Denying robots citizen rights ignores their potential contributions to society.

I'm talking taxes that would make any work not done by a human being completely unprofitable, maybe even at a loss. Real emphasis on the punative there.

Massive amounts of air... Like outside?

I think a lot of people don’t WANT certain outcomes that benefit a lot of humanity, but that instead of saying it outright, they want to hide behind feasibility arguments or just have us “take a hint.”

Feasibility arguments and evidence are extremely important, I’m not trying to dodge those. I’m trying to separate the wheat from the chafe.

My goal is to get it out in the open what people actually want. To press the issue. Because if many people secretly or privately want 7 billion people to just die off or go away in the event AI automates all production, that’s sort of an important thing to know NOW.

While I believe in the value of all human life, I can perfectly see where someone is coming from if they say “once we no longer need a large consumer base or labor force, I can’t really say I’d want there to be 8 billion people. There’s no benefit in a large population at that point and I’d prefer the world was inherited by the producers and the power elite. We won’t need useless eaters, and deep down I measure the value of a life by the use value it creates for society, not for its inherent value.”

So again, I wouldn’t agree with the person at all, I’d be appalled, but I’d get where they’d be coming from. Basically more of a Randian libertarian value of life versus a Kantian one. And that’s fine. But at the same time, since I’m Kantian, I worry that the Randian ideal is imminent. We are heading right for it — but very very very few people seem to want to talk about the potential for genocide of the population by the power elite. This could take the form of a slow genocide, a choking off of resources and morale, or a fast one. Because it does sort of logically flow from the premise that life’s value is determined by use and why would the elite want to share a planet with so many people if they don’t see inherent value in all human life and it’s no longer creating value?

I’m not saying it’s plausible that they consciously have a plan, although I wouldn’t rule it out. Also likely is a subconscious belief system that will naturally play out really bad if we don’t talk openly about it.

As George Carlin pointed out “THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU.” But they do need you. What happens when they stop needing you?

You don't "cure" damaged DNA that way. The genetic code itself is what is causing the damage. You need to be able to manipulate that code to prevent damage or to repair itself. Tiny robots aren't going to do that in 8 years.

not if the benefits of automation/AI still outweigh not automating and you'd have to get to ridiculous levels of taxation

Any chance you remember the name? I'd love to read that.

>No it doesn’t. The world GDP grows year after year without needing “infinite growth”.

What happen when it stop to grow? Recession, 2008 crisis is a example.

​

>that IS capitalism. Thats like saying “cooking food isn’t cooking, it’s making the food hotter”

So by your definition capitalism existed in ancient Rome, Greece Egypt, etc? And Soviet Union was capitalist too since those things existed there right? So tell me what the Soviet Union was?

​

>the soviet union is the go to example for human rights abuses, poverty,
corruption, and starvation. if the soviet union / communism is so great
why did all the former soviet satelite states have widespread majority
support for ending communism? Ask anyone who grew up in a former
communist / socialist country and they’ll tell you horror stories all
day. i have heard stories of people who grew up in former communist
countries and were doctors, nurses, firefighters, etc and had to wait
15 YEARS for a landline. And that was the priority queue.

I never claimed Soviet Union was perfect but human right abuses, poverty, corruption and starvation are happening right now in capitalist countries. What do you call a invasion on sovereign soil based on false claim? Or the use of chemical weapons like white phosphorus and agent orange against a civilian population?

What do you call a country that invaded more than 28 countries since ww2 and organized multiple coups around the world to change the government to a more suitable one to their interests?

Soviet Union had a lot of problems and most of them come from the invasion from Nazi Germany that heavy desestabilize it. After SU fell poverty, unemployment and hunger skyrocketed in all of it's members in just 10 years, but hey, they can buy a Iphone now!

​

>im not sure what your point is. These were / are both capitalist countries and grew there economies with a free market economy

If you call conquering countries and waging wars against the it's inhabitants "free market economy", sure. England literally waged two wars to have the right to sell opium in China, they destroyed India cloth industry so they could sell their own. You must have herd the say "The sun never set on the British Empire", where do you think it came from?

​

>cuba - one of the most authoritarian regimes on the planet. those that
leave cuba are banned from ever returning. Poverty rates in the country
are well above the global average last time i checked.

Please tell me how Cuba is a authoritarian regime, just read how their political system works. Cuba have a lot of problems, most from the crushing embargo from US, but hey still have low hunger, unemployment and homelessness, with good education and healthcare.

​

>china - arguably authoritarian country with widespread censorship. freedom of expression In china isn’t exactly great.

Yeah, sure. The country with most strikes per capita worldwide who's government rolled back Covid 0 police after 1 week of protesting from their population, btw the police didn't arrested 300 people like in France or shot them like in US. Btw, China police don't use guns. Sad they can't use Google(banned by US government itself) and Facebook(banned because didn't want to share data with China government).

​

>laos - poor country, high poverty rates.

And why is that? US literally dropped more bombs there than the whole ww2 campaign, Laos is the most bombed country in the history between 50 and 300 people die from those bombs every year since the end of war, they even build houses with bombs parts since it's the most abundant material to build.

Even with this, they have 6% GPD growth average since 1990 and poverty and hunger in steady decline also. Vietnam suffered the same fate by the hand of US and enjoy similar breakthrough in human development with even more GPD growth.

NK is another country bombed to hell by US(it's incredible how often that happens), with 4 million deaths during the war. US destroyed dams, hospitals, schools, they stop bombing because there was nothing left to destroy. That's why they built nuclear weapons so US can't wreck havoc unpunished. Btw the heaviest embargo on Earth is currently on NK.

If socialism/communism is faded to fail, why try so hard to destroy it? Let them fail. UN voted to lift embargo on Cuba and all countries beside US and Israel voted against. Even the CIA say the embargo is to starve cubans so they revolt against the government which didn't happened.

​

>and a planned economy / communism / socialism is basically saying “im
jealous that other people are rich, therefore everyone should be poor”.

I don't have a problem with rich people, I have a problem with a sytem that need people misery to exist so a little few can have luxury. You see, hunger, extreme poverty, unemployment will never cease to exist in capitalism because it's profitable.

[deleted]

Tbh i started talking before i read the article, so no clue about the working temperature. There are multiple concepts floating around afaik - using air/gas is neat because it wont freeze, some liquids might be more efficient but require more maintenance and have higher leaking risks... The one i saw a vid on was working with very cold gas that would get heated to maybe 30-50, would then be cooled via heatpump and repeat. Guess it makes sense to both send the medium cold so it doesnt heat too much, and have pipes that can handle heat (they would need to manage max heat if at any moment the system cant pump)

But: dunno, still didnt read on this one. The concept itself is 100% sound and worthwhile imo, but the question of HOW will have to be solved by engineers.

Most likely multiple paths that work in different conditions.

Im guessing you're the writer of this little blog?

lol “butthurt” …nap time child 🍼😭

>quite frankly I'm getting sick of warning people

Collectively, people suck and are stupid. Perhaps the planet will do better without us

Damn. So the first ships informed later ships, then there was ruin, then centuries later a new ship arrives with lesser technology than the previous?

To add, green hydrogen accounts for a very small percentage of hydrogen production. The majority (afaik) is black/brown hydrogen, with a a smaller amount of grey hydrogen. Green is like a percent or two.

There's a sci-fi story where a multi-generational colony ship finally arrives at a planet and it's covered in the ruins of a civilization of humans that arrived hundreds of years earlier using faster ships that were developed while the first ship made the trip.

This is a pretty dumb take since almost the entire world uses products produced by those regions. It's pointless to pretend like the global supply chain isn't inseparably interdependent at this point.

So butthurt you dug through my profile?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you dont even have a leg to stand on fam

Hybrids aren't what the world needs, either. We need to design cities so that most people don't need a car at all. And that means trains, buses, metros, trams, bikes or ebikes (which make far more efficient usage of lithium than EVs do), high- and mid-density development rather than single-family homes, and walkable neighborhoods. Car-centric development is completely unsustainable regardless of what's powering the car.

It's only 4 light years away. It's something that could feasibly be done within a human lifespan if you reach a significant fraction of the speed of light

So that humanity isn't limited to the age of the sun. Proxima is a red dwarf so will probably outlive the sun.

lol — go watch Frasier 📺 cornball

[removed]

A tiny robo-probe would take about a century to reach the nearest solar system.

How do you think we could get convicts there?

And why would we spend billions to send losers, if we had the technology?

The convicts could potentially reproduce on board, and their grandchildren could research the surface of Proxima b and send the results to Earth to equip the next launch.