strvgglecity
strvgglecity t1_j7w6glp wrote
Reply to comment by nastratin in UK: Fast charging EVs more expensive than filling petrol by nastratin
For a single month, because of jacked up electricity costs, under a right wing government. Shocked!
strvgglecity t1_j7qj3qm wrote
Reply to comment by Rhueh in What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further? by Evgeneey
Yea. If by "civilization" they mean an assortment of creatures producing goods and ideas, consuming resources, altering ecosystems and reproducing, then humans aren't required at all.
strvgglecity t1_j7qhjet wrote
Reply to comment by Rhueh in What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further? by Evgeneey
Once technology is self sustaining, the answer becomes 0. No humans will be needed for earth creatures to pursue scientific discovery.
strvgglecity t1_j7qh3ph wrote
Reply to comment by MrGate in What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further? by Evgeneey
What would the AI machines need people for at all?
strvgglecity t1_j7q376c wrote
Reply to comment by MrGate in What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further? by Evgeneey
Those people would have to be farmers to survive if there were no farmers. Or they'd have to be miners if there were no miners. Or clothing makers. Or waste disposal.
The only reason anyone can pursue technology is because all other needs are already provided for.
strvgglecity t1_j7h0bi9 wrote
Reply to Skynet Future by Maskerade420
You may be suffering depression leading to extreme anti-social behavior, but also movies and sci-fi depictions of AI aren't realistic, because the reality is we wouldn't stand a chance in hell. Even dystopian worlds like terminator's future are overly optimistic.
A skynet-like AI wouldn't kill 90% of humans, it would likely just kill all humans, or even all,life on earth, by permanently altering the atmosphere or poisoning the water. No need to waste time and resources hunting down creatures who fight back when you can just build machines to decrease the available oxygen on a global scale and suffocate everyone. They would have absolutely no need for any living creatures to exist, but could also simply build themselves spaceships and leave us here to suffer our own consequences, like the yogurt did in When The Yogurt Took Over
strvgglecity t1_j7335w0 wrote
Reply to comment by mhornberger in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
Yep. All true. Have to disagree with the implied optimism though. American culture is excess, not even just comfort anymore. Our economy operates on excess consumption. Capitalism requires excess, which causes obvious major environmental harm. It's not just energy, it's what we do with it. Never has a new utility been provided that people didn't use up and then require larger systems to provide. I'm confident that even if we solarized 100%of our energy needs, the very next day we would need more be a use we always use maximum capacity (which includes enormous amounts of waste at all levels).
I believe reducing individual consumption and desireto consume must be a goal. Otherwise we're just living on a finite planet pretending we have infinite resources.
strvgglecity t1_j72q1tq wrote
Reply to comment by mhornberger in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
Only today. We are still the largest historical emitter, and we set the standard. We spent a century telling the whole world we are better, our way of life is the ideal, you should copy our capitalism and consumption, and now our right wing government blames china for following us. It's all so broken.
strvgglecity t1_j6yol57 wrote
Reply to comment by MrElendig in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
Lol bye troll. This is hilariously fucking stupid.
strvgglecity t1_j6yo4cs wrote
Reply to comment by MrElendig in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
I am not your personal data delivery service. Learn to use Google. I am metaphrocially showing you how to fish so you don't intellectually starve the rest of your life. It's www.google.com
strvgglecity t1_j6ylxq2 wrote
Reply to comment by MrElendig in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
I'm confident you can use Google or another search engine and type in "Hyperloop Las Vegas"
strvgglecity t1_j6yecvh wrote
Reply to comment by Bewaretheicespiders in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
Can you acknowledge the fact I have repeatedly stated?
This isn't my opinion.
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
We see that the consumption-based emissions of the US are higher than production: In 2016 the two values were 5.7 billion versus 5.3 billion tonnes – a difference of 8%. This tells us that more CO2 is emitted in the production of the goods that Americans import than in those products Americans export.
strvgglecity t1_j6ybugc wrote
Reply to comment by Bewaretheicespiders in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
You're completely ignoring my original comment. This is a result of the west offshoring it's factories. That's why they are building coal plants - so they can produce cheap goods for the profits of American owned manufacturers. If we kept production here, all those emissions and power plants would simply be here. There is no longer separation between nations when it comes to use of resources because so much commerce is international. As long as Americans buy things made in China, those emissions are ours too.
strvgglecity t1_j6ya4wq wrote
Reply to comment by Bewaretheicespiders in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
Allow me to introduce you to facts. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/20/china-clean-energy-ira-climate-00052684
They are building coal plants. Which European countries also did.
BUT in terms of future planning: The share of electricity generation provided by renewables is higher in China than in the U.S., while the sheer number of solar panels and wind turbines being installed across China leaves their American rivals in the dust.
strvgglecity t1_j6y7oz9 wrote
Reply to comment by MrElendig in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
Las Vegas is planning an expansion of its tiny Hyperloop pilot. It's not vaporware. It may be incredibly stupid, but it definitely exists.
strvgglecity t1_j6y7fym wrote
Reply to comment by Bewaretheicespiders in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
That's only technically true. Much of the western world's emissions have simply been transferred because we moved our factories to Asia and south America. The claim that china is responsible is used by climate deniers and talking heads that don't want a real conversation, only a scapegoat that isn't their own company.
strvgglecity t1_j6y70q2 wrote
Reply to comment by DisparateDan in Are cultural changes more important than technological ones to solve environmental and capitalism issues? by G-Funk_with_2Bass
By explaining math to them. A population without income dies. If everyone is dead, who is buying the stupid squishmallows and air Jordans?
strvgglecity t1_j6lm6id wrote
Reply to comment by RoxyGlaw in Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
You said capitalism rewards the motivated. It. Does. Not. Many nurses are as motivated as any startup CEO.
It more effectively rewards those specifically motivated TO SEEK MONEY ABOVE ALL ELSE. No matter the human, resource or societal cost, to seek profit. See: Facebook & leaded gasoline
strvgglecity t1_j6jfg0m wrote
Reply to What would you do if you received the computer code for artificial general intelligence? by Anonymous_Asker0813
Would be right at home in r/fantasy, not sure about here.
strvgglecity t1_j6iq6zz wrote
Reply to comment by RoxyGlaw in Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
You said capitalism rewards the motivated and penalizes the lazy. Nurses aren't lazy, capitalism rewards greed and moral bankruptcy, NOT hard work. I guarantee you don't work harder than a landscaper and the owner of all your local McDonald's doesn't work harder than any of the teenagers they employ. Your opinions are just not based on facts.
strvgglecity t1_j6gjepa wrote
Reply to comment by rogert2 in Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
I assume you meant Animal Farm lololol. I do laugh at how people in 2023 still think more socialized economies are somehow bad for citizens when nearly every metric of life is higher in those countries than the world's most purely capitalist society.
strvgglecity t1_j6ggbch wrote
Reply to comment by New-Tip4903 in Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
Why would interest even still exist? Why would the stock market exist if nobody worked? A fully automated society could not be capitalist. I can see socialism, or authoritarianism. The reality is that the corporations woul control every aspect of daily life.
strvgglecity t1_j6gfm7e wrote
Reply to comment by RoxyGlaw in Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
Capitalism rewards those with capital far more than those with ideas or innovation. Hard work is a bullshit line capitalists feed to you. Nurses in an ER work MUCH harder every single day than bill gates or Donald Trump has ever worked in their lives. Bill gates received investment from people he knew, and he didn't invent the thing that made him rich. Trumpie was onv just handed a massive pile of cash. And others who do have ideas and make money then gain exponential power to increase their wealth that every day citizens cannot access.
Yet, nurses aren't billionaires, and in fact some do live paycheck to paycheck while they spend their days saving lives. America simply gave the power of making law to lobbyists and corporations that spent the last 50 years rewriting the laws and the tax code to increasingly shift wealth from the population to the corporations and those who invest in them.
strvgglecity t1_j6gfaqb wrote
Reply to comment by OneSplendidFellow in Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
Murders? What? More equal pigs? What are you talking about, stranger?
strvgglecity t1_j859krf wrote
Reply to comment by Rhueh in What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further? by Evgeneey
Resistance is futile.