8 ms·
A more positive take here is that we are likely to see a transformation of industrial civilization. And that transformation must necessarily involve an expansio
by westcort 3y ago
A more positive take here is that we are likely to see a transformation of industrial civilization. And that transformation must necessarily involve an expansion off the earth toward space-based industrial development. As Gerard O’Neill said, the surface of the earth is not a suitable environment for an expanding industrial civilization.
Some of our descendants will live in closed-loop habitats with around 50 gigatons of biosphere per occupant. But this will only happen if we prepare for the transition and engage in some long-term thinking.
Unless you have a science-backed point by point refutation of the many challenges to come, your comment is simply an empty assertion.
- bee_rider 3y agoI would suggest just looking in detail at a couple of the proposed ends of civilization. If the author had one really good one, they should have presented that one fully to make a compelling argument. Of the ones I looked at, I wasn’t convinced. A long list of vague gestures toward the end of the world is only convincing to people who are already on the author’s side.
- westcort 3y agoI am of the opinion that it will not be the end of the world, but a transformation. Read literally ANY scientific literature on climate change and you will see that there is reason to believe major changes are afoot.