Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
No clue why we need AI for that, we can arrange our mass extinction perfectly by ourselves by just continuing on this road. ๐คญ
At this moment, I think the main issue is that we as a species don't think enough of our mass extinction. For some strange reason, most people (at least in 'the west') think they'll survive whatever happens, nuclear war, climate change,...
However, no matter the method of our extinction, I guess most people thinking about it think it would be bad. From nature's point of view we're just "a species" and when evolution in this direction proves to be a bad route, no big loss.
Unless in possession of a crystal ball, nobody can say what is bound to happen to our species as climate changes take place.
Like any other species we are vulnerable to extinction but as many physicist have underlined, the highest risk for a civilization is its start. After a certain point is achieved, a civilization can become technically immortal.
What qualifies a physicist to discuss the immortality of a civilization?
Here, indulge.
An per your question: the same that qualifies you or me, which is being alive and capable of observe and extrapolate possible outcomes through thinking.
You'd be surprised by most people's ability to do so.
It's sad how stupid people are full of certainty while the intelligent are always full of doubt.
That is the biggest concern we should have.
Then why are we taking their opinion over our own?
Typically, when people cite something like that, they defer to an expert in that field. In this case, maybe an anthropologist? There's nothing in the training to be a physicist that prepares them to understand the early stages of civilizations forming, let alone is longevity.
Have you read the article?
Yes maybe humanity will adapt and survive, but adapting in this case will mean witnessing billions of deaths and a very poor quality of life and much shorter life expectancy for the survivors. Imagine entire nations having to relocate because their homelands are now unsuitable for human life. That will not be a pleasurable experience for anybody and will lead to wars and genocide.