Although temperature does equal energy, energy doesn't necessarily equal temperature. Energy can be stored in other ways that just heat.

Logging in to 500 servers and making a small settings change using a text editor is simple, but not very productive. Setting up then using a configuration management system to script an update to do the same task is more complex but a lot less total work. Productive != Simple.

If it's a tax that reduces some behavior we don't like then that's still a net win. Generally when you tax something you get less of it. Forcing the re-internalization of externalized costs is a legitimate function of government.

You do realize the system is made up of more than just gas?

It's more productive, that's not the same thing as simpler.

It all depends on the power imbalance. If one side is vastly more powerful and they prioritize their own interests heavily then obviously it's not going to go well for the weaker side.

Not from where I'm sitting. Instead, the complexity goes up every year as they keep trying to do more with less. I'm fine with that as means I get paid more since they still need someone who understands how it all works.

If it's of comparable intelligence to us and it doesn't somehow enter a singularity via self-upgrade then the likely outcomes are much like our relations with any other group with their own interests, some positive some negative.

On the other hand if it quickly outstrips us in intellect, then the relationship will more likely be like that of ours with ants, indifference combined with local eradication where there is conflict of interest.

No, and I think it would be a terrible move. The government is horrible at things like that. I was merely refuting your Government = Evil but Corporations = Awesome implication.

Meh, too skinny for my taste. Six from Tripping the Rift is more my style.

Yes, we all know that corporations are a pure as driven snow, have absolutely no influence over any individual and don't abuse their position in any way.

There are many kinds of power, not all of them come from the barrel of a gun.

I whole heartedly support GMOs, genetic engineering is going to go a long ways towards solving the world's food supply problems. I merely think that we need proper testing of designed species that is more rigorous that that used for hybrids.

Actually yes, irradiation is more disturbing and I would put it in the same category as GMOs. Proof of safety required rather than assumption of safety until harm proven.

I patiently await your citation of pre-existing natural fish/tomato transgenics.

Engineering is great but engineers and scientists aren't gods, they can make mistakes, fail to fully consider consequences, lack complete knowledge or even get overridden by management. GMOs should of course be allowed, to deny them is stupid but they shouldn't automatically get GRAS status, proof of safety is required rather than assumption of safety until harm is proven.

So your argument is that you don't like economics?

Fine, let me put it a different way:

1) Machinery has replaced muscle, selling muscle is no longer viable
2) Automation is replacing ambulatory coordination, it's getting harder to sell that all the time and within the century you won't be able to
3) Weak AI is replacing routine intellectual work, pretty soon you won't be able to sell that either.

What sorts of work don't involve muscle, ambulatory coordination or routine intellectual work? Not much. Certain forms of entertainment, research & development, high end engineering, politics.

Will there continue to be people employed? Yes, lacking true strong AI humans will still be necessary in some quantities, but it's likely to look a lot like agriculture where a small percentage can take care of it for everyone else. Current trends will result in less than 10% total employment. This isn't going to happen next year, but it's going to be a lot faster than most people think.