I just searched for the pools in Mallorca and they have close to 50k... 17 pools made per week in the last seven years WTF?

Don't make pools at 25 yards of the coast ffs

Not a single word of this has meaning. I am telling you flat out it is impossible to predict that far in the future. All the things you dream of could be the exact reasons for our extinction.

(if ture) Pro-Human Response: Israeli-style desalination plants & Artificial lakes

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the article

>"This mission will debut Firefly's unique two-stage Blue Ghost spacecraft, offering NASA and other customers multiple deployment options as we collectively build the infrastructure for ongoing lunar operations and planetary exploration," Bill Weber, CEO of Firefly Aerospace, said in a different statement(opens in new tab).
>
>The award is the second CLPS contract for Firefly. In 2021, the firm was selected to put 10 payloads on the near side of the moon. That Blue Ghost mission will launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in 2024.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11tu2rj/nasa_selects_firefly_aerospace_for_mission_to/jckpzvt/

True. Look how ancient water "rights" is screwing the Colorado river right now.

That would be seen as going after farmers and business and a ton of people worldwide would instantly and instinctively kick back hard at even the notion when brought up politically.

Just talking about and creating a 10 year plan for reduction of fertilizer use in Canada brought huge backlash and more than a lot of misunderstanding about what the plan even was. Didn't matter though more than enough people saw it as destroying the food chain and then that's all it was viewed as within months.

[removed]

That is because private companies and individuals bought up the fresh water access across the planet. The supply scarcity will be purely artificial.

[removed]

"In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid."

Sound is the RESULT of vibrations that propagate as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid, or solid making contact with your eardrum between 40 and 40,000 hz. Again, if the frequencies are below or above that range, there is no sound.

How can there be sound if no one can hear it? That's paradoxical and defies logic. Using a general term to describe both vibrations that can and can't be experienced by a human ear is imprecise. You can call puffs of air that can't be heard by a human ear "sound" all day long, it's wrong. There is obviously no sound because you can't describe what you can't hear. You can't describe the intervals, the notes, the tones, the timber, etc.

I'm not arguing the narrow and imprecise physics definition of sound. It's not a debate.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is: we don't wipe ourselves out, we build ASI and sustain full control over it, and we lose our biological state on purpose rather than on accident.

And even if this is something none of us will ever experience, thinking about it still seems like a fun / useful exercise

From the article

>"This mission will debut Firefly's unique two-stage Blue Ghost spacecraft, offering NASA and other customers multiple deployment options as we collectively build the infrastructure for ongoing lunar operations and planetary exploration," Bill Weber, CEO of Firefly Aerospace, said in a different statement(opens in new tab).
>
>The award is the second CLPS contract for Firefly. In 2021, the firm was selected to put 10 payloads on the near side of the moon. That Blue Ghost mission will launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in 2024.

> > It only seems like an observer is necessary for "sound" because you're using the wrong definition of the word; you're trying to reason about physics using a definition meant for human psychology. It's no more valid than trying to reason about calculus using the wrong definition of the word "integral".
>
> Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum.

That is incorrect if you're trying to do physics.

I get that you like the idea of the presence of a mind being necessary for something to be "sound", but that is literally wrong in a physics context. It's not even a matter of opinion, that's just not how the word "sound" is defined for use in physics.

> The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon

From that link:
> "The observer in this experiment was not human. Instead, they used a tiny electron detector that could spot the presence of passing electrons. The quantum “observer’s” capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from “observing,” or detecting the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current."

i.e., the key is not "an observer" in the "conscious agent" sense, but rather detection or measurement in the "physically interacts with the system" sense. That article says exactly the same thing that I've been saying all along, which is that the difference is measurement, not a conscious observer.

Again, you're getting hung up on definitions of words that are not correct for a physics context. "Observer" does not imply that there is someone doing the observing; it just means measurement is occurring.

[removed]

Where do you live?

Because we know that there are other options.

All anyone has to do is look towards Israel to see them in practice.

[removed]

What we do with technology in this century can determine whether life gets off this planet and survives the death of the solar system. If earth life can colonize space, then the organizing forces of life and intelligence may persist until entropy is defeated.

For people who are interested in preserving life in the universe for extremely long periods of time, these topics are interesting to think about because of how many future events hinge on the present - the fate of the only life we know depends so much on what we do today, it's awesome in a literal way.

I'm not saying that we can definitely accomplish anything particular, I'm saying that a lot is possible if life and intelligence continue to exist, possibly including extending the lifespan of the universe. Thus some people feel it's important to do what it takes to preserve life.

I'd be happy to debate this in more depth if you'd be willing to provide an argument grounded in evidence and logic. You just keep saying "it's too much time for anything to make a difference." Based on what? Give me a real argument to respond to.

Let's just take the water from the rising sea levels

[removed]

So some countries that had extreme population growth over the past 20 years will shrink or at least stop growing.

Animal agriculture is hugely wasteful and resource intensive. Luckily lab grown meat and precision fermentation is coming online to hopefully mitigate a lot of the damage since people cannot be bothered to change habits.

[removed]

1.7x10 to the power of 106 is an unimaginably vast amount of time. Currently we live on a rock in space so we'd need faster than light travel to get anywhere meaningful which of course would alter time relative to the initial position. I can't predict what will be possible. However as a species we have existed for a negligible amount of time. I honestly can't imagine humanity existing even a million years from now. Anyway It's not something any of us living today will find out. It's possible Humans will wipe themselves out before then, hypothetically speaking we might create ASI which could decide to wipe us out or we may interface with machines and eventually lose our biological state.

I dont think we need radical changes, as the scope for better efficiency is so large e.g. simply switching to drip irrigation vs sprinklers saves 40%.