/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11609869]

The point of matter is to selfishly reduce local entropy at the expense of the environment just so it doesn't "die" by decaying into a lower structure and ultimately, useless radiation. Every single organism does this as you cannot prevent passive decay and in order to prevent decay you must move, and in order to move you must spend energy, and in order to spend energy you must recharge it by ingesting low entropy matter, and when you do that you create a net increase of entropy.

It is literally our fate to exploit the Earth and turn it into a depleted overheated barren shithole. It is our fate to repeat it with the next one, and the next one, and so on as long as we exist. The only way to prevent this is to start devolving into lower forms of life as higher entropy structures require lower upkeep, which is obviously never going to happen. Attempts at saving our environment are absolutely delusional because they cost additional energy to enforce and that additional energy will in turn rise the entropy of another region around us - to cool down Earth but maintain the level of civilization you'd need to exploit Mars and heat that planet up instead by moving industry there. You physically cannot escape from this and neither can anyone within this Universe.

The logical conclusion from this is very obvious: we're wasting our time trying to fight climate change. We should only delay it until we have the means to spread somewhere else, and once that finally happens, this planet should be exploited to the maximum in favor of the next one. Or in other words fighting global warming is pointless. Accelerating the economy so it triggers the age of space colonization is what we should be doing and the most idiotic strategy we can take right now is to impose limitations on it so that it slows down. What exactly is supposed to happen when we slow it down, we somehow overcome the inevitable and the fact that 8 billion people want to live in technological comfort?

[Anonymous No.11609926]

Yeah, the word "decay" describes this world pretty accurately, I think.

[Anonymous No.11609937]

>>11609869
That guy in the video is cringe but redpilled

[Anonymous No.11609993]

>>11609869
>I think humanity is a thin layer of bacteria...
Relative to what? If you mean actual biofilms, biofilms are only known to exist on Earth, and the average thickness of a biofilm is much thinner than that of the height of your average human. Also, your average human is significantly more intelligent and creative than your average colony of bacteria.
>... on a ball of mud...
Earth is actually something like 70% water.
>... he would've given up on us long ago.
Why? By what metric? If you are assuming the Abrahamic God, that doesn't fit with the purported information we have about him.
>He gave us a paradise, and we used everything up.
Wrong, he's clearly has almost no familiarity with the thing he's railing against. The Garden of Eden was paradise, we were expelled from paradise, so the resources we are using aren't from Eden.
>We dug up every ounce of energy and burned it.
In pursuit of ordering, the opposite of chaos, and creation, in creating civilization to make surviving less difficult and actually enjoy your brief existence.
>We consume and excrete, use and destroy.
I like how he conveniently forgets that we do have no other mortal being can, or has done, create and innovate. He's either stupid, or disingenuous.
>... having squeezed anything of value out of this planet...
Once again ignoring all of the unique things we have discovered and created, thus creating or converting "value".
>... to speed up the entropic death of this planet.
What? I mean, seriously, what?! We actually decrease the disorder on this planet, so we're doing a pretty shitty job of that.
Lmao, this dude is a straight up classical misanthropic Dunning-Kruger, who doesn't even understand, on the most basic level, the things he's railing against. What a fucking moron, and poor choice for your OP.

[Anonymous No.11610008]

>>11609869
>The logical conclusion from this is very obvious: we're wasting our time trying to fight climate change. We should only delay it until we have the means to spread somewhere else, and once that finally happens, this planet should be exploited to the maximum in favor of the next one. Or in other words fighting global warming is pointless. Accelerating the economy so it triggers the age of space colonization is what we should be doing and the most idiotic strategy we can take right now is to impose limitations on it so that it slows down. What exactly is supposed to happen when we slow it down, we somehow overcome the inevitable and the fact that 8 billion people want to live in technological comfort?
The answer to this is to focus on biogerontology which does two things:
1) Makes more people invested in the long term, as they may actually live to see it.
2) Increase the population, which causes a need for expansion, which leads to an increase in the demand for space exploration and colonization.

[Anonymous No.11610010]

>>11609993
>What? I mean, seriously, what?! We actually decrease the disorder on this planet, so we're doing a pretty shitty job of that.
Are you sure that he's the Dunning-Kruger?

[Anonymous No.11610021]

>>11609869
this photo reminded me of my short stay in daycare mental hospital

[Anonymous No.11610024]

>>11610010
We do, for instance we can literally control heat, we can also localize formally diffuse elements and compounds into discrete structures.

[Anonymous No.11610026]

>>11610024
Yes we can do that, locally as you said. Environmentally, no, not at all.

[Anonymous No.11610030]

>>11610026
Are you sure about that?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

[Anonymous No.11610044]

>>11610030
anon...

[Anonymous No.11610046]

>>11609869
>selfishly reduce local entropy
based retard not knowing what entropy is
>The logical conclusion from this is very obvious: we're wasting our time trying to fight climate change. We should only delay it until we have the means to spread somewhere else, and once that finally happens, this planet should be exploited to the maximum in favor of the next one. Or in other words fighting global warming is pointless. Accelerating the economy so it triggers the age of space colonization is what we should be doing and the most idiotic strategy we can take right now is to impose limitations on it so that it slows down. What exactly is supposed to happen when we slow it down, we somehow overcome the inevitable and the fact that 8 billion people want to live in technological comfort?
This is correct though.

[Anonymous No.11610058]

>>11610044
Anon, don't be disingenuous. Learn the difference between the ability to do something, and the allowance to do something. We have solutions, even radically climate engineering solutions, to deal with the issue, but getting it past political opposition is the issue. Which has nothing to do with our intellectual capacity to do so.
See:
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-solutions/

[Anonymous No.11610085]

>>11610058
Ok
How are we going to do it? How do you generate the energy required to engineer climate? How do you force excess heat to dissipate out of the planet?
All of that requires reciprocal heating up under the form of rocket fuel and manufacturing processes to manufacture the rockets that eject the entropy into Space. This is my point, you cannot reduce entropy without causing a spike somewhere else as a trade off and that "somewhere else" will always be our immediate environment. The battle against heat accumulation is an unwinnable one unless we remove 90% of humanity and prevent population growth.

[Anonymous No.11610103]

>>11610085
>When you don't even bother reading.
There are literally passive solutions, like increasing the albedo of Earth, stop being so disingenuous. Or, perhaps, I'm misreading ignorance as disingenuity? The issue is, as I said above, largely a political one, not a lack of intelligence or innovation.

[Anonymous No.11610114]

>>11609869
Here's an idea. We let every living thing, including humans go extinct. Stop reproducing. Let life and existence fade away. We have no purpose. There is no reason to reproduce or bring more beings into existence.

[Anonymous No.11610115]

>>11610114
Antinatalism, efilism, extinctionism, etc.

[Anonymous No.11610121]

>>11609869
Why does your existence...human existence...or even existence in general matter? Why does it mean so much to you?

[Anonymous No.11610125]

>>11610114
Okay, you do that. Meanwhile, everyone else who isn't a tumblrfag will enjoy their lives.

[Anonymous No.11610143]

>>11610103
I read the whole article you just linked.
>just mirror the sun away bro
How do you manufacture reflectors that cover enough space to reflect the sun (a whole 8% of all incoming radiation) and proceed to shuttle them out of Earth? What's the entropic cost of that process? What's the entropic cost of maintaining them, of some random event causing a domino effect where most of them break and the trash breaks even more of them? How do you replace that?

>sequestration
How do you capture CO2 and store it underwater? What is the entropic cost of both the process and the transportation - is that even a net entropic decrease to begin with?

>ocean fertilization
The exact same as above, along with the disrupted ecosystem causing more problems. How do you maintain that level of phytoplankton constantly?

>engineered weathering
Another form of sequestration so the same applies.

This is the problem with people like you, you pull out all these theories because someone rallied you behind them for his political goals but you forget that all of them cost energy to initiate and energy to maintain. At the end of the day they'll only be reducing the entropy caused by the processes themselves.

[Anonymous No.11610150]

>>11610125
You can enjoy your life without imposing existence onto others. But go off.

[Anonymous No.11610151]

The text was really intrusting, far from the dumb, simplistic, and popular opinions on climate change which are often very flat ("climate change doesnt exists"/we should stop every industry...) But the clip is really flat and uninteresting too. The only thing we could consider at least a bit ahead of the doxa is the nihilism. I think you can find better talks on this subject than this depressive soup.

[Anonymous No.11612027]

>>11610046
>based retard not knowing what entropy is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

[Anonymous No.11612220]

>>11610114
ok gaylord

[Anonymous No.11612253]

>>11609869
Your talks that you can only roll downhill sounds like you're sociological test of AI algo.

[Anonymous No.11612292]

>>11609869
>The point of matter is to selfishly reduce local entropy at the expense of the environment just so it doesn't "die" by decaying into a lower structure and ultimately, useless radiation.
Naturalistic fallacy. What something does is not "it's point" or what it "should" be doing.

>Attempts at saving our environment are absolutely delusional because they cost additional energy to enforce and that additional energy will in turn rise the entropy of another region around us - to cool down Earth but maintain the level of civilization you'd need to exploit Mars and heat that planet up instead by moving industry there.
Global warming is not caused by energy use, it's caused by the imbalance of heat entering vs. leaving the Earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses are not necessary to produce or use energy.

>The logical conclusion from this is very obvious: we're wasting our time trying to fight climate change.
>We should only delay it until we have the means to spread somewhere else
So we shouldn't fight climate change but we should so we survive? What do you think is the purpose of fighting climate change?

>Accelerating the economy so it triggers the age of space colonization is what we should be doing and the most idiotic strategy we can take right now is to impose limitations on it so that it slows down.
Agreed, therefore we should not subject the economy to the effects of climate change, which will slow it down more than mitigation. I'm glad we agree fighting climate change is necessary.

[Anonymous No.11612348]

>>11612292
arguing semantics: the post

[Anonymous No.11612965]

>>11612348
>arguing semantics
I don't think that means what you think it means anon. Don't use it to cop out of engaging his arguments

[Anonymous No.11613525]

>>11610021

tell us anon