[mostertoaster]

The EPA repealed its 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases warm the Earth and endanger human health and well-being.

So this is not a good reason to oppose AI. Now the sheer energy it requires does mean we might want to go nuclear though.

Natural gas is nice though because it does pollute the air far less than coal.

You might argue the EPA only repealed that because of political agendas, but the same argument could be made for why it was passed.

A lot of people got very rich off the fear mongering from climate alarmists.

[computerdork]

Hmm, it seems pretty clear that climate is getting hotter, so it seems natural for some people to be worried about what will happen to the planet in a few decades (me for one).

And, you may be right, it may not be that big a deal and that we're being alarmists, but it seems like we currently have the tools to slow it down greatly. Why not be on the safe side and use them?

... but to be honest, guessing my opinion won't sway you in any way, still thought I'd try. thanks!

[mostertoaster]

It’s really about the cost/benefit analysis.

The value of plowing ahead and using more energy is worth far more than making sure Florida doesn’t lose some coastline.

The presumptions I see that annoy me with the alarmists, is that they completely negate human agency and ingenuity, and they ignore the economic cost of many of the proposed plans.

Natural gas is far better than coal and should be encouraged rather than condemned. Nuclear power is best of all, is the cleanest and safest energy, and yet is hardly ever the first choice of the alarmists.

I’d rather spend double the energy unlocking breakthroughs in science with the help of AI, and address the problems when they come. I don’t go out of my way to lower my “carbon footprint”, but I also don’t just do things that are wasteful and deliberately harmful to the environment.

AI making us forget how to think for ourselves is a far bigger risk to mankind than climate change. Thanks.

[computerdork]

Agree that you need to balance costs with benefits, but nowadays, solar and wind are often the cheapest options (southern states or states with lots of wind). And nuclear is an option that even some staunch environmentalists support these days.

Yeah, don't think most people who support battling climate change are extremists. We just believe it's a big problem, and, to put it in monetary terms, having to deal with major changes in climate could cost the world tens of trillions of dollars by some scientist predictions. Yeah, it's like any problem, doing relatively small fixes now could save enormous amounts of time and money later down the line. Seems like it would probably good usage of our efforts.

[mostertoaster]

Yeah I’m all for doing what makes sense.

I probably just overreact and judge too quickly certain statements from my experiences of people who act like I’m destroying the earth because I have more than 3 kids.

I appreciate reasonable people though, and I should not assume, everyone is a crazy alarmist because they have any concern, so I apologize.

[computerdork]

Thanks, much appreciated:) ...

... and not just giving you lip service, but I do find the far left to have gone too far themselves (am a moderate independent myself). They're assuredness that everything they believe is the only correct way to think is frustrating (they are often the least understanding). Yeah, it seems if you step out of line and say anything against their beliefs, you're apart of the far right.

But, feels like things are shifting back to the middle for various reasons. Think this is a good trend