Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: False Premise (Score 1) 680

by pubwvj (#49797421) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

"Even at our current growth rate there's not enough for everyone. Not enough food, not enough space, not enough medical care. If â" no, when â" age reversal becomes a reality, who gets to live? And if everyone gets to live, how will we provide for them?"

This is all based on a false politically correct premise of scarcity.

The reality is we already do produce plenty of food for everyone. The primary food problem is bad guys (warlords) who use food for power and intercept the food stopping it from getting to people who need it. A secondary problem in the first world is people voluntarily wasting good food because they're too picky or the government is too picky.

We have plenty of space. Total non-issue.

Medical care will get better, not worse with more people because there will be more doctors and care givers. Besides, along with living longer is living more healthily so less care is needed due to advancements in science.

Our planet has the capacity to sustainably support 50 BILLION people while still setting aside 25% of the land area for wildlife. Then there is outer space. We desperately need to get off this rock and populate space as habitats and other planets & moons before this planet Earth plays billiard balls again. Long term issue that could happen any time, small probability, huge consequence.

Comment: Re:Why not just kill them all? (Score 2) 148

by pubwvj (#49771079) Attached to: Sex-Switched Mosquitoes May Help In Fight Against Diseases

"Not a good plan usually."

"Usually" is a very important qualifier there. There are some things we do not need, some things the ecosystem does not need, some things that can be removed without disrupting the greater cycle of life. Some of those things are just annoying. Yes, there are things that eat them but not that are dependent on them. Eliminating them eliminates an annoyance. Take the Polio virus for example. Please.

Comment: Killing is only Optional (Score 1) 416

by pubwvj (#49765863) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

There seems to be a lot of fear revolving around the idea that an AI will kill us off. But I would hazard that as unlikely. We don't tend to exterminate, to kill off, species. Counter examples of the kill off hypothesis include but are not limited to:

1) Pets

2) Work associates (e.g., our livestock dogs)

3) Livestock which we harvest something from such as eggs, fiber, milk, etc. (Of course, eventually we kill them but there are far, far more of them because we get a benefit than there would be if we did not raise them so it is more a matter that we cultivate them than that we kill them (off). People tend to worry about being killed off, not being used. After all, the government uses us for its benefit and people don't seem to mind (too much).)

4) Zoos (Not many needed for this.)

5) Nature Parks - conservancy (but we won't need very many of you humans for that either.)

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 1) 416

by pubwvj (#49764961) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

Counter examples:

1) Pets

2) Work associates (e.g., our livestock dogs)

3) Livestock which we harvest something from such as eggs, fiber, milk, etc. (Of course, eventually we kill them but there are far, far more of them because we get a benefit than there would be if we did not raise them so it is more a matter that we cultivate them than that we kill them (off). People tend to worry about being killed off, not being used. After all, the government uses us for its benefit and people don't seem to mind (too much).)

4) Zoos (Not many needed for this.)

5) Nature Parks - conservancy (but we won't need very many of you humans for that either.)

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.

Working...