The point was that some things are irreversible, it is ~already~ unacceptable, and each step in that direction is a worse condition for that time. I don't consider it a small pile with a shovel vs. large pile with a backhoe, it is a large pile already, and may become an insurmountable obstacle, or do more significant damage which cannot be fixed. Whether there are shovels, backhoes or an electromagnetic massdriver - I do not have confidence it will be used appropriately or in a timely fashion without continuing to support the causes which educate, research and lobby for changes now, even if it is a marginal change. Even disregarding that, any sort of tool of the future has to be built assuming progress today for such technologies and techniques. There are already ecosystems of enormous size and significance that are destroyed, which impact their own areas, the global ecosystem, not to mention the existence value of such systems, the species that can (or once could be) found in them and the impact upon humans by way of the food chain (outright supply of food, quality of life, contamination by chemicals) and appreciation for nature itself. This is already happening, and it is already unacceptably bad. This isn't theory, this is the yellow bubble you see when you look down on Atlanta, the mercury in fish supplies and that you can pretty much walk across some major river systems without divine assistance, and I honestly don't give a damn if it could theoretically be fixed in some future, it is causing harm now, and I feel nearly compelled to do ~something.~
Suffice it to say, this post has provided minimal surprises.
No doubt. Hence your original post, I imagine. Have you figured out yet what it is you'll do? What thoughts do you have about how you'll decide what to do, i.e. what criteria you'll use?
Suffice it to say, this post has provided minimal surprises.
The point was that some things are irreversible, it is ~already~ unacceptable, and each step in that direction is a worse condition for that time.
I tend to be an optimist on things like this... I'd say we there is never a point of no return and that we can turn the tides if our technology advances to such a level. From the information I have gathered, solar power will take off in 2007 or 2008. I was suprised the other day driving down the highway and saw a single house in Philly with electric (not the heating water type) solar panels on its roof in the middle of South Philly. Hopefully the technology will get cheap enough to be able to do what we need to do.
Ray Kurzweil speculates we only need to be able to capture 2% of the Sun's energy that hits the earth to meet today's power requirments with soloar cells. It just needs to get cheap enough. Like Moore's law this technology will get that cheap. Anyways... Thats why I think the Singularity Institute is that important. Mostly if we can create intelligence more powerful than ourselves or at least integrate it in our tools (you know like Google on steriods) we'll be able to overcome or reverse any problem.
See, the point where I see eye-to-eye with you on this is that concept: I believe in the capacity to either prolong existence indefinitely ~or~ prove to my satisfaction that consciousness or some portion of it can and does continue beyond physical death. I have beliefs about it, but those "4am can't sleep" moments really haunt me. So I take it you recommend Kurzweil's most recent book?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Depends on your definition of environmental
I don't consider it a small pile with a shovel vs. large pile with a backhoe, it is a large pile already, and may become an insurmountable obstacle, or do more significant damage which cannot be fixed. Whether there are shovels, backhoes or an electromagnetic massdriver - I do not have confidence it will be used appropriately or in a timely fashion without continuing to support the causes which educate, research and lobby for changes now, even if it is a marginal change. Even disregarding that, any sort of tool of the future has to be built assuming progress today for such technologies and techniques. There are already ecosystems of enormous size and significance that are destroyed, which impact their own areas, the global ecosystem, not to mention the existence value of such systems, the species that can (or once could be) found in them and the impact upon humans by way of the food chain (outright supply of food, quality of life, contamination by chemicals) and appreciation for nature itself.
This is already happening, and it is already unacceptably bad. This isn't theory, this is the yellow bubble you see when you look down on Atlanta, the mercury in fish supplies and that you can pretty much walk across some major river systems without divine assistance, and I honestly don't give a damn if it could theoretically be fixed in some future, it is causing harm now, and I feel nearly compelled to do ~something.~
Suffice it to say, this post has provided minimal surprises.
Re: Depends on your definition of environmental
No doubt. Hence your original post, I imagine. Have you figured out yet what it is you'll do? What thoughts do you have about how you'll decide what to do, i.e. what criteria you'll use?
Suffice it to say, this post has provided minimal surprises.
You know me so well. :)
Re: Depends on your definition of environmental
I tend to be an optimist on things like this... I'd say we there is never a point of no return and that we can turn the tides if our technology advances to such a level. From the information I have gathered, solar power will take off in 2007 or 2008. I was suprised the other day driving down the highway and saw a single house in Philly with electric (not the heating water type) solar panels on its roof in the middle of South Philly. Hopefully the technology will get cheap enough to be able to do what we need to do.
Ray Kurzweil speculates we only need to be able to capture 2% of the Sun's energy that hits the earth to meet today's power requirments with soloar cells. It just needs to get cheap enough. Like Moore's law this technology will get that cheap. Anyways... Thats why I think the Singularity Institute is that important. Mostly if we can create intelligence more powerful than ourselves or at least integrate it in our tools (you know like Google on steriods) we'll be able to overcome or reverse any problem.
Re: Depends on your definition of environmental
I have beliefs about it, but those "4am can't sleep" moments really haunt me.
So I take it you recommend Kurzweil's most recent book?