@Great-King-Rat saidNo, I think solar is best deployed on rooftops, highway medians, and other areas where the environment has already been ruined with development. The same goes for wind power, though I think the impact of offshore wind farms is minimal. Geothermal energy has great potential, with advances opening up the possibility of deploying it almost anywhere. Harnessing tidal energy also is an option. Hydrothermal energy is too deleterious, and nuclear power should only be deployed with great restraint. There are other renewable options, of course.
I see huge solar panel fields in China, which utterly ruin the environment. Even in my tiny country, big fields are covered in panels, which has a huge impact on the animals that live there.
Not to mention, making these panels also comes at a cost.
Then there's the other side of the equation: developing more efficient technologies and transportation networks that use less energy. It's quite possible that in not too much time computer systems and internet servers will become dramatically more efficient, which will result in most of the data centers being constructed today becoming superfluous, with one expert envisioning them being converted to pickleball courts. Time will tell, though.
Finally, the human population has to decrease by at least 90%. The planet is severely overpopulated. Fortunately demographic trends point toward this happening naturally over the course of the next century or two. Meanwhile, humans have to develop beyond mindless consumerism, buying useless crap that just ends up in landfills after a season. This means that capitalism must go, since it requires infinite growth to stay viable. I foresee AI replacing almost all jobs humans currently do, which means capitalism has only two solutions: die, or make some kind of pretend work for people to do. Capitalist dynamics conspire to keep people endlessly busy even as automation becomes more pervasive and efficient, because it sets up a class of people who find ways to exploit everyone else.
Think about it. With AI and automation, what's called a post-scarcity society is within reach, where practically all human needs are met with machines and algorithms. People could spend their lives being artists, musicians, thinkers—basically people could just be, and no longer exist merely as a cog in an inhuman mechanism designed to make others rich. But yes, in a post-scarcity society people would still be free to set up a business that does things machines and algorithms can't, with the important difference being that people working in such an enterprise would be doing so of their own free will, and because they love the work and find it fulfilling.
AI is going to make so many people unemployed and unemployable that the only reasonable way out will be to shorten the workweek and let humans be humans. This will be a bizarre concept to the AveJoes of the world, who seem to think that it's not only acceptable but necessary for a sizable fraction of humanity to be miserable and degraded in any successful capitalist economic system. Did he ever hear his hero Musk himself say recently that, in 10 or 20 years, people will no longer have to work for a living? It's a striking statement precisely because it's true, but the AveJoes of the world will stand in the way of any such development occurring in our lifetimes because they cannot change their mindset or see the bigger picture.
@AverageJoe1 saidSo you think Bill Gates is wrong?
People said such things about many of our advancing modern inventions, like the car overtaking the horse. I aint worried one bit about it. It may get losers off of their asses to get on the train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/26/bill-gates-on-ai-humans-wont-be-needed-for-most-things.html
Why do you think he and the Rockefellers want to reduce the population?
So they will not have to give people money to survive. Gates thinks he will have to pay for a UBI for most people he does not need to work. He does not want that.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Population-Council
@Metal-Brain saidPeople who predict the future are using only their personal expereiences in their present-day environment, say, of people, money, daily changing mores', acceptance of some people 'taking the stuff' of others,,,,,all these things.
So you think Bill Gates is wrong?
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/26/bill-gates-on-ai-humans-wont-be-needed-for-most-things.html
Why do you think he and the Rockefellers want to reduce the population?
So they will not have to give people money to survive. Gates thinks he will have to pay for a UBI for most people he does not need to work. He does not want that.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Population-Council
In the future, lives will be different, so they do not know squat about the future. 50 years ago they said we would be in flying cars today.
@AverageJoe1 saidSo the population counsel does not want to reduce the population even though that is the whole reason they exist and I am silly for predicting they will do it?
People who predict the future are using only their personal expereiences in their present-day environment, say, of people, money, daily changing mores', acceptance of some people 'taking the stuff' of others,,,,,all these things.
In the future, lives will be different, so they do not know squat about the future. 50 years ago they said we would be in flying cars today.
Why did the Rockefeller Foundation fund development of an anti fertility vaccine?