chr1

Historically most people used to spend for children and grandchildren significantly more that on themselves. The current situation when people go to other countries and then say we do not have money for more than one child is abnormal, and can't go on very long.

I agree that there are many better ways to organize social programs, e.g. replace all of them with negative tax, when some percentage of all tax collected past year is divided equally between all citizens of any age.

Sure well organized society is very impressive, e.g. invention of capitalism and private ownership is the greatest invention ever made, but the point i was trying to make is that it is only a foundation for really exciting stuff like science spaceships, immortality.

Well, US spends 1.5 trillion on social security and only 20 billion on NASA, so "present" is kind of overrepresented. Redirecting that little bit so that a few more people can live without working, or can get expensive treatment to live a few more years is stupid, not inspiring.

If you look closer you'll see that this rockets are key to billions of people living on other planets, to cheaper internet, to better telescopes, to satellites controlling weather.

Ultimately this is an important step towards a future with healthcare providing thousands of years of life, and unlimited housing space.

The money transferred from tax payers to people without money is in effect a price for not breaking the law.

If AI makes it much easier to produce goods, it reduces price of money, making it easier to pay some money to everyone in exchange for not breaking the law.

Fuel rods in nuclear reactor last 3-7 years giving high level of reliability in case of a blockade, while LNG storage is enough only for a few months in the best case.

Perovskite is not durable though, and that's the main reason it is still not used in solar cells.

Kind of, but i mean if it was a smaller and more numerous species, it could have larger impact.

Why is it impossible? it can be as simple as a bottom feeder species that goes to the surface to poop, basically like whales, or have cells in their gut that produce fiber making their poop float to surface, or a combination of seaweed that produces floating wood, and a fish that builds nests on it. The second version is probably in reach of current technology.

How far is our technology from being able to develop species of fish, that would bring up dirt from ocean floor, doing fertilization by themselves?

In most cases instead of CT scan one could do the same diagnosis with MRI scan, which is only a bit more expensive.

There is a rather interesting version of 1v1 tetris where your opponents empty space is your filled space https://tetrio.io/

When plane is crashing, one wouldn't suggest the pilot to jump off to make the plane lighter.

Same here, if life has any chance at all to survive long term, that chance is through humans.

Sadly we are not all powerful and some species will go extinct before being restored, but if humans are "removed" these species living a few more years on a doomed planet is not any better.

Moreover, saying that ultimate goal of nature conservation is removal of humans is simply counterproductive, it makes people ignore the nature conservation efforts as suicidal mental illness, while we are mindlessly wasting priceless library of useful genes and proteins that took billion years to develop.

Conservation of what? Exact state of the ecosystem today? That goes until the next comet hits the Earth. And eventually all the life dies out when Earth core gets colder and volcanism ends. But with humans there is a chance to save and spread the life in general by moving to other planets, and using other yet unknown technologies.

> But the study raises lots of questions: is it possible to boost these herbivores’ populations across the whole northern latitudes? If so, why do we need mammoths at all—why not just use species that already exist, which would surely be cheaper?

Many videos from https://pleistocenepark.org/ explain, that at the start they are removing large trees with bulldozer, something that mammoths could do and other herbivores do not do effectively.

Sadly this kind of inattention to detail and shallow arguments are typical to people who hold views similar to this article.

The authors complains that Colossal doesn't genetically engineer trees, but if someone was to develop trees that could grow floating in open sea, they were going to complain how this unnatural tree are bad and will change the ocean ecosystem.

Mammoth de-extinction is indeed bad conservation, because it is much better than merely conservation, it is restoration, and reengineering of empty lands into something much more useful for us, and for other animals.

AI is good at solving captchas. But even if everyone added a captcha search engines will continue indexing. Because it is easy to add authentication for search engines to escape captcha, Google will just need to publish a public key.

Carbon sequestration is merely a side effect, the main goal is to have a wavebreaker and a park and a place to grow fruits, for a floating city.

To bring nutrient rich water up and to generate energy in the process temperature difference between surface and deep water can be used [1]. So if this kind of tree is created, living on open sea can become cheaper and more pleasant than even living on a beach.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversio...

E.g. https://www.eodashboard.org/story?id=primary-productivity&pa...

For water to team with life, you need materials for building cells in the same place where the light is, and in most cases there is not enough iron on the surface

A few years ago an oil selling dictator, used his oil money to attack and occupy my friends country, killed my friend, and forced all the population to flee without ability to take anything with them.

So if you think that i like the situation where everyone supports dictatorships like Azerbaijan by buying their oil, you are very wrong.

But what we want and what is going to happen is often very different. Cutting fossil fuel use will not happen until there are better alternatives. And at that point most likely there will be enough CO2 in atmosphere to trigger melting of permafrost which will produce its own CO2. So "these schemes" will be needed one way or another.

That said my main interest here is seasteading, and increasing ocean biomass. Reducing atmospheric CO2 is merely a curios side effect.

Plants don't live in open space either, and yet the submitted page wants to research possibilities.

Using some genes from mangroves it should be possible to develop a plant that would grow in open sea.

Nitrogen is easy, it can be captured from air, iron is the main thing missing in surface water that must be brought up by upwelling.

But having real trees above the water is much more useful than simple carbon capture, they would serve as wavebreakers for seasteading settlements too.

Somewhat similar and probably easier to achieve would be trees floating in open ocean, and some kind of plant capable to bring nutrients up from the large depth.

Currently most of the ocean is a lifeless desert, with most of life concentrated in the places where upwelling occurs. This kind of floating trees would add enough biomass to compensate for all of the human produced CO2 and even more.

People who bring up this theory, bring the great depression as evidence, forgetting that the problem there was caused by the law forbidding to reduce salaries, which made prices going down equivalent to minimal wage going up, which of course leads to unemployment.

Prime numbers and elliptic curves are much more connected than one might expect. Each elliptic curve generates a function similar to zeta function, and there is a version of a Riemann hypothesis for elliptic curves https://m.youtube.com/@PeakMathLandscape

Another possible solution to the situation you describe is when grandparents are taking care of children and young people work as much as they can. There is a theory that people evolved to live past reproductive years, because it allowed to raise more children.

Newtonian mechanics also was a well established theory with multiple confirmations, but that did not mean the predictions it made were exact.

Shor's algorithm working for large numbers would rule out some of interpretations of quantum mechanics like objective collapse, something that have not happened yet.

In any case my argument was not about any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics, my argument is that building quantum computer allows us to test our understanding of physics in conditions where it have not been tested yet. And so even if that did not produce any additional benefits the testing itself would be worthwhile.

The main benefit of building quantum computer is verification of correctness of quantum mechanics. There is a good reason to hope that quantum computers won't work allowing us to create better theory.

There are thornless varieties of blackberries, but they taste awful compared to the real thing.

Hopefully this will allow to develop new thornless varieties that will duffer only in presence of thorns and not taste.

1. I don't want my children to die. And i don't want all the life on earth to be eliminated by a random asteroid.

2. Imagine two planets, people on one of them believe that expanding is the moral imperative, and the other want stay where they are. Eventually the people from the first planet will be technologically as far away from the people on first planet, as we are from people on Sentinel island. And therefore will be completely reliant on goodwill first people.

3. The only way to preserve life on earth is to develop space technology, once we have sufficient industry in space, controlling whether on earth will be a simple task, trivially solving climate change issue.

Health is only temporary, and everyone in your family is going to die, until someone makes a trillion dollar startup to cure aging. So it is fundamentally wrong to put health, family, and work as things opposing each other, ultimately they are all needed on a way to get all of the galaxy filled with life. And as Susan have shown one can both do great work, and have a big family with 5 children.

If such thin perovskites ever become cheap and stable enough, they will allow creating autonomous, hydrogen filled, cargo transporter dirigibles, which could be faster and cheaper replacement for trucks.