I guess I don't understand why this needs to be explained. The situations are not equivalent: Doing something harmful (to your body, to your car, to your environment) can be reasonably stopped without much concern that the results would be catastrophic. If you are doing something you know is harmful and are trying to mitigate the effects of it, then it's reasonable to consider the relative harm of the original act versus the mitigation.

Yes, the costs associated with reducing CO2 production should be considered, but there is no reason to think that not producing CO2 in itself would be catastrophic, since that's what the status quo was for thousands of years.

You might want to read this article on it. Good quote: "There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "

We are still learning about the climate; we know enough, probably enough to say that pumping CO2 into the air is not a good idea and is likely the cause of climate change, but not enough to consider all the options and determing a geoengineering fix yet. But, people _are_ working on it.

Yes, we're screwed (and my children / grandchildren are screwed). I'm not sure what to do about it. I'm convinced that there are corporations / government cronies that will prevent us from solving the problem for all humanity. (Yes, I'm doing what I can to support causes opposed to them, but my guess is that they will lose and we'll continue to cause climate change). So, what to do to protect myself (and descendents)?

I've considered buying land in Canada. Prince Edward Island is supposed to be nice. I've thought about Maine, since it is in the US (and I'm a US citizen). Perhaps I should consider someplace around the Great Lakes instead (as well?)

In terms of investments, I'm trying to figure out who the big winners will be. What will be a good long-term investment strategy? I'm tempted to say the oil companies, but I think that eventually (past the point of it making a difference) they'll be blamed. Does anybody have a good book to recommend?

Options: Bismuth or tungsten / iron.

Yes, they are more expensive and have small issues. Lead, of course, has a slight issue as well, like poisoning the environment.

Anti-NRA Rant: The cost the reason that NRA doesn't like it, because it decreases volume and thereby profits enjoyed by the gun and ammo manufacturers, which control the NRA. NRA is not about hunting, self-defense, anti-federalism, privacy, or anything else; it's about money for the manufacturers. They control the agenda, who gets lobbied and for how much, and who runs the organization.

Yep. You remember the old saying that 'Nobody ever got fired for using IBM'? Well, that's the way it is nowadays with Amazon Web Services and either security or privacy. They have ITAR covered; they even can do HIPAA, and that's a freaking privacy nightmare to try to implement yourself.

Yes, you can get it cheaper someplace else; you might get better service; or it might be easier to use (though it's gotten better over tiime). But nobody comes close to providing you as a sysadmin or developer with the cover that you need at a good price.

Seriously, it makes me wonder if either: 1. this sort of thing (getting lost at sea) happens more often than we realize; or, 2) well known computer science types are more likely to have this happen to them.

I hereby vow not to become famous in computer science and then go boating. Thus far, I'm solving this problem through not being famous.

There is a free Amazon AWS tier. Look here. It's even called AWS Free Usage Tier.

Yes, it's pretty slow; yes, there are limits. If you need more, then you need to pay a little more. Compared to the situation 5 years ago, costs are way, way down.

Um....No, not on this planet.

Really, you seem to think that there is some universally agreed upon moral right, but other people don't have your beliefs. They aren't written down, they aren't based on any sort of agreement. Your legal rights have been hashed over for a long time, though they change slowly.

Do you have a legitimate link for these claims? (Yes, as a matter of fact, I do get to decide if your link is legitimate).

Seriously, what you are saying is far outside the claims that have been made about this, and what has been discussed in the 'main stream media'. So I'm very skeptical.

Your attitude doesn't lend you credibility either. You have given us absolutely no reason to believe that your unusual claims are anything but the ravings of a loony.

No, you could not. You might end up with a robot, but you might not; lots of engineering projects end up in complete failure. More importantly, even if they 'succeeded' you would not have a standard, stable, reproducible platform. You would have a system held together with bailing wire and duct tape, and when one or more of those graduate students left, you would have nothing because they would be the only ones that could get it to work.

I have killed 100% of the pets entrusted to me.

When they have gotten old and are in pain, and are unable to have a reasonable life, even with medical care, I have them euthanized. So, I'm killing them. PETA doesn't think that animals should be pets, so they don't ever leave the shelter, and eventually (after living a long pleasant life) they need to be euthanized. So, they kill them all.

No, it doesn't. Take a look at people (reporters, activists, members of congress on a lark), have tried to live on what is provided by welfare and food stamps. It's bleak, unhealthy, and unpleasant. It's only in your mind and Fox News that people in those programs are living it large.

C'mon mods, that was great.

Plus, it's about as realistic as many of the other scenarios we're getting here. At least in the parent's scenario, it's an extrapolation of what is currently going on rather than a reversal.

No, you are misinterpreting what he said. Yes, in some terms, we are definitely better off. However, take a look at the distribution of wealth within the society. There is a disappearing middle class and the wealth is overhelmingly becoming collected by a small group. Income inequality is way up; wealth inequality is way, way up. Take a look at this page; median income has not changed much since the 70's while productivity has continued to improve. The benefit of improvements have gone primarily to the rich.

That will continue with improved AI and more automation. Benefits will accrue to the already wealthly, and median income will not increase.

That's a gigantic assumption, that I don't see any basis for. Food is incredibly cheap, relative to historical standards, and people still starve and are malnourished. Further, the supply is not a monolithic thing, even for food. There is only so much filet to go around, somebody needs to buy the crappy chuck. In theory, the people directing beef production could make enough filet for everyone, but why would they? What is their incentive? Or, are you imagining some super-economist determining what gets produced?

I don't think that you have thought through the incentives in your idealistic system. There are currently people who have much more wealth than other people. They like it that way, and they will keep it that way. Even in a world where everyone could have a 100' yacht, it's not going to happen if the people who currently have 100' yachts don't want everyone to have one. What is your transition plan and how does it not involve violence?