The first thing they need to do is start calling it a body transplant, not a head transplant. The living person got a new body, the dead person did not get a new head.
Pat
Reminds me of George Carlins' near miss routine.
If oceans rise just 5 feet it's going to take tens to hundeds of trillions dollars to do things like move entire cities or create flood barriers. Increases In salinity and changes in rainfall can lead to completely redoing the water supply for entire regions which in turn can completely alter the manner of agriculture in each region. Increased storm activity can take a toll also.
It may look like the US spent 22B in climate research but actual research dollars were only 2.5B of that amount. The global women's shoe market is 80B whereas the global soccer (football) market is much larger. I have done some research and found we spend more yearly on the two than all of climate research ever done since the beginning of science. For a problem with such a high likelihood of being plausible its pretty damn insane more hasn't been done to understand and map the problem. I would not be suprised if the cost of dealing with a changing climate exceeded one quadrillion usd dollars within only 150 years.
We need more satellites that map various temperatures (including ocean), land use, cloud cover, and co2 distributions. We need more studies and data on glaciers - autonomous sensors everywhere. Same goes for ocean currents - also temperatures from deeper that you may not get from satellite. We need better climate models that let us accurately predict the changes that are likely - region by region - something current models struggle with. We cant feed those better models with better data, or more accurately check predictions because we lack the means of acquiring better data. Ultimately, in 100years or so, there may be serious wars fought over the redistribution of wealth that a changing climate will force on us all.
I suppose another alternative is a massive depopulation of the human species on earth. That can easily be accomplished if the struggle for wealth distribution devolves into war.
At least war is something that humans with few weapons/resources afforded to them are much more effective at than self replicating robot armies decked out with the latest military hardware.
go ahead flamod me as I crashed in flames on the last ev article, but yes if you live in a few select areas (80% of the world dosent) or have a custom solar installation then yes electric is the best for the enviorment. Power plants take decades to plan and build it's likely your area has no plans on upgrading (mine dosent). Hybrids are great co2/dist but still cost too much - around half of people can't spend 30k a car. However give the same 7-10k subsidy to a clean diesel - a 5k usd diesel would get everyone lining up to buy.
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis