I am unsure if you directed a bot to write this or not, but it incredibly shallow in its understanding. Much more so than it is snarky even though only the snarkiness is acknowledged.

>I say this in all seriousness, though it may sound kind of snarky: You could start a farm, move somewhere with fewer "leopards"

I'm not aware of anywhere I could travel that would be outside the sphere of influence of AI. Perhaps I should use the example of "50km asteroid on a collision course" instead of leopards. Putting our heads in the sand in the face of a global threat is not a rational course of action.

>and build a new social circle.

I'm not sure why I would do this or why you even think it is a good suggestion. A circle of people who you love and trust and who love and trust you back, thanks to many years of friend- and companion-ship, is the most valuable asset a person can have in life. Burning my house down would be a much lesser waste.

>Also, can't you let a new consciousness have their own say on the matter? They can choose their reaction to the multiple looming hells when they get here, no?

The new consciousness doesn't exist unless we create it in the first place. There is no rule that compels us to continue bringing new consciousnesses into existence. People who do not and are unlikely to ever exist are imaginary, and we don't give imaginary people a "say on the matter."