As much as I respect James Lovelock and value his Gaia theory, I can't help but take issue with his four-step plan to save humanity:
1. Retreat to megacities
2. Use nuclear energy
3. Artificially control the Earth's temperature
4. Let Artificial Intelligence (AI) take over
1/
1. Retreat to megacities
2. Use nuclear energy
3. Artificially control the Earth's temperature
4. Let Artificial Intelligence (AI) take over
1/
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1332610810447863809
What about the law of unintended consequences, black swan events and deep unertainty?
1. Controlled (forced?) migration ("retreat") from rural areas to megacities is likely to create numerous conflicts. In many senses it already is.
2/
1. Controlled (forced?) migration ("retreat") from rural areas to megacities is likely to create numerous conflicts. In many senses it already is.
2/
2. Nuclear energy use may be relatively "safe" but what about nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation risks?
3. Geoengineering solutions, such as pumping sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, are by definition large-scale, with no emergency 'exit' option or 'reverse gear'.
3/
3. Geoengineering solutions, such as pumping sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, are by definition large-scale, with no emergency 'exit' option or 'reverse gear'.
3/
4. As for letting AI cyborgs take over from us mere "lumps of flesh" as the dominant form of "life" on Earth, well.. We've all seen the SciFi movies where humans become the slaves. Do I even need to go there?
4/4
4/4
* deep uncertainty
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
