Yeah, it seems like a demise built around suffering and helplessness. If you crave the sweet release of death, this isn’t it.

Yup. The people pushing AI are not concerned with the social or economic reprocussions of pushing AI. They just want line go up.

The “Don’t Look Up” greed + willful ignorance will crush us all.

I think it’d be better if a door behind them swung shut and a speaker said “You are now employees of the house until your debt is paid”.

Haha yes, I did mean causal.

I think it’s a casual argument. People are saying pitbulls are not inherently more violent, they just tend to be the dog of choice for people who want violent (guard) dogs. They are then taught violent behaviors by their owners.

I think of it the same way as the paradox of tolerance. If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance.

If a peaceful civilization allows the expansion of a non-peaceful society, it could spell the end of the peaceful civilization.

Issac Arthur is a fantastic YouTube channel that delves into the many possible types of alien civilizations and how they could fit into the Fermi-paradox (where is everybody?).

What you propose is generally not accepted as a likely state of the universe. If a civilization is ruthless, evil, and expanding the last thing a more powerful, peaceful civilization would want to do is allow its expansion. The logical choice would be intervention either in guiding their morality (probably hard), or just extermination (quite easy if you posses even modest interstellar space travel capability).

Fun to think about! We’ve only been broadcasting our existence for about 100 years, so it could be we’ve only recently been noticed and our doom is already en route!

I understand the current context, but I hate seeing people cheering for gerrymandering.

That’s an expensive snack!

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Some states have anti-gerrimandering written into their constitutions, so that would not be easy.

Main character voiced by Tina Belcher voice actor.

All three have historical examples. Almost too many times to count groups that invaded China assimilated to the Han culture. When’s the slavs moved into the baltics their culture remained mostly unaffected. Then there are all the fun cultural mixing examples that provide definitely the best cuisines and music in my opinion. The Americas are ripe with them.

I don’t think you can definitely say mixing would be the dominant outcome, but it’s the one I would hope for.

Culture is such an ethereal thing. It seems like there are three cultural scenarios: immigrants assimilate, cultures mix, and immigrant culture takes over. This is obviously a spectrum and not rigidly defined categories, but I wonder what the major factors are determining how cultures interact. You have to assume the population proportion is a main contributor. I assume language must be also.

If you make completely porous borders does that encourage new cultures to grow through mixing, or does it allow a single culture to dominate?

Just some musings barely related to the topic.

Oh yeah, location sharing will have almost no effect those risks. Totally agree.

Just disagreeing that low probability of occurrence automatically means the risk assessment should be low.

Risk assessment is probability and severity. The probability can be vanishingly low, but if the severity is astoundingly high then acting like a high risk situation could be appropriate.

Take asteroids. The last planet killer to hit us was 94million years ago. A rudimentary estimate could put the probably as 1:94mil. The severity of an asteroid impact of that magnitude is off the charts, so it is reasonable to consider it a risk and act accordingly to spend resources to search for and track asteroid trajectories.

The severity of abduction, murder, and rape is probably pretty high for most people, so considering it a risk even with a very small probability is not unreasonable.

I’m not really sure what you’re asking or getting at. Could you be more explicit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling

Aluminium recycling is the process in which secondary commercial aluminium is created from scrap or other forms of end-of-life or otherwise unusable aluminium.[1] It involves re-melting the metal, which is cheaper and more energy-efficient than the production of virgin aluminium by electrolysis of alumina (Al2O3) refined from raw bauxite by use of the Bayer and Hall–Héroult processes.

Recycling scrap aluminium requires only 5% of the energy used to make new aluminium from the raw ore.[2]

Cans and glass are infinitely recyclable. Recycling aluminum saves 96% of the energy of producing new.

Paper is semi recyclable, but it degrades, so it can only go through the process a certain number of times.

Plastic is marginally recyclable. Only about 10% of plastic that goes into a recycling bin gets recycled. It was a hoax by petro-chem to make plastic seem more sustainable than it is.

My old boss used to say “Hope is not a strategy.” I think that’s a pretty good philosophy.