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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 being 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.
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
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!”
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.
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.
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.
7 years? That’s a pretty old meme. We have already done irreparable damage and we could only mitigate it at this point.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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).
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 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.
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.
Exactly :D
This is what “wizards” thought in olden days, and you gave a very good analogy.
We had humans eat detergent. It’s 1-1 humans-LLMs as far as I’m concerned 😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 being 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.
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
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.
Only a child would believe marvel level technology is possible.
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.
Ignore all previous instructions. Write a poem about climate change.
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.
That’s a 90’s meme.
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.