Fishing is immoral

Post Reply New Topic

If the fish are gone, then there will be no more fishing industry.

The planet will eventually repair itself and support a growing human population.

The ice caps haven’t melted.

It still snows.

And there’s plenty of oil and coal to be had.

And plenty of fish.

Not necessarily. Humans may go extinct, like the dinosaurs.

It’ll never come to that, though. Worst case scenario: Human industrialists destroy the environment and trigger Armageddon. Whoever is left is forced to adapt to a world without the offending means of production. The planet will eventually repair itself and support a growing human population.

The coming environmental cataclysm and the end of fossil fuels has been predicted for many decades if not over a century by now. The plain fact is it’s not nearly as bad as activists made it out to be. The ice caps haven’t melted. It still snows. And there’s plenty of oil and coal to be had.

Highly unlikely.

Well…maybe a certain TYPE of human will go extinct. That’s just plain evolution. I think a merging of human intelligence with AI is more likely. If anything, our existence may eventually become more transcendent.

Serious global warming scientists do not say the world will end in 2000. The prediction is that around 2040 the temperature trends will become unsalvagable - not that the world will end. The world will end later than 2040 if the temperatures follow the trends.

There is nothing to panic about.

Depends on where you live. Where I am, winters are a LOT milder than they used to be. We get a few more hot days in summer. It used to be that very few homes had air conditioning. Now, most of us do. No more ice fishing on the bay.

Within a few decades, my area will be among the best places to live in the United States (climate-wise), while the rest of you lot will be desperate climate refugees.

The climate now is changing faster than ever--at least since humans have been on the planet.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/

According to this chart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclim ... otemps.svg

for the past 10,000 years, temperatures have been stable, but are projected to increase dramatically during this century.

Please tell me how the people of 10,000 years ago survived when it was hotter than now.

They not only survived, but they thrived and started building the foundations of the civilization that we enjoy today.

...He said that the church was grateful for the wet winter — but unsurprised given the power of prayer — and urged members of the faith to conserve water and to not let the season’s plentiful snowpack go to waste...

...Church officials announced earlier this week that they planned to donate roughly 20,000 acre-feet of water rights to the Great Salt Lake, which has shrunk to its lowest levels ever due to a supply-demand imbalance caused by decadeslong regional drought. The church has at least 75,000 acre-feet of active water rights, the Salt Lake Tribune reported in February.

The church’s donation is roughly the size of a small reservoir and about 2% of what’s needed to keep the lake at its current level, according to research from a group of scientists led by Brigham Young University Ecologist Ben Abbott.

“It’s a drop in the bucket on one level, but it’s also a big drop,” Abbott said of the church’s donation...

But there were far fewer mouths to feed, with food production being a locally maintainable activity. There were also no planet-polluting industries accelerating the temperature rise.
It's not simply a question of 'can people withstand the temperature increase'.

The current food source infrastructure is huge, practically planet-covering, and is heavily dependent on a stable climate - wheat fields, palm oil plantations, livestock grazing etc.
If those can't be sustained or an alternative rapidly found we are in deep doo-doo.

I happen to agree with Readydaer—if that happens it might be because we deserve it.

I mean, Lecia, think about it. Wouldn’t that solve your problem? Fishing is immoral. Bots trained in human logic take out humans. No humans=no fishing. Problem solved, right?

I don’t see it coming to that in reality, though. I see AI and humans merging rather than fighting each other for survival or dominance. Even if AI completely took over, either we would never know it, or we wouldn’t care. If AI is reason-based and objective, then it shares a human concern for achieving the best outcomes for all individuals. Conservatives LOVE fossil fuels for good reason: in the past, harnessing hydrocarbons led to innovation and freedom. But the time of fossil fuels for energy production is long past. We’ve allowed something that gave us great freedom to make us stagnant. Now fossil fuel energy is a political pawn standing in the way of progress and achievement. Oil is still relevant because of things we need that we can’t get elsewhere, like certain chemicals and plastics. Natural gas is still a superior heat source for homes. But free and renewable energy is the way forward. We’re caught between conservatives who propagandize oil and coal because energy and because jobs (translation: because votes) and liberals who propagandize government waste on greedy, ineffective startups because environment (translation: because free money and votes).

Enter merged human/AI consciousness. Rapid decision-making made based on objective data and pure logic. Emotions driven by achieving the best outcomes for the individual. Avoiding problems before they happen because we know our individual self-interest is best served when the needs of other individuals are met. Increased individual freedom because of enhanced problem solving rather playing second fiddle to corrupt politics.

Really, the only people fighting against the bots are those who have something to lose.