What's the area around the door like? Anything to absorb sound? It's going to hit the floors, walls and ceiling and dampening around there can really help.

To give you an idea, I had this attic with about a 20' long, heavily insulated area big enough to crawl through and you had to yell to hear someone at the other end. Now that was fiberglass insulation, but it gives you an idea of how absorption around the area can help modulate noise.

I already said. You're confined in a fragile environment. Anything goes around you'll die. You'll have insufficient oxygen, or too much CO2, or your food will get a disease, or your biosphere will spring a leak. All kinds of shit can go wrong. It's an incredibly fragile and isolated ecosystem. Go read about Biosphere 2 and what actually happened.

>Bubble boy lived so it's not like this isn't possible.

Bubble boy would have died if people didn't bring him food, replace his air filters, generate his electricity, etc.

The Earth won't be as sterile as the moon. We'll die off and the Earth will eventually recover and so will life, without us. The Earth doesn't give a shit about us and doesn't need us and while we can do ourselves in, we won't do it in. Life will go on and eventually the Earth will be a nice place again.

And no, we won't rapidly genetically engineer ourselves out of it because that's sci-fi technology we've yet to develop. I mean, we can genetically engineer, but we'd be more likely to do ourselves in that way through our ineptness than to actually improve anything. We're at the infantile stages of genetic engineering.

You'd die, just like they would have, had they been actually completely isolated.

These things are incredibly fragile. The ecosystem gets out of balance and you're screwed. And the ecosystem is GOING to get out of balance at some point.

There's no escaping. Earth is our home. Once the environment is gone, so are we. That's not going to change in the next 100 years.

But that's what exactly they say in the last sentence:
"These results suggest that individuals’ political views shape their neural responses at a very basic level."

Yeah, we've done such a bang-up job so far. How many articles have I read in the past year where climate change has turned out to be worse than what scientists predicted? Maybe 100. For a while it seemed like there were 1 or 2 a day. This is worse than we expected, that's worse than we expected.

I'm going to go with the AI models 'cause the humans have totally fucked it up.

We have mountains and mountains of climate data. Modern and ancient. And we do have data on runaway greenhouse effects. This isn't the Earths' first rodeo. We have tons of data on past major climate changes.

The cure for addiction would be to rewire the brains of addicts, so no. There won't be a cure until we start genetically engineering people to not be susceptible to addiction, which is probably a good 100 years off.

They would target military installations and manufacturers of weapons and infrastructure. Those would be the primary targets. They're not trying to invade the United States. Decimating our cities doesn't get them anything.

Cities are secondary. They'll target military sites. And I doubt any of their missiles would ever detonate on American soil. I think our defenses are much better than the public or the Russians know.

The upper limit will be when one person has the ability to kill everyone else. Once we hit that point, it's only a matter of time before someone does it. Why? Ask Stephen Paddock.

I think we're close, if not already there, with the ability to genetically engineer viruses. How long until some molecular virologist gets rejected by their lover and decides to kill us all off?

Depends on your religion and whether or not it's right.

I assume, based on the arrogance and presumptuousness of your comment that you have a GUT all figured out and have reconciled the disparities in Hubble values.

"Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. " - Wikipedia

So yeah assuming the model is accurate. But that's an assumption. Not a known.

If only we knew the laws of physics. Sadly, we still only have an estimate that works pretty well, but has a lot of holes in it. We don't know the Hubble "constant". Is it 73 or 67 km/s/Mpc? Depends how you determine it.

Is Dark Matter real? Maybe. Maybe not.

We can't explain the constants of physics.

There's a lot of unknowns. The age of the universe being one of them. It's all theoretical right now.

Seems to me you'd get high faster with a vaporizer. All that time unpacking, getting your pants down, getting it in, getting pants back on.

Nah, I'll vape.

Yeah, AI is already making big inroads into radiology. It may be 20 years off, but in the next 5 years, it'll be a tool radiologists use.

Odds of finding it in a textbook in Texas or Florida is certainly going to be pretty slim.

You don't send people. Nobody wants to spend their entire life on a spaceship. They'd blow their brains out or hop out of the airlock.

You send robots with a life construction kit. When they arrive at their destination, assuming no terraforming required (not a good assumption, but you'd do terraforming first, obviously, if needed), the ship would start building human DNA and fertilizing artificial embryos with it. The embryos would be grown in artificial wombs.

While this is going on, the robots would be building shelters and stuff. When the babies are born, the robots would raise the first generation. Voila: Interstellar expansion of the human race.

None of this is very sci-fi. We can do all of this, to a certain degree. We're probably only decades away from being able to do it all.

Speed wouldn't be a big concern in this case.

Obviously, if terraforming is required, that's a different level of technology required and we're definitely not nearly as close, technologically, on that. But the rest is totally feasible in the next several decades.

There's this, and this.

Others have completely different numbers. This one from Stanford says 90 years.

Either way, it's more than enough.

40 years from now will only be 80+ years too late... And that assumes we won't come up with a way to squeeze out more. Or turn something else into oil. And we've got 350 years of coal left to dig up.

Boy, that doesn't sound familiar at all.

"Scientists Achieve Fusion Reaction By Firing an Electron Beam at Fuel" - New York Times, June 11, 1977

"Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion Offers Hope for Power of Future" - New York Times, Nov 11, 1991

"Fusion proponents, he notes, also estimate that commercial applications of their work are at least 20 years off. And it will be 30 years beyond then before fusion power has significant impact." - Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1989

"Actually, fusion research has made remarkable progress in recent years. There is no longer any question of its scientific feasibility." - Scientific American, October 21, 1999.

Color me.... skeptical...

I've been hearing fusion is "right around the corner" for most of my 54 years. I'd caution against being too certain that fusion is right around the corner. It isn't. The recent announcement is an advancement, but we're still AT LEAST 30 years away from feasible fusion, unless there's some really astounding breakthrough coming soon.

The US produces twice as much CO2 as India, despite having only 1/4 of it's population and per capita, we produce twice as much CO2 as China.

But by all means, blame China and India if it makes you feel better.

No kidding. I think we knew like 5 months in that deer get COVID.

And there are deer in the Bronx and Staten Island.