• Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Kind of a two-fer right there. Without “AI” sucking up so much power, we’d already be better off climate-wise.

        • biofaust@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          10 days ago

          I wrote Generative AI. Do you want to put the two on the same scale of complexity?

            • biofaust@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 days ago

              I agree. Still it is a set with way fewer elements than action against climate change. Also, the nature of operations in the latter case is way more diversified than in the development of the former.

              It is only my opinion though, you may find Generative AI a hydra compared to the other.

              By the way, the money would be well spent indeed but not even close to enough for a sustainable change.

              • lime!@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 days ago

                idk about that last part actually. some of the stuff we can do for the climate we just aren’t doing.

                also we could just hire a few hitmen

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Buying companies that create a lot of pollution and closing them down. (Coal mines/plants, oil firms, single use plastic suppliers, etc)

        Another big one would be buying up pharma companies an their patents and releasing everything under creative commons license.

        • applemao@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          Question on this, how would you expect the millions of people that heat/cool their homes to get by? Or are you advocating for a return to caves ? Unless you’re saying shut those down to build nuclear/solar/wind, which also takes a lot of dirty manufacturing to build. It’s kind of a no-win with this many humans.

          • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            Bio gas is a lot better than coal and fossil oil for the mean time. But long term basically the whole world should be using heatpumps for heating and cooling, they are incredibly efficient and outperform any other system on every metric. Especially because electricity will become dirt cheap in a few years/decades.

            The only reason they arent installed in every house yet is the fossil fuel lobby and their bought politicians, but even they are slowly realizing that its the inevitable solution.

            which also takes a lot of dirty manufacturing to build

            Solar compensates its production+installation footprint in around a year see here for the relevant numbers from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory

            Wind power plants compensate theirs in a matter of a few months. See this part of Climate Towns latest video analyzing the typical propaganda that made you falsely believe that https://youtu.be/wBC_bug5DIQ?t=185

            Nuclear is obviously stupid and does indeed cost way too much and take way too much effort for how bad of a deal you get out of it when its done.

            • Hi_May@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 days ago

              I for one would love to live in this world where electricity becomes dirt cheap, as my rates have only ever gone up, usually in the name of installing more renewables, now don’t get me wrong I’m not against installing renewables but let’s not pretend it will necessarily make power cheaper for the end user

              • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 days ago

                It will. Consumer electricity prices are completely artificially inflated. No matter how corrupt the the system is, eventually the prices will be pushed down because there is such an over abundance of energy output. Already we are seeing exchange prices regularily going into the negative.

                We might ofcourse dump all that excess into garbage like AI training.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        It is a singular endeavor with tons of moving parts, like pretty much every modern endeavor.

        • biofaust@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          My problem with counting all climate change is that the goal itself is not unique: there are atmospheric greenhouse gasses to lower, which are something completely different than the acidification of the oceans, which are completely different from deforestation.

          And the effects themselves are, it’s true, all originated from an imbalance in a system, but exactly because climate is a complex system, they differ wildly.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    10 days ago

    I’m sure you’ll get a bunch of respectable answers, but keep in mind that secretly, everyone is actually thinking sex robots.

    • in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’d rather a free and powerful energy source that’ll benefit humanity not have a logo and pricetag slapped on it so that only the ones who can afford it are allowed to use it.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 days ago

        Any energy source is going to be able to have a price tag and a logo slapped on it as long as energy generation requires infrastructure and capitalism is a thing. Wind, solar, and tidal are great; we desperately need more of them as part of our energy strategy. But they can also have a price tag and a logo. In fact, home solar has become quite a lucrative…well, not exactly scam, but “bad deal” in my area.

        And fusion will have to be here, too, to fill the gaps that wind, solar, and tidal leave; at least for now. There’s no “forever” answer here, only some that’ll last longer than others.

          • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            Indeed. Any company can claim to own anything. The question is whether or not it’s lucrative enough to do so.

          • in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            Precisely. It’s already done to our homes and our food and the water we drink, pretty soon it will be done to the air we breath unless we stop that unnamable thing that privatizes wealth and is defined by the ability to profit from it.

  • Phineaz@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    10 days ago

    Cultured Meat. Without relying on any major breakthroughs, a price competitive with “traditional” meat is feasible with a few rather reasonable and conservative assumptions and developments. Dropping cows as meat source globally alone might be sufficient to slow down further climate change significantly.

      • Phineaz@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        Why would I need an immune system in CM? This is food. It’s cells, generally on a scaffold, that look like either ground meat or a steak or whatever you want. If you mean vasculature: That is an issue if you want to print organs or large, intact tissue, less so for foodstuffs.

        • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Lack of immune system means everything has to be perfectly sterile, it has been the entire problem with scaling up. Entire batches regularly rot.

          there is currently no viable solution to this, that’s why investors are backing out.

          • Phineaz@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            Everything has to be perfectly sterile anyway, this is cell culture. Open tops STRs are not exactly a thing. It doesn’t have to be pharma grade, sure, but food safety is a thing and you’re not going to get a process certified without it. Main issue remains to be the cost of medium, serum-free or not.

            I do wonder where you got that idea from, though. I don’t intend to be rude, but have you got any kind of experience in the field?

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              Yeah that’s the problem… farms don’t have to be sterile. scaling that up has proven to be almost impossible. Cost of the medium is just one of the problems

              I am very interested in the topic and follow it closely, here’s a recent video on the topic summarizing the problem made by a food scientist

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPCnVwwENaQ

  • nycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    how about pocket computers with the power of a smartphone but the common sense usability of a goddamn graphing calculator? i’m sitting on a magic rectangle with more computing power than the apollo mission and it doesn’t even let me blink the LED without installing an app?? these things should legally have to come with a scripting environment.

      • nycki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        the closest thing on android right now is an app called Termux, it simulates a linux scripting environment with several languages (including C, python, and javascript), and it can be programmed to do anything an app can do (including blink the LED).

        but c’mon, that should be standard. also phones should come rooted.

      • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        As someone who has used a graphing calculator in high school, uhhhhhh I must have been using a different brand because it was always a struggle.

  • Aolley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 days ago

    it’s called ‘online deliberation’ Here is a paper on what it might include: https://deliberation.stanford.edu/tools-and-resources/online-deliberation-platform

    Here is my idea on how to implement it: https://www.theconsensusengine.com/ (I’d start on page 25 at the example section)


    It’s a way to get people to work together by finding common ground and making the internet a friendly place not a hateful one of conflict

    It can reduce loneliness by bringing people together based on shared values and interests, as well as location, so you can find a community of people who like the same things, and find a community in your own community to make our localities stronger and more united.

    it can be a way to stop and greatly reduce misinformation and the idea that it takes much more work to refuse lies than to make them, but keeping an list of arguments on both sides and letting the consensus based on evidence emerge

    it can advance science and the knowledge base of all humans by creating a chain of trust with links, so reproducible things and empirical facts are are stronger and more impactful. This will help find answers in currently unknown directions while also reducing or eliminating the publish or perish model of science. If someone is found to have lied then all their contributions going backwards are effected so that the emergent consensus always works towards truth

    it can force hypocrites like almost all republicans and religiousnuts to be faced with their own judgements on their own actions, based on how other people interpret their statements and evidence. This can show delusional people not only that they are wrong, but where they went wrong so they can be aware and try and correct it.

    With a huge amount of money to create it and also to give away we can make people want to contribute and use the system because they stand to benifit from it

    and it can act as an agora and planning department for all human kind on a multigeneration level where decisions are based on evidence and desire. this along may allow something like this idea to take ahold and be the source of progress for society into the future, because what we are doing now is not working.

  • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    You know what? Fuck it. Let’s finally build Edward Teller’s Doomsday Machine.

    Teller, the ‘father of the hydrogen bomb,’ wanted to build something even more mad, Project Sundial, a true Doomsday Device. It relies on the principle that there really is no upper limit to how big a thermonuclear weapon can get. As long as you’re willing to keep chaining stages, you can make them arbitrarily large. However, you do eventually hit a limit where the bomb is too big to deliver to a target.

    However, for Project Sundial, this wasn’t a problem. The idea is you would build a single nuclear device so comically powerful that it doesn’t matter where on Earth you set it off. You build the thing in bunker, under a mountain, in the heart of your most closely guarded territory. It can be the size of a large building if need be; it doesn’t have to be movable. In extreme form, imagine a nuclear bomb the size of a stadium.

    Once you push the button on this thing, it’s over. No matter where on Earth you set it off, the explosion would be so large that it would launch enough dust and debris into the atmosphere to block substantial sunlight and cool the planet. Instant nuclear winter from a single device that cannot be intercepted or shot down. And you can built it in a bunker buried so deep that no regular nuclear weapon can reach it.

    It is the apotheosis of mutually assured destruction. If you threaten our existence, we retain the power to destroy everything. The entire species would be reset to c. 1500 or earlier at the press of a single button.

    They did actually design the thing, though it was never built. And the details are still classified as all hell. But it is entirely possible to actually, in the real world, build a Doomsday Machine worthy of any comic book mad scientist. It is possible to build a single device that can destroy the entire world at the press of a button.

    Or hell, for all we know, it’s possible someone has already built one…