Mr_Hu-Man

Mr_Hu-Man t1_ix2sc8h wrote

Actually you’re the one that sounds completely ignorant to the actual facts.

For instance, we do already have the technology to brute force it. A combo of wind, Solar, hydro, geothermal and nuclear fission alongside a robust storage system whilst electrifying what we can would be enough to get to net zero and beyond, plus carbon capture and direct air capture for the rest/reversing.

Secondly, the way I interpret your stance is “but future technologies will save us so what’s the point in caring enough to do anything now”. If I’m correct in that interpretation, that’s just dumb AF. Relying on some yet unpredictable technology versus a highly simulated and rigorously reviewed set of climate scenarios that all point to us needing to take action now to stop the worst effects is ridiculous. The result of taking action on climate change is a net benefit; new industries, new jobs, increased biodiversity and better water and air supplies, increased economic success due to the intrinsic link between nature and economies, adoption of circular economic practises which would keep our environments clean for future generations, less cost in the long run, etc etc etc - there is literally zero argument for not taking action that holds up to scrutiny.

Also, there wasn’t just one ice age, and we had more than rocks and sticks ffs.

I wouldn’t feel so high and mighty if I were you.

17

Mr_Hu-Man t1_iva6971 wrote

Nuclear fission, direct air capture, green-powered desalination plants, wide scale adoption of renewables other than fission, increased capacity to store energy, nature-based solutions that put biodiversity at the forefront: these are how we can do it today. Then if fusion comes along: SORTED.

15

Mr_Hu-Man t1_itiddsm wrote

Reply to comment by starstruckmon in captured with LUMA AI by Shelfrock77

I’m also not the one downvoting you OP, but for real if you’re going to post something in r/singularity, please do some background research so you can at least fill us in with details in the future

−2

Mr_Hu-Man t1_is4wjd0 wrote

No because the risk involved isn’t what makes it gambling. In traditional work you’re literally trading your time/effort/expertise for money, whilst in crypto, stocks and speculative assets like NFTs you’re just rolling the dice and hoping the outcome is positive. Can those hopes be calculated? Sure. But it’s still gambling.

5

Mr_Hu-Man t1_irm4s4w wrote

This was a brilliant read, I appreciate you putting the time into the response.

I agree for the most part, but I also cling onto the idea that we literally can’t predict how AI and automation is going to impact things. It’s like an unaccounted for variable that can’t be added to our models of prediction (I think there’s a term for that, like an ‘unpredictable externality’ or something, but I can’t remember what the term is!).

So whilst I agree, let’s just see what happens as AI develops and is integrated into molecular sciences more and more!

5