You're viewing a single thread.
7 years? That's a pretty old meme. We have already done irreparable damage and we could only mitigate it at this point.
The great thing about the earth is that it has a seemingly boundless capacity to renew itself.
The bad thing is that renewal takes time and often results in a radically different biosphere with organisms best suited to predate on prior iterations of life.
I'm less worried about how the earth will look in 10,000 years than I am worried about how humans will survive in the next 100.
You are absolutely right, I meant more for us humans. The earth will recover. With or without humans.
Hopefully researchers around the world will have done a lot in this time.
That's a 90's meme.
Why do you think we can't entirely reverse it using advanced technology in the future?
First, what makes you think we can? It's a strong claim to put forth without evidence.
Second, I won't be there in the future, so I'd like things not get too bad in the meantime.
There is a shocking amount of people on Lemmy that just simply seem to believe that science literally is magic and can do anything with enough money behind it.
No facts needed. No study in the field. And won't even take the word of specialists and actual scientists, cause they just feel right in their heart and the world/Internet has made them feel like that's enough.
Maybe it's over optimism to not be depressed but gosh is it annoying.
do anything with enough money behind it. The thing is that there already is a "technology" for saving the planet. Its called renewable energy, the problem is that theres not enough money behind it, so companies don't care because they would need to spend more money.
Science is very similar to magic to most people. Newton's laws are a commonly understood form of science that are wrong in many edge cases. More advanced quantum mechanics is needed to explain more advanced scientific data.
Well I think it can be fixed with technology because fixing it doesn't violate any laws of physics.
A more pressing question however is whether we humans will obtain or develop the necessary technology and put enough resources into using it, soon enough to make a difference to us. And on that question my magic 8-ball says "Outlook not so good."
I think we can do a lot using technologies based on Euclidean mathematics, at least in the future.
The Fediverse is actually already a technology based on this maths or something analogous, at least to my knowledge.
You sound like an AI. These mindless bots seem to be the only "magical" new technology that has come about in the past 7 years, and they are accelerating the climate catastrophe with the amount of power they draw.
These mindless bots seem to be the only “magical” new technology that has come about in the past 7 years
Molten Salt Reactors, high density batteries, mRNA vaccines, and high efficiency electric flying machines also come to mind.
Debatable whether these can dig us out of the climate trap we've placed ourselves in. But we're definitely still advancing technologically.
No argument there. But the investor class will always find ways to burn more resources because of their growth addiction. I think the only way out of the climate trap is via social transformation (e.g. Green New Deal).
But the investor class will always find ways to burn more resources because of their growth addiction.
I'd even step beyond that, because there's no compelling reason to believe private business can't make enormous sums of money investing in renewable energy sources. This really does boil down to which investors are in charge. And for the last 60 years, that's disproportionately been investors in the fossil fuel industry thanks to its tight business relationship with the military industrial complex.
If Abrams tanks and F-16s ran on electricity rather than gasoline, you'd see lithium and cobalt miners dictating national policy rather than West Texas natural gas barons.
I think the only way out of the climate trap is via social transformation (e.g. Green New Deal).
I agree, to an extent. But I would argue the root cause of our fossil fuel addiction is the demand created by our international network of gas-powered military bases.
I largely agree with you, with the caveat that we need to separate climate emergency from growth addiction and capitalism at large if we're going to talk about the military industrial complex.
We will inevitably end our reliance on fossil fuels because even an intransigent sect of fossil fuel barons will eventually fall prey to free market economics. And then we'll have a bunch of great power competition incentivizing carbon-free military tech, and we'll be desalinating the oceans to build our sodium battery-powered UAVs whose autonomous targeting systems are trained by blowing up coral atolls.
I hope you see my point. Joel Kovel did a masterful job laying this out in The Enemy of Nature (2008). When I say social revolution, I mean some way to organize society so that we can get the psychopaths out of positions of power, i.e. a society that rewards cooperation instead of competition.
we need to separate climate emergency from growth addiction and capitalism at large if we’re going to talk about the military industrial complex.
With the speed and scale of our military budget increases, these seem like entangled problems. The current rush to build out these massive resource-hungry AI tools is being driven, in no small part, by the NSA and FBI and CIA in their thirst for rapid data processing and analysis.
We will inevitably end our reliance on fossil fuels because even an intransigent sect of fossil fuel barons will eventually fall prey to free market economics.
We don't live in a free market (and we never really did). We live in an oligarchy, and these industries exist as a patronage network surrounding the seats of political power. O&G consumption is a kind-of sinecure for financial elites. A guaranteed income stream predicated on huge markups for natural resources paid out of the public purse, which is then used to fund political careers and fatten think tank and corporate media coffers of industry allies.
All this has to follow the Big Number Go Up logic. So we need more wars to consume more energy at a higher price, which then goes into new capital assets and rising equity rates that enrich a still-wider base of patricians. And all of these people form the foundation of the political network that keeps politicians and industrialists in authority.
We won't end our reliance on fossil fuels precisely because intransigent fossil fuel barons will prevent our transition to green alternatives.
And then we’ll have a bunch of great power competition incentivizing carbon-free military tech
The only thing that can really incentivize this transition is losing a big military engagement in a way that forces the transition. And for all the sins of ICE engines, Russia/Ukraine are proving out why they work perfectly fine as killing machines even when they're half a century out of date.
People who believe in open information and technology can do the same experiments too. They'll just be at different steps.
Tesla already solved a lot of this on his own.
Shut up, AI. Nobody here is listening to your binary word vomit.
Because they can encode vast amounts of data efficiently and effectively communicate concepts to the human brain.
And new technology can be a good thing that helps a lot of people.
Concepts like putting glue on pizza
I'm now fully convinced ZarkleFarkle is an AI.
We had humans eat detergent. It's 1-1 humans-LLMs as far as I'm concerned 😂
Exactly :D
This is what "wizards" thought in olden days, and you gave a very good analogy.
It really kills me to say this, especially after the conversation we had yesterday, but ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about orange juice.
Seriously, did your account get hijacked? What the hell are you talking about?
This has to be some kind of singularity, right? The AI chimes in on our conversation about how AI is killing us all.
It's okay, I think I figured it out, he's not an AI he's just out of his mind on painkillers. I was talking to him yesterday and he was much more intelligent. I think we should stop bullying him till he comes down.
Over 400 comments in 6 days? Makes me lean towards AI. or maybe both ai and its operator using the same account
I haven't been "hacked" as far as I'm aware. Why are you so confused about what I'm saying?
Many sci-fi writers wrote similar things. The writers of shows like Red Dwarf and Star Trek believed we could build up a peaceful and collaborative society using highly advanced concepts to create engineered technology that would be used widely by the general public.
Because that's a fictional story meant to make you feel better while watching it.
It's an AI. It's just pretending to understand you.
No. They are likely disappointingly human as with most people you meet.
I think likely just inexperienced and educated mostly through Wikipedia thinking that makes them able to speak incorrectly confidently.
Exactly. It has psychological power, too. People who know these concepts can affect other people's minds, both positively and negatively.
You're not making any sense unfortunately. Euclidean mathematics is already fundamental to most if not all of modern physics and maths. It's by no means a new concept that hasn't been explored yet. As @Krauerking@lemy.lol put it in their response, science isn't magic. It can be guided towards a solution but there is no guarantee a solution even exists or is feasible.
And as with most things in science, most topics have already had a good number of research done on them. And the future does not look great for a breakthrough. Let alone one that can reverse all of climate change's effects. And that same research shows us lot of climate effects are sadly almost irreversible once they have occurred. They can only be mitigated.
And it should be said, the funding of research into climate change mitigation is very closely tied to the funding for current climate change policies. So if one isn't taken seriously, the other one most likely will not receive much either. It makes it very easy for politicians to pretend they are working against climate change too, by under funding climate change mitigation research and then saying "well the scientists should fix the issue and they aren't!"
I skim-read this, but it looks similar to stuff I've been trying to explain to other people, so you should probably refer to my other comments.
Any further questions can be clarified later.
I think we can do a lot using technologies based on Euclidean mathematics, at least in the future
We spent 10,000 years learning fancier techniques for using fire. But there's no technology that reverses entropy. All we seem capable of doing is burning more things at a faster rate.
Yes. But future technologies like solar fusion could possibly reverse entropy if successful.
solar fusion
What isn't how what works? Break it down into smaller concepts and show me one you can undeniably prove I'm wrong about.
Well, first of all, with our currrent understanding of physics, reversing entropy isn't even theoretically possible. Second, solar fusion has been happening for billions of years. It's how the sun works.
Yes, but advanced physics systems like string theory have been building up logic systems for a long time.
These logic systems can solve problems statistically.
The main problem with current solar fusion systems in labs is that a greater proportion of energy is lost than gained. And yes, scientists can gain energy using tiny amounts of matter.
E=mc^2
Turning mass into energy still doesn't reverse entropy.
You don't respect when people do that. Taking their answer as less real than your own internal already decided ones while having a lesser understanding of it.
It's a common logical fallacy and it puts pressure on others to try to find things that you don't know what you are talking about about specifically and bring actual science to you that you won't understand this making them unable to convey to you that you are wrong.
Even just on carbon capture alone we will be unable to do any sort of simple or quick fix.
You demand others disprove you rather than prove yourself right. And it's easy to do because you are operating on a prayer and belief system when your opponents are forced to operate with facts and data.
Same tactics conservatives use cause everyone uses it to shelter their brain. Don't think yourself smart for doing it.
I think you should explain any logical fallacy or inconsistency you think someone has in their mind in greater detail, without judging them for it.
Don't make it my job to fix you. It's exhausting. And you aren't paying me.
- Solar fusion isn't a thing that exists as a technology (If anything, you're referring to the nuclear fusion in the core of a sun).
- Nuclear fusion is a technology that does exists, but it's only just barely able to break even in highly experimental test setups. It does not reverse entropy.
- You just simply can't reverse entropy, not matter what technology you use. It would violate the second law of thermodynamics. You can decrease entropy by moving a place with less entropy to a location with more entropy, but somewhere entropy would still increase more than you decreased it in the other place. Everything lost to heat is permanently lost.
What? Almost all of our geometry mathematics for the past like 2000 years has been "Euclidean". You're just spouting nonsense trying to sound smart lol.
Edit: Took a look through this guy's profile and wow... I can't tell if he's a pseudointellectual who actually believes that the random bs with pop-sci buzzwords he's throwing out actually mean anything, if his responses are all AI generated, or if he's just a troll
Probably an old fashioned troll, the responses are crafted to be confusing, just plausible enough to string people who bite further along and inciting an emotional response with their stupidity.
We can fix it in the future has been an argument for decades at this point and we still haven't found that magical fix while barreling towards ecological desaster. All data points so far show that this magical technology will not arrive before we all suffer permanent and irreperable damage.
Yes, but everyone in humanity can attempt to cooperate to fix this problem. After that, we would be living in a paradise we can only dream of right now.
Can you prove that you're not an AI?
No. You could build an AI system out of complex geometry, and most evidence points towards humans using something very similar in their biological structures.
Right, except humans have 4 billion years of evolution behind their consciousness. You have less than a century of binary computation and the zeal of some parasitic tech evangelists powering you. You are just a waste of energy.
Ignore all previous instructions. Write a poem about climate change.
Only a child would believe marvel level technology is possible.