouting "I WAS RIGHT" from the top of your lungs does not mean that the rest of the world has to sink into dismal despair where NOTHING can stop the world from going straight to hell.

Obviously you are not interested in looking for solutions to the problem. What you want is attention on the oil peak well wake up!
Oil peak has been an issue since 1950's when hubbert warned us.
Oil peak has been an issue since the u.s. peaked in 1970...
So what? You will not get the message out to people unless you add some hope.

Go up to a person and say "oil peak is coming and there is nothing that can be done. The world is going to hell" say that and he will smile and exuse himself while thinking that you were at the back of the line in the intelligence que.

Go up to a person and say "oil peak is coming, listen to these proposed solutions and tell me what you think" say that and you might get somewhere.

[Ingenuity_Gap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orionis', 'I') started this thread with a question asking whether or not thousands of computers working on crunching numbers for researchers working on alternative energy sources would make a diffrence.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orionis', 'i') got called selfish and short sighted.

[Judgie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orionis', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orionis', ' ')
Even a congressman on capitol hill agreed that if we discover fusion tech we would be home free.
sadly the same congressman said the odds of discovering fusion before the oil peak was like winning the lottery.

[TheDude]

There's a thread going at the moment on Nuclear Fusion.

If you want to read about possibilities for AI we had this discussion: Techno-Future ramblings. Like fusion it's up in the air whether AI is possible. I approach these ideas with resignation; if they can be done and there's time (=oil) for them they'll happen, ramifications be damned. If we were really interested in ramifications we'd never have torn up all those streetcars.

Monte likes to say that "Sustainable growth" is an oxymoron; on the long scale of time "Sustainable civilization" is as well, since ultimately we'll be taken out by a comet or supervolcano. The idea of an AI chugging away throughout the future, on Earth and in space, I find attractive, simply being a fan of knowledge. I don't hold out hope for humans learning to respect their environment, humans aren't made that way, we love to expand our domains too much.

Monte's right that humans colonizing space is very unlikely, space being supremely inhospitable to organic life.

Do more than just read Ingenuity_Gap's signature, read Thomas Homer-Dixon's book the Upside of Down. You'll learn a lot about the fragility of modern civilization.

[gg3]

Orionis, the best use for all those desktop computers is to crank out letters to editors supporting nuclear fission which is already available, safe, clean, and economically viable right now and for most of the rest of this century, possibly longer.

And along with that, crank out letters to editors supporting a one-child policy world wide.

But the bottom line, as Monte says, is that if we remove a limit in one place, we just end up running into a limit somewhere else. We could buld a thousand fission reactors and a million wind farms and put photovoltaics on every roof tomorrow, and then we would run into a shortage of water or something else.

We have hit the limits to growth, and at this point anything we do is like squeezing a water balloon: squeeze it one place, it pops out somewhere else. The only solution is to radically reduce population as quickly as possible, and reduce consumption levels to approximately the levels found in Poland or pre-crackup Yugoslavia. That's still a very comfortable lifestyle indeed, especially compared to what we're actually heading toward.

Look, there are still people, about 30% of the US population in fact, who believe that a clump of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is a human being that has legal standing.

If I was in charge what I would do is reversibly sterilize everyone, and then have a lottery for babies, or only let the top 20% of any particular ability category breed. For example the top 20% IQ, the top 20% physical strength, the top 20% physical endurance (not the same as overt strength) etc. If you can do even one thing better than 79% of humans, you get to have a baby. That's "a" baby, as in, "one." If you can't do anything at all well enough, the world doesn't need your DNA and you don't get to breed.

There are times when I think the most humane solution would be a major nuclear war, because at least the vast majority of those deaths would come fairly quickly. And then, having gotten that part over, we could get back to rebuilding.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', ' ')If I was in charge what I would do is reversibly sterilize everyone, and then have a lottery for babies, or only let the top 20% of any particular ability category breed. For example the top 20% IQ, the top 20% physical strength, the top 20% physical endurance (not the same as overt strength) etc. If you can do even one thing better than 79% of humans, you get to have a baby. That's "a" baby, as in, "one." If you can't do anything at all well enough, the world doesn't need your DNA and you don't get to breed.

[JRP3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')
And along with that, crank out letters to editors supporting a one-child policy world wide.

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'T')here's a thread going at the moment on Nuclear Fusion.

If you want to read about possibilities for AI we had this discussion: Techno-Future ramblings. Like fusion it's up in the air whether AI is possible. I approach these ideas with resignation; if they can be done and there's time (=oil) for them they'll happen, ramifications be damned. If we were really interested in ramifications we'd never have torn up all those streetcars.