>>"Like the President-elect, they claim climate change is a hoax."
I think the term 'hoax' should be better defined. In my opinion it's not in the traditional sense of 'it doesn't exist at all' but rather 'it's not underpinning everything we see or experience in the world today' and it most *certainly* isn't 'the existential crisis which …
>>"Like the President-elect, they claim climate change is a hoax."
I think the term 'hoax' should be better defined. In my opinion it's not in the traditional sense of 'it doesn't exist at all' but rather 'it's not underpinning everything we see or experience in the world today' and it most *certainly* isn't 'the existential crisis which will require modern Western developed nations to necessarily reduce their standard of living by 75% so that carbon equity for developing nations can be achieved' as proposed by the likes of the UN, WEF, Bill Gates, Antonio Gutierrez, and others. Why do I say that? Because of these two lines:
>>"I will be writing more about the economic benefits of a sufficiency lifestyle and “How a life of just enough offers a way out of the climate crisis.” It also happens to be a lot cheaper."
In a world where a person living the sufficiency lifestyle yields the *personal* economic benefit of not having to spend his or her money on "stuff" they don't need, the labor they DO engage in would necessarily not need as much compensation either. In other words, we would see an economic downward spiral of people not consuming, producers not producing, and work not being done (or required.) It would make Japan's economic stagnation of the past 30 years look mild and enviable in comparison. What work would humans do to fill the void of time that working less would yield? A person can only do so many leisure activities, to say nothing of the socialization and creativity relevance which work provides to the human psyche. Musk envisions TEN BILLION Optimus humanoid robots by 2040 doing everything from walking the dog to cleaning the house and more. Is that the kind of future we want for ourselves, when we will literally not have to *DO* anything but be leisurely? Is Disney's dystopian future from "WALL-E" our inevitable destiny? I don't think so. I think the idea of so many humanoid robots is to make people redundant and unnecessary, which would then allow a great purge of the undesirable (and expensive) species that's causing so much disruption to the global climate system.
Some would consider that a crackpot conspiracy theory, but as recent history has proven (COVID-19 did not originate in a wet market of Wuhan but escaped from the Wuhan Virology Lab, natural infection and recovery conveyed superior immunity than from vaccination, lockdowns and masking did not slow viral transmission, children under age 18 were not equally at risk as older and sicker adults, to name but a few) conspiracy theories in the modern age tend to be rooted in truth far more than what "scientists" would have us otherwise believe. Even if it is ridiculous to prognosticate on what the eventual goal of having robots and AI do all the thinking and labor for humans in the future would be for, we should be asking ourselves, "At what cost, and why?" Without being able to adequately address those questions and providing a positive answer in the affirmative, maybe we shouldn't be running headlong into that unknown abyss.
>>"Like the President-elect, they claim climate change is a hoax."
I think the term 'hoax' should be better defined. In my opinion it's not in the traditional sense of 'it doesn't exist at all' but rather 'it's not underpinning everything we see or experience in the world today' and it most *certainly* isn't 'the existential crisis which will require modern Western developed nations to necessarily reduce their standard of living by 75% so that carbon equity for developing nations can be achieved' as proposed by the likes of the UN, WEF, Bill Gates, Antonio Gutierrez, and others. Why do I say that? Because of these two lines:
>>"I will be writing more about the economic benefits of a sufficiency lifestyle and “How a life of just enough offers a way out of the climate crisis.” It also happens to be a lot cheaper."
In a world where a person living the sufficiency lifestyle yields the *personal* economic benefit of not having to spend his or her money on "stuff" they don't need, the labor they DO engage in would necessarily not need as much compensation either. In other words, we would see an economic downward spiral of people not consuming, producers not producing, and work not being done (or required.) It would make Japan's economic stagnation of the past 30 years look mild and enviable in comparison. What work would humans do to fill the void of time that working less would yield? A person can only do so many leisure activities, to say nothing of the socialization and creativity relevance which work provides to the human psyche. Musk envisions TEN BILLION Optimus humanoid robots by 2040 doing everything from walking the dog to cleaning the house and more. Is that the kind of future we want for ourselves, when we will literally not have to *DO* anything but be leisurely? Is Disney's dystopian future from "WALL-E" our inevitable destiny? I don't think so. I think the idea of so many humanoid robots is to make people redundant and unnecessary, which would then allow a great purge of the undesirable (and expensive) species that's causing so much disruption to the global climate system.
Some would consider that a crackpot conspiracy theory, but as recent history has proven (COVID-19 did not originate in a wet market of Wuhan but escaped from the Wuhan Virology Lab, natural infection and recovery conveyed superior immunity than from vaccination, lockdowns and masking did not slow viral transmission, children under age 18 were not equally at risk as older and sicker adults, to name but a few) conspiracy theories in the modern age tend to be rooted in truth far more than what "scientists" would have us otherwise believe. Even if it is ridiculous to prognosticate on what the eventual goal of having robots and AI do all the thinking and labor for humans in the future would be for, we should be asking ourselves, "At what cost, and why?" Without being able to adequately address those questions and providing a positive answer in the affirmative, maybe we shouldn't be running headlong into that unknown abyss.