Trailer TERMINATOR ZERO | Official Trailer | Netflix

[Zardnaar]

Indeed, AI is much better suited to long term survival, and the survival of human-created AI is, in a sense, the best chance for the survival of part of humanity.

Hypothetically they could also be just as greedy and stupid as we are. But wouldn't have the same impulses at least biological ones.

 

[Hussar]

This is true, but also a misrepresentation, as every other species is also dependent on all the other species. If the foxes eat all the rabbits the foxes also become extinct. If things get out of balance in the long run nature tends to self-correct, but in thr short term it’s disastrous, such as the introduction of domestic cats to NZ kiwis.

And the self-correction to the current massive over-population of humans is mass extinction of humans.

Umm, no?

The self correction of the population of humans is a lower birth rate. Which is exactly what we're seeing. It doesn't take a "snap" event to correct things. And, frankly, the predictions of "over population" have always been based on a flawed understanding of how well humans can feed themselves. Good grief, a farmer in, say, the middle ages, could produce about 5000 calories a day. Enough for himself and one other person. Barely. That same farmer today produces 2-3 MILLION calories per day.

There's a reason we've gone down to about what, 10% of the population actually growing food.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Umm, no?

The self correction of the population of humans is a lower birth rate

Lower birth rate is one way to reduce population growth, but the human population needs to be smaller - much much much smaller. And birth rates are only deceasing in rich well educated nations. Unless that wealth and education is spread more evenly it isn’t going to have much impact.

Not to mention the current popularity of humans who are horrified at falling birth rates and clearly prefer war as a solution.

There's a reason we've gone down to about what, 10% of the population actually growing food

Food is not the problem (until climate change kicks in harder). At least not on a global scale, it’s obviously an huge problem locally, since humans aren’t very good at sharing. Energy consumption is the issue. The Earth receives a fixed amount of energy from the Sun. Humans use energy for a lot more than just food.

 

[Zardnaar]

Lower birth rate is one way to reduce population growth, but the human population needs to be smaller - much much much smaller. And birth rates are only deceasing in rich well educated nations. Unless that wealth and education is spread more evenly it isn’t going to have much impact.


Food is not the problem (until climate change kicks in harder). At least not on a global scale, it’s obviously an huge problem locally, since humans aren’t very good at sharing. Energy consumption is the issue. The Earth receives a fixed amount of energy from the Sun. Humans use energy for a lot more than just food.

Well there's a few nations speed running that scenario now. It's not going well. NZ and USA are about the best it gets in the OECD with population pyramid.

Population was stable at about a billon iirc then crept up to 2 billi9n around WW2 iirc. Ultimately it's a self correcting problem one way or another.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Every species is a threat to every other species. That’s called life. Even plants are constantly at war with each other trying to kill the competition. Nothing lives that isn’t a threat to something.

There's a difference, I think, between members of a species being a threat to individuals of another species and the species being a threat to them as a set. The former is, like you way, business as usual. The latter--not so much.

 

[Ryujin]

There's a difference, I think, between members of a species being a threat to individuals of another species and the species being a threat to them as a set. The former is, like you way, business as usual. The latter--not so much.

Yup. I don't know that any other single species has ever graduated to the level of threatening the entire world's ecosphere, before humans.

 

[Dausuul]

Yup. I don't know that any other single species has ever graduated to the level of threatening the entire world's ecosphere, before humans.

Cyanobacteria.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Cyanobacteria.

I was about to say that, though its more an issue there of simply incompatible environments and those being essentially global in nature. Barring that I'd think technology would be essentially necessary for it to be a thing.

 

[Hussar]

Lower birth rate is one way to reduce population growth, but the human population needs to be smaller - much much much smaller. And birth rates are only deceasing in rich well educated nations. Unless that wealth and education is spread more evenly it isn’t going to have much impact.

Not to mention the current popularity of humans who are horrified at falling birth rates and clearly prefer war as a solution.


Food is not the problem (until climate change kicks in harder). At least not on a global scale, it’s obviously an huge problem locally, since humans aren’t very good at sharing. Energy consumption is the issue. The Earth receives a fixed amount of energy from the Sun. Humans use energy for a lot more than just food.

True, the Earth does receive a fixed amount of energy. A fixed amount that we are currently using a tiny, tiny fraction of the total of. Even at the simplest measure, the best solar cells in the world, in laboratory conditions, still only convert about 25% of the sun's energy to electricity. We've been developing solar power for what, less than 200 years. It's still a very nascent technology that hasn't even begun to hit it's stride yet.

IOW, while yes, we need to fix things and I'm FAR from saying that we shouldn't. Please don't think that I'm sort of climate change denier or anything like that. I understand that there are very serious issues that require attention. Obviously. But, the point is, these issues are slowly getting attention. Things are getting better. Heck, you talk about war as a solution. We haven't had a large scale war in going on a century. For the first time in centuries I might add. We've had as close to world peace as we've ever had for the past fifty, sixty years.

Again, by every possible metric, things are better today than they were in the past. We're healthier, live longer, live better, we're more educated, less violent, less exploitative, far more morally engaged than we ever have been. Does that mean that things are all peaches and cream? Of course not. Being better than we were a hundred years ago, let alone a thousand years ago, is a very, very low bar. But, it is getting better.

And I find the SF trope of "humanity is a disease that must be cured" which is pretty prevalent in Wellsian style SF to be rather tiresome because it's simply not true.

 

[Hussar]

There's a difference, I think, between members of a species being a threat to individuals of another species and the species being a threat to them as a set. The former is, like you way, business as usual. The latter--not so much.

Well, mostly because it's a self-correcting system. Predators over predate, die off due to starvation, then the prey animals make a come back. Fair enough. But, the point is, it's not like the "balance of nature" is static. It's in a constant state of imbalance and trying to correct itself constantly.

Humanity, while it's true we're capable of so much destruction, is also the only species capable of caring for the entire planet as well.