I don't think offshore wind farms are unpopular. If anything, displacing fishermen is a good thing. Fishing is unsustainable at the current scale.

We are all homo sapiens, the only difference is in appearance and culture.

You didnt address any of them, you just said because none of them prioritize the environment none of them will.

​

New owners? Do you think getting rid of capitalism means keeping the same structure and just replacing the people?

​

No. Capitalism requires growth at all costs. I don't know where your fantasy is coming from but if a company doesn't grow, it eventually dies or gets bought out.

​

You haven't said anything about any other ideology for me to talk about you silly goose. You just keep screaming about the joys of capitalism

> Lolol why are you ranting like a lunatic

No you simply aren’t reading what I’m saying.

I can tell because you aren’t responding to my points, you just keep reiterating yours even though I’ve addressed each one directly.

> I already said that they don’t prioritize the environment but since they don’t have to focus on growth at all cost they can be smarter about their choices.

And I said that the new owners will prefer growth just as much as current owners.

> Capitalism has to be focused on growth at all costs so it is impossible for it to prioritize anything else.

Capitalism doesn’t have to be focused on with at all costs. People prefer growth because it’s easily possible now. They do in every ideology, even socialism!

> I am thriving in the capitalist system. I still am able to recognize it has problems.

You don’t seem capable of recognizing the problems of other ideologies, however.

You just have a “the grass must be greener” mentality.

Lolol why are you ranting like a lunatic? I already said that they don't prioritize the environment but since they don't have to focus on growth at all cost they can be smarter about their choices. Capitalism has to be focused on growth at all costs so it is impossible for it to prioritize anything else. Full stop. No one took advantage of me? I am thriving in the capitalist system. I still am able to recognize it has problems.

> You’re wildly confused.

No I assure you, you are the one that’s confused.

Nothing about other ideologies promises to prioritize the environment. Socialism for 100+ years was pitched as a way to more equitably exploit resources. Growth was always promised.

Now that’s forgotten and replaced with a fake premise. It’s just to trick people.

I’m sorry but someone probably took advantage of you at some point and just straight up lied about all this.

> Growth at all cost mostly comes once a company goes public.

What are you talking about? IPOs only happen for successful companies that have grown like crazy under private leadership.

You’ve got this entirely backwards.

> The shareholders wont allow, not deliberately, for foresight in their leadership so its a constant revolving door of people aiming for growth at all costs.

That’s true of all companies, including employee-owned businesses.

Everyone prefers growth over shrinking. How would you react if the workers of a company under a market socialism wanted to continue growth?*

*This isn’t a rhetorical question, I expect an answer.

> Youre talking fantasy, Im talking real world. Capitalism is the root cause.

Capitalism is not a root cause, every ideology promotes growth.

I’m sorry this might be hard to come to terms with, as it seemed like a nice ace-in-the-hole (“Our ideology will literally save the world!”). But as I’ve pointed out, there’s literally no reason people wouldn’t vote for continued growth without capitalism.

Oh, I'm kinda happy I'm probably going to miss it. I don't think it's going to be awesome.

You're wildly confused. Growth at all cost mostly comes once a company goes public. The shareholders wont allow, not deliberately, for foresight in their leadership so its a constant revolving door of people aiming for growth at all costs.

Youre talking fantasy, Im talking real world. Capitalism is the root cause.

Do a bit of research. This is just wrong: "One is the idea around how life as we know it evolved from viruses to us through a process I’ve nicknamed Organic Intelligent Design."

Think about it: viruses have no ability to reproduce without hijacking a cell's machinery. So viruses logically come later than cells.

Unfortunately thinking about things leads to us killing off about 99% of the ideas that occur to. Of the ones you can't personally kill, reddit will do the job for about 99.999% of the rest.

The ideas that do survive are not really worth all that much: google meat loaf recipe and you get 25 million+ hits, creating a 'new recipe' won't exactly add much to the conversation.

But we do get oddball ideas that don't want to die. Like FTL flight. Impossible according to relativity, mathematical loophole allows for negative energy. If that turns out to have physical significance who knows what we might end up with? I get annoyed when people on futurology play around with that type of idea without explaining which physical laws, as we currently understand them, are being abused but I know that interesting stuff may be hidden in those unkillable ideas so I rant away and keep reading.

That being said some ideas don't belong here. Like this one: lithium from seawater; EVs and battery storage demand will cause the price of lithium to go through the roof; it takes years to start a new mine...blah,blah,blah. We can obtain lithium from brine (one currently used method); brine is just condensed sea water; some places need fresh water so set up a brine making shop using solar and wind power and sell the evaporate i.e. fresh water.

Sounds like a decent idea, for the here and now but there isn't any 'futurology' to it.

> But when growth at all costs is not the tentpole of your “ideology” it frees you up to look at other things.

Is that the tent pole? Capitalism is based more on private property and capital than “growth at all costs.” We aim for growth because it can be done, not because it has to. When growth temporary decreases, the concepts of private priority and capital aren’t actually threatened.

Plus, if we do something like market socialism, wouldn’t the workers have the exact same incentives as the previous owners? Why wouldn’t they vote for continued growth?

If you’re thinking of authoritarian ideologies like command economies, then that’s also not inherently better for the environment and there’s no promise the government will enforce degrowth if the populous doesn’t want it. I suppose we could send out the tanks to stop any protests but I’d that actually sustainable? If we’re going this far why not just implement environmental rules in capitalism? Seems easier/less maniacal.

I don’t think any other ideology except specifically an “environment-first” ideology actually prioritizes the environment. It’s easy to blame the current system, but that isn’t automatically insightful.

Capitalism is a red herring.

Nothing. But when growth at all costs is not the tentpole of your "ideology" it frees you up to look at other things.

> We already could become sustainable in a lot of ways and choose not to because of capitalism.

I’ve always been curious. What exactly is it about every other ideology that will force people to prioritize the environment?

[deleted]

Both artificial intelligence and star ships are losing their meanings

Starship are supposed to travel to stars not just around the solar system

Ai is essentially a variation on the original eliza robot, now with greater abilities to catalog data and rearrange it according to a series of algorithms then to generate a response mimicking natural language.

While ai isn't going provide a magic bullet it could be an interface for creating new organic solutions, because it can investigate so many different possibilities, but so can regularly computer programs

What it offers is possibly a more intuitive approach to computer interfaces, but ultimately, the innovation will lie in the work of the person who programmed it and the intuition of the person using it.

Like u r wife 4 example.

No no no. I hope it at least get one BEFORE the singularly. Hopefully we're post scarcity by then so I can just get one for free 🙂

Jokes aside I legitimately get this weird kind of depression or something when I think about the fact that I may not live long enough to experience the singularly for myself. Like a fomo for the far future.

[removed]

Welcome to Reddit.

People must think that as moderators we're spending all day reading all comments from our 18.2 million members. We don't and that would be insane. Instead, we split the work up and each of us are assigned just 1 million to follow and police. /s

If you want to post something like your s-curve hypothesis and it's backed up by some semblance of credible sources, cool, but posts that just come across as crazy rants don't work. People will downvote the post and the comments will be mocking in nature.

Evidence based on a plausible hypothesis for the future are welcome.

You’re probably right. However, AI can help here by finding new ways to recycle plastic in a innovative way or introduce a plastic formula that will biodegrade in a couple of years.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

It is dont listen to American division. If we didnt have the small discrepancies we all share we wouldn't be human. We adapt and integrate in to new environments precisely because we have diversity and are capable of occupying different niches and thrive outside our equatorial home range.

[removed]

Humans are shitty and historically when resources are scarce, those with power and the ability to persuade masses will find a scapegoat to blame their problems on to divert attention away from their own mismanagement, bad policy, or the economic or social systems they've constructed.

This happens with race, sex, religion, ethnicities, etc. all the time.

Country is failing? Blame the Jews, blame the Blacks, blame the immigrant (insert race or ethnicity here).

Unemployment is high? Blame the immigrants.

Race is a social construct though and what constitutes a race and who qualifies as a part of any said race has changed over time, which only further proves the notion is bullshit.

Racism isn't just a scapegoating tool to avoid blame used by the powerful and elites, but it's also a tool used to prevent mass movements that could change the status quo, keep people occupied over racial conflict so they don't work together to mobilize as workers against the bosses and executives who keep them in low wage, unsafe working conditions.

Racism is also a tool of colonizers and ethnocentric nations that they use to excuse or justify their subjugation of other people and the theft of their resources. "Old World" people labeling natives as savages and heathens (technically true that they weren't Christian but that's to be expected since they'd never have heard of Jesus) and because of this they "shouldn't be allowed to hold such troves of silver and gold or manage such fertile grounds when it could go to the glory of God and Spain! (or insert colonizing nation here) instead we smart, righteous, Christians should convert them and take their shit!"

So racism exists for a lot of reasons but none of them are good ones.

I agree, we should see each other as simply human beings, no one asked to be here, but here we all have found ourselves, let's do our best to make our stay here pleasant, and leave it better than we found it for those coming after us who didn't have a choice in their existing either.