The Singularity - Official Thread

Talk about scientific and technological developments in the future
User avatar
Cyber_Rebel
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:59 pm
Location: New Dystopios

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by Cyber_Rebel »

MythOfProgress wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 10:38 pm and yet, most folks don't seem to recognize there is no "saving" ourselves if you cannot power your technology, most if not all of the modern technology in the world is not going to matter if you cannot provide fuel for it, which is my entire premise(or at least one of the major ones), we cannot engineer our way out of an overproduced, over-consumptive planet..
We will always have sources of fuel, even in the event of societal collapse, the sun will continue to shine. If snything we'd likely switch to nuclear & solar much faster the more the other options became less available. Hell, even biofuel looks promising these days, especially for developing countries. While the latter isn't exactly ideal, it shows we can innovate where necessary.
to fill in the missing context, they didn't exactly have the intellectual capacity that we do for "progress" and even then, i heavily doubt there is any technologies that would allow for species to escape mass extinctions.
Exactly. Also, ever heard of space travel? I'd like to think... that just maybe... had some intelligent species of raptor (Troodon?) had the ability to predict/track space objects like asteroids that occasionally came barreling into the planet, they'd likely hop ship in order to escape extinction. For all his faults, Troodon Musk is right on this one. Just having the capacity to leave your home planet opens up many possibilities. Also, artificial intelligence, which could potentionally avert that issue altogether via being more capable than we are at solving these issues.
we're talking about entire food chains and ecosystems being decimated by cataclysmic events occurring, oxygen levels lowering to the point of many organisms dying as a result and it really doesn't help that the same article you posted is also pointing out the biodiversity collapse we're currently undergoing- stating that...

"extinctions are occurring hundreds of times faster than they would naturally. If all species currently designated as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable go extinct in the next century, and if that rate of extinction continues without slowing down, we could approach the level of a mass extinction in as soon as 240 to 540 years.".
Well, it helps that we're advancing at an exponential rate isn't it? Hard to say were we'll be 200-500 years from now, but it's likely we'd be very different as a species if not an entirely new one altogether, Just look at what's happened in that exact same time from then to now. You're assuming nothing changes at all, which is just unrealistic on that time frame and historical precedent.
hmm, in fairness this is probably my fault for unintentionally framing my arguments as an advocacy for (anarcho)primitivism as i'm not deadset on eliminating technology in its entirety or a luddite(although they did have a point in terms of capitalist practices taking away their jobs and not being prepped for alternative ones as a result of industrializing). i'll try to make it more of a habit of disavowing those philosophies so as to not be confused with them.
Nah, I'd say you're definitely a "doomer" though, if such a thing is considered a philosophy nowadays. I can understand being realistic or pragmatic, but to say all is lost is an absolutist statement. In a strange way, it's like the stimulation theory; one wonders what's the point to it all. Would it really matter or change anything to know that the universe is not even real? I suppose I'd be considered a hypocrite in this regard if we were discussing american politics, but humanity in general? We're incredibly resiliant.
that being said though, recognizing the fact that we have hard limits to abide by in our environment and that the laws of physics exist means we should have been searching for alternatives sources of energy decades ago back when we had our first oil shock, and be more efficient with the use of fossil fuels back then, as well as keeping our population levels in check.

however with the energy-blind society we live in today- the expectations we have that don't align with the reality we're living in, i fear the moment our reality and expectations collide; we'll see a lot of mass death(famine), despair and chaos all-around.
Hard agree here, and you'd be hard pressed to find those here who'd disagree with that assessment, given the data we know. There are always periods of chaos and harmony, an ebb and flow if you will. Our periods of peace are actually hard won moments compared to what the natural order would have. I think it's good to recognize the dangers, the false ill begotten promise of human nature as you do. But not to the point where it suffocates the good we have accomplished, or still might. Progress isn't a myth, if we've progressed even a little then that's worth something.
User avatar
MythOfProgress
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:42 am

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by MythOfProgress »

We will always have sources of fuel, even in the event of societal collapse, the sun will continue to shine. If snything we'd likely switch to nuclear & solar much faster the more the other options became less available. Hell, even biofuel looks promising these days, especially for developing countries. While the latter isn't exactly ideal, it shows we can innovate where necessary.
and as i've mentioned before in previous threads, solar and wind are not suitable alternatives to oil or fossil fuels in general, let's leave aside the fact that we'd have to ramp up mining and production of certain minerals(cobalt, nickel and lithium) which would contribute more towards CO2 emissions

recognize that even if we were able to live in a 100% renewable energy society, our energy needs would not be met on account of the notion that these are not energy-dense alternatives, you'll always have to cope with the unfortunate fact that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind isn't always blowing. as for nuclear energy, besides the limited uranium supply we have and the extremely long time it takes to commission/decommission nuclear power plants-

we still haven't cracked the ultimate challenge which is the fusion part. we have to remember, while theoretically they can help; as soon you as you scale them up they won't hold up logistically.
Exactly. Also, ever heard of space travel? I'd like to think... that just maybe... had some intelligent species of raptor (Troodon?) had the ability to predict/track space objects like asteroids that occasionally came barreling into the planet, they'd likely hop ship in order to escape extinction.
and go where exactly? in case you haven't noticed, space is a pretty deadly environment for a human to be in, much less a raptor- only thing we'd be doing is building elaborate tombs for ourselves to die in-

unless you've figured out the secret to building a self-sustaining ship with a rich ecosystem and agriculture capable of producing food and water without the need for constant supplies from Earth(same goes for any attempts to build a life on a planet like Mars for instance, an entirely new environment that we haven't evolved on).

that's one problem down and bunch of other ones to deal with like the constant radiation you'll be hit with once you're in space, or the body atrophying as a result of living in a different gravity- which means you'll have to be exercising and consistently be working to combat the effects for longer periods of time.
For all his faults, Troodon Musk is right on this one. Just having the capacity to leave your home planet opens up many possibilities. Also, artificial intelligence, which could potentionally avert that issue altogether via being more capable than we are at solving these issues.
yes, elon muskrat, the embodiment of the future which is filled with false promises and broken dreams- space travel is not exactly a holy grail that saves us for the reasons i've mentioned above, and pinning your hopes on an extremely speculative concept of AI(which is the super-intelligent kind that knows exactly what to do) is tantamount to praying, there's just nothing being done and its more or less religious devotion to something that doesn't exist.
Well, it helps that we're advancing at an expotentional rate isn't it?
source? law of diminishing returns will kick in as our easily accessible and cheap oil reserves inevitably become depleted, so im doubtful of this claim.
Hard to say were we'll be 200-500 years from now, but it's likely we'd be very different as a species if not an entirely new one altogether, Just look at what's happened in that exact same time from then to now.
so just have faith mostly? i don't think you understand the industrial revolution was a one-time event that generated exponential growth and yet we will never have access to the same amount of energy as we did back then, the time for geographical speciation takes a far longer time than just 200-500 years(we're talking about evolutionary timescales here), if you're talking about the artificial kind where everyone is a robot/cyborg and enhanced then again i'd say this is mostly in the realm of speculation and not actual fact.
You're assuming nothing changes at all, which is just unrealistic on that time frame and historical precedent.
i'm not assuming nothing changes, quite the opposite- our climate is changing far too rapidly and fast for us to adapt in time, as a result of the feedback loops and tipping points we've already set off-the time for change(in regards to ourselves) has passed a long time ago and will be done out of futility. although that's not to say we can't hold ourselves to certain virtues and standards as things inevitably fall apart.
Nah, I'd say you're definitely a "doomer" though, if such a thing is considered a philosophy nowadays. I can understand being realistic or pragmatic, but to say all is lost is an absolutist statement. In a strange way, it's like the stimulation theory; one wonders what's the point to it all.
i don't understand the pejorative manner in which this is said, the person saying that the house has burned down is not a "doomer", they're simply pointing that the house has burned down, if you're referring to someone who is pessimistic with no reason to be- sure you could classify them as a "doomer",

but pointing out the scientific conservatism we suffer from(as in climate scientists releasing IPCC reports with data lagging behind current events, this isn't to blame the scientists so much as it is a feature that comes with the scientific method-often trusting sources that are "mainstream" and "reliable" ) is not "doomerism" it is merely displaying the rate at which certain events were predicted to be later are now occurring faster than expected, worse than we thought almost as if it sneaked up on us and we weren't accounting for certain variables in climate models.

when it comes to that though, the simulation theory as far as i'm concerned to doesn't seem to be all that valid(sorry to take away the fun), but let's entertain the idea and think about it- if it is true then chances you probably dont have much influence over your environment as there are forces beyond your control and thus are vulnerable to whatever happens.

but as far as anyone's concerned, it's not like your life changed dramatically, just a difference in perspective and the nature of existence, going from analog to digital, you can still continue living your life for whatever time remains- its just things are different now, that is in a nutshell what it means to live in the ticking time-bomb that is civilization.

that being said, there are thousands of other different, non-verifiable explanations for why we exist as a whole, God being the most popular, so often i find myself thinking unless you can prove it demonstrably, there's really not much point to talking about it if only for a thought experiment.
I suppose I'd be considered a hypocrite in this regard if we were discussing american politics, but humanity in general? We're incredibly resiliant.
what we're facing right now isn't really something that can be compared to past catastrophic events, our exponential growth and technological ability has meant a better quality of life for us in the short-term of things, but taking a look at the general state of ecosystems, economic decline, and the fact that our biosphere is dying and we are running out of the resources needed for a good life- resilience isn't going to matter if we've depleted all our resources and have constant crises that exhaust our ability for response.
Progress isn't a myth, if we've progressed even a little then that's worth something.
in the context of human history, i'd say no, collapse is a process that virtually every civilization before ours has succumbed to, to expect "progress" to be the thing that saves us from this is to be arrogant and believe we are any different than our precursors.
R.I.P Ziba.
Nero
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:17 pm

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by Nero »

and as i've mentioned before in previous threads, solar and wind are not suitable alternatives to oil or fossil fuels in general, let's leave aside the fact that we'd have to ramp up mining and production of certain minerals(cobalt, nickel and lithium) which would contribute more towards CO2 emissions
Yes they are, there's a reason why renewable sources of energy are the fastest growing and have continually confounded the IEA forecast for their growth, because literally everywhere is transitioning to them. More importantly cobalt, nickel and lithium are used in a lot more than the production of renewable energy. The argument that mining these resources will cause a collapse is a total fallacy.
recognize that even if we were able to live in a 100% renewable energy society, our energy needs would not be met on account of the notion that these are not energy-dense alternatives, you'll always have to cope with the unfortunate fact that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind isn't always blowing. as for nuclear energy, besides the limited uranium supply we have and the extremely long time it takes to commission/decommission nuclear power plants-
This is an even greater fallacy, you live on a giant globe, somewhere the wind is ALWAYS blowing, the sun is ALWAYS shining and sharing and storing energy has only gotten easier to do and become more common as time has gone on. Moreover once you produce something like a wind turbine or a solar panel you do not need to replace it within a month or a week after you burn it like you would would with coal or gas, these things last years at a minimum and have only become more efficient as technology has advanced.

This entire argument is a total strawman.
and go where exactly? in case you haven't noticed, space is a pretty deadly environment for a human to be in, much less a raptor- only thing we'd be doing is building elaborate tombs for ourselves to die in-
Except for the fact that humans can have lived in space for years at a time there are numerous planets that can sustain life or that we could build shelters on to sustain life within it. Another nothing argument.
source? law of diminishing returns will kick in as our easily accessible and cheap oil reserves inevitably become depleted, so im doubtful of this claim.
What law of diminishing returns? There is no danger of any of this happening in the immediate future https://group.met.com/en/mind-the-fyout ... speed%20up.

We have at least 50 years before oil runs out and that is more than enough time for other energy sources to completely overtake it.
i don't think you understand the industrial revolution was a one-time event that generated exponential growth and yet we will never have access to the same amount of energy as we did back then
The only way this is true is in the fact we will never have as little energy as was created then, even in the 1900's the world was using orders of magnitude more energy than was ever created during the original industrial revolution. Another. Nothing. Argument.
User avatar
MythOfProgress
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:42 am

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by MythOfProgress »

Yes they are, there's a reason why renewable sources of energy are the fastest growing and have continually confounded the IEA forecast for their growth, because literally everywhere is transitioning to them
oh i wonder why that is, it's almost as if fossil fuel interests are benefiting off the idea that a "green" transition is possible and we're definitely not playing into their hands of achieving more revenue as they market renewable technologies as "reliable".
More importantly cobalt, nickel and lithium are used in a lot more than the production of renewable energy. The argument that mining these resources will cause a collapse is a total fallacy.
...yeah, that's pretty much what i pointed out in the energy & environment thread where the aforementioned minerals are used in phones, computers, electric cars, and no i wasn't saying this would cause a collapse in of itself as a sole factor, but it would play its part in the problem at hand which is exhausting mineral reserves and outstripping our capacity to source the minerals.
This is an even greater fallacy, you live on a giant globe, somewhere the wind is ALWAYS blowing, the sun is ALWAYS shining and sharing and storing energy has only gotten easier to do and become more common as time has gone on
not interested in playing semantics/moving the goalposts, you know exactly what i mean when im referring to the intermittent power generation aspect of renewables and the inherently low EROEI they have on their own standings(scroll to 6.4, if TLDR), often relying on back-up power from reliable fossil fuels.
Moreover once you produce something like a wind turbine or a solar panel you do not need to replace it within a month or a week after you burn it like you would would with coal or gas, these things last years at a minimum and have only become more efficient as technology has advanced.
the energy efficency which decreases as the years go by, therefore limiting its ability to capture and generate electricity in full though it is a very gradual process.
Except for the fact that humans can have lived in space for years at a time there are numerous planets that can sustain life or that we could build shelters on to sustain life within it. Another nothing argument.
if you're referring to the ISS- we are talking about trained astronauts, astronauts that have been carefully selected and rooted out for specific qualities(having above-average intelligence so as to solve problems, mental endurance when it comes to the vastness of space and the isolation, adaptability for any given scenario and having superior physical conditioning to combat the various effects of being in space that may affect them.) that they have to ensure maximum chances of success/survival.

this isn't to mention the amount of work and coordination that goes on; on the ground in NASA alongside our russian allies(sad to see them go by 2024) so as to keep a few folks alive on the low-orbit space station.

now as for your claim that there are planets that can support human life, i'll ask where is your source?

in regards to the other where you claim we can build shelters in planets to sustain life(otherwise known as Para-terraforming) i'll restate my earlier point- which is unless you can develop a closed, artificial ecological system that can produce food and water viably(which was the entire goal of the BioSphere 2 experiment, which failed dramatically btw) your efforts will end in death.

once you figure out a way of surviving on an environment like Antarctica or the Sahara Desert(which does have an ecosystem, but for the sake of argument lets just treat it like a barren wasteland in this case) i'll probably get on the same page with you, if not then i'll stick with dying on the planet we evolved to live on as opposed to trying to survive on an alien environment i'm not suited for and dying miserably away from our birth planet.
What law of diminishing returns? There is no danger of any of this happening in the immediate future https://group.met.com/en/mind-the-fyout ... speed%20up.

We have at least 50 years before oil runs out and that is more than enough time for other energy sources to completely overtake it.
if you don't know what that is, it's the same law that Mr. Ray Kurzweil had reverse-engineered into his mostly wild, if not outright bullshit idea of the law of accelerating returns("which is the proposed notion that there is a tendancy for advances to feed on themselves, increasing the rate of further advance, and pushing well past what one might sensibly project by linear extrapolation of current progress."), you can take a good look here at an explanation of what diminishing returns is and what it looks like in our society.
i've already pointed out how saudi arabia was revealed not too long ago to be nearing its oil output ceiling, which indicates they've been lying to save their own hide
(understandably, what country wouldn't lie about their reserves? if it meant losing money?).
The only way this is true is in the fact we will never have as little energy as was created then, even in the 1900's the world was using orders of magnitude more energy than was ever created during the original industrial revolution. Another. Nothing. Argument
i don't really think you understood what was said, judging by the sentence structure, hopefully with the diminishing returns link you'll understand in time that we've already gone for the low-hanging fruit in terms of supplying ourselves with energy, we've already exhausted our oil deposits(here in the west at least) and now rely on just a few countries in the middle-east to supply ourselves, this isn't going to end well for anybody who's looking ahead and with clarity.

but hey, at least some dude in another alternate universe got lucky and witnessed the turn of civilization toward something more sustainable.
R.I.P Ziba.
Nero
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:17 pm

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by Nero »

MythOfProgress wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 7:46 pmoh i wonder why that is[/url], it's almost as if fossil fuel interests are benefiting off the idea that a "green" transition is possible[/url] and we're definitely not playing into their hands of achieving more revenue as they market renewable technologies as "reliable".
This is a non-argument, any field will become more profitable the more widely used it is, that is basic economics, the IEA consistently predicting no or minimal growth when it's projections are funded by those with fossil fuel interests is yet further proof that transitioning to renewable forms of energy is clearly not merely redistributing the wealth among pre-existing fossil fuel companies.
...yeah, that's pretty much what i pointed out in the energy & environment thread where the aforementioned minerals are used in phones, computers, electric cars, and no i wasn't saying this would cause a collapse in of itself as a sole factor, but it would play its part in the problem at hand which is exhausting mineral reserves and outstripping our capacity to source the minerals.
Another non-argument. Even if the world were to run out of cobalt in the next year there are a plethora of other materials that can be used instead of them for the vast majority of the required manufacturing to continue. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/386143
the energy efficency which decreases as the years go by, therefore limiting its ability to capture and generate electricity in full though it is a very gradual process.
The energy efficency decreasing over years of use is not something that is an immediate concern. Most solar is built to last more than 25 yearshttps://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-center/solar-ar ... 20capacity.

Wind turbines can last for upwards of two decades.
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-kn ... bines-last

You are not only being alarmist but also idiotic. Do you know how many solar panels have been installed in the last two years alone? There is more than enough time for us to transition to renewable sources of energy before the solar panels and other such renewable energy generation devices become inefficient enough to warrant decommission.
if you're referring to the ISS- we are talking about trained astronauts, astronauts that have been carefully selected and rooted out for specific qualities(having above-average intelligence so as to solve problems, mental endurance when it comes to the vastness of space and the isolation, adaptability for any given scenario and having superior physical conditioning to combat the various effects of being in space that may affect them.) that they have to ensure maximum chances of success/survival.
Irrelevant. You aren't getting into orbit or onto another planet without vast amounts of wealth and intelligence. Nothing about what you wrote there impacts the survivability of the human race, if anything space travel has only become more commercialized and more common.
this isn't to mention the amount of work and coordination that goes on; on the ground in NASA alongside our russian allies(sad to see them go by 2024) so as to keep a few folks alive on the low-orbit space station.
Russian allies. Now your bullshit propaganda is beginning to be better contextualized.
now as for your claim that there are planets that can support human life, i'll ask where is your source
The fact that building habitats on Mars and Venus to sustain human life is possible with today's technology is wildly known. It would be expensive but also totally possible to do.
i've already pointed out how saudi arabia was revealed not too long ago to be nearing its oil output ceiling, which indicates they've been lying to save their own hide
(understandably, what country wouldn't lie about their reserves? if it meant losing money?).
More non-arguments, we have already reached peak oil demand https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wo ... es-reveal/ the fact is we are not going to run out of oil before it gets replaced by another form of fuel.
i don't really think you understood what was said, judging by the sentence structure, hopefully with the diminishing returns link you'll understand in time that we've already gone for the low-hanging fruit in terms of supplying ourselves with energy, we've already exhausted our oil deposits(here in the west at least) and now rely on just a few countries in the middle-east to supply ourselves, this isn't going to end well for anybody who's looking ahead and with clarity.
No I understood it perfectly, we've reached peak oil, this is another astounding non-argument. Congratulations, you really can fearmonger with the best of them.
User avatar
BaobabScion
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:41 pm

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by BaobabScion »

Nero, don't take this too hard, but you're furiously typing a whole bunch yet not really saying much of anything. None of your responses are adequate counters to what MythofProgress is claiming. At best, one could question your reading comprehension, and at worst, one could say that rage is compelling your fingers to touch the keyboard. You're not the only person in this thread who seems to be grasping at straws and not really thinking through their own comments to him logically, but of the whole group, you seem to be the one taking it most personally.

Each reply of yours has been something to the effect of "nOthing Argument, siNIsTer idiot. yOu use fallacies and strawmannnn!!!"(Slight exaggeration but close enough.)

No need to be so brash when debating what is ultimately an inconsequential topic. Think of it this way: if he's eventually proven right, then you'd be forgiven for a bit of frustration, but would the idea of The Singularity TM even be worth defending this hard at that point? Likewise, if he's wrong, what's to be gained from wasting your time on such a clueless "doomer"?
Nero
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:17 pm

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by Nero »

What's to be gained from any topic of discussion on the Internet. I'm not defending the singularity, I'm dismissing objectively incorrect arguments. Nothing more.
User avatar
MythOfProgress
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:42 am

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by MythOfProgress »

but of the whole group, you seem to be the one taking it most personally.
in fairness, this place is something of a comfort zone(for lack of a better word) in regards to learning about notable changes or advances in our society, often skewing one way which is the techno-utopian/cornucopian thought, and similarly to some (if not most) religious folk- people don't tend to really like having their beliefs/values/views questioned or criticized by another person, to which the process of "othering" begins- so i'm not entirely too surprised of having a few insults thrown at me, still not excusing this Nero character's behavior- but its a possible explanation for why this is.
if he's eventually proven right, then you'd be forgiven for a bit of frustration, but would the idea of The Singularity TM even be worth defending this hard at that point? Likewise, if he's wrong, what's to be gained from wasting your time on such a clueless "doomer"?
heh, that does get me thinking for a bit- taking a cue from the pascal's wager argument; if i'm somehow wrong about everything i'm saying, then i've got everything to gain by living in a technologically prosperous society in which most of our problems can be solved with technology or the free market(i'd be pleasantly surprised if not a little happy to be wrong- would definitely mean a lot less sleepless nights that's for sure.)

but if they're wrong, chances are they have everything to lose by admitting to themselves things probably won't end up with a happy ending like they thought(which reinforces my initial point of why they resort to ad hominem attacks, in an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance- which admittedly is a very painful process to go through). then again, my analogy is a little flawed considering nothing in life is ever that binary, but you catch my drift. suppose time will tell though at this point.
R.I.P Ziba.
User avatar
MythOfProgress
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:42 am

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by MythOfProgress »

Even if the world were to run out of cobalt in the next year there are a plethora of other materials that can be used instead of them for the vast majority of the required manufacturing to continue.
did you actually watch the video i linked?
Irrelevant. You aren't getting into orbit or onto another planet without vast amounts of wealth and intelligence. Nothing about what you wrote there impacts the survivability of the human race
for the average person trying to get into space, i'd say it definitely does- you're still glossing over the part where i mentioned people needing an actual, artificial ecological system that produces food and water in which they can survive in for extended periods of time.
if anything space travel has only become more commercialized and more common.
for rich folk? sure. for the average person? debatable. and even then, i'm still questioning why your priorities lie with going to space, fixing our problems here on earth would be a better long-term goal.
The energy efficency decreasing over years of use is not something that is an immediate concern. Most solar is built to last more than 25 yearshttps://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-center/solar-ar ... 20capacity.

Wind turbines can last for upwards of two decades.
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-kn ... bines-last
hence me using the term "gradual". that being said, having to replace these things every 20-30 years isn't a very sustainable practice either way you cut it.
Russian allies. Now your bullshit propaganda is beginning to be better contextualized.
yeah, i'll choose better words next time, but you're quick to demonize.
The fact that building habitats on Mars and Venus to sustain human life is possible with today's technology is wildly known. It would be expensive but also totally possible to do.
like i said before, if you have any peer-reviewed studies or sources that could point this out to me, i'm happy to oblige.
More non-arguments, we have already reached peak oil demand https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wo ... es-reveal/ the fact is we are not going to run out of oil before it gets replaced by another form of fuel.
not run out, just become too expensive to extract-although the effect is still the same.
No I understood it perfectly, we've reached peak oil, this is another astounding non-argument. Congratulations, you really can fearmonger with the best of them.
uh huh, come back to me when you're less salty.
R.I.P Ziba.
User avatar
Yuli Ban
Posts: 4631
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 4:44 pm

Re: The Singularity - Official Thread

Post by Yuli Ban »

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future
Post Reply