5 ms·
> if you're willing to forgo having a family, quite likely for good. Kids you have now will die around 2100 or so. Even if we avoid nuclear annihilation, as s
by username223 13y ago
> if you're willing to forgo having a family, quite likely for good.
Kids you have now will die around 2100 or so. Even if we avoid nuclear annihilation, as seems increasingly likely, the world will be a pretty awful place by then.
- mitochondrion 13y agoBarring total catastrophe, I simply don't see how a relatively stable population with incredibly advanced automating technology and biotechnology would be incapable of "fixing" the world.
- username223 13y agoA small minority will be perfectly capable of "fixing" their bit with multi-billion-dollar storm surge protection, desalination, etc. Given that the rest of humanity will be motivated by the threat of death, I wouldn't rule out total catastrophe. There are levels of survival you should not be willing to accept.
- Natsu 13y agoI'd worry more about the problems we can't see coming than the ones we can, personally.
- judk 13y agoNot everyone is barring total catastrophe.
- gfodor 13y agothat's the spirit
- herokusaki 13y agoYou state a controversial opinion (as evidenced by the responses) that the world will be a pretty awful place by 2100 as fact. Can you justify it?
- parasight 13y agoI wonder how someone really believing this can go on being motivated to do anything.
- ForHackernews 13y agoWho cares? We'll all be dead by then.
- username223 13y agoThere are many reasons to do things that have nothing to do with the state of the world in 2100. For example, there may be value in improving the remaining lives of people who will be dead before then. Think about it.