Supreme Court rules: biology over personal opinion

These are supposed to be rational scientists, not alarmist quacks.

Humans who are not alarmed by hydrogen bombs falling ---trajectories to targets-- appear to be living in an irrational fantasy land. Head in hole in ground and have no comprehensive understanding factors involved, not the START treaty in response to 30 years of M.A.D.

Survivors on a Earth with sunlight for two or more years, is far beyond your ability to survive with whatever provisions you think your prepared for.

I hope you or others, have good locks on your survivor hole in the ground, as, I think your living in fantasy land to think anyone is prepared for what Ive presented to you, from others who I think are much more knowledge-able than you in such hydrogen wars on Earth.

Get a,life, man

Ethics is not going to be a consideration for those looking for artificial light, food, warmth or cooling. Fantasy land is not preprared-ness.

Get a life man

And gender etc is irrelevant to people who may consider them in any situation much less no sunlight on Earth for two or more years. Fauxlaw = fantasy land.

appear to be living in an irrational fantasy land.

There's concern over nuclear proliferation, and there's wild-eyed alarm of irrational dominance; something like environmentalists tearing their hair out with some alleged white extremist driving a Cadillac SUV. There is no "ideal climate" maintaining ±1.5º C anywhere on the planet, and never will be. That is an irrational goal. So is, for the next 50 - 100 years, expecting to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. It isn't just fuel, but lubrication and raw material for plastics, neither of which environmentalists have come close to replacing with a green-friendly alternative raw material. Do we see Al Gore Gooey Juice for a lubricant for EVs, or for 50% of an EVs components being plastic? No. Reality check, pls. It's your fantasyland, my friend. The Green New Deal is neither Green, New, nor a Deal. oops.

There's concern over nuclear proliferation

Learn about the START treaty in early 90s', and my research is that, some of the intelligent things in that treaty have begun to back slide for some years now.

Again, I think your not considering the increase in human population since then and the use of energy resources --especially with current operating systems in place--- humanity is not prepared, even if you think a few people are going to live some place safe in various scenarios ---not just India and Pakistan going at it-- is just wishful thinking your part that all will be just fine and dandy for 8 years or whatever.

Fantasy land is like tv show fantasy island. It exists in hollywood and on island for a few. Maybe if your place is on island you will not have humans coming over looking for emergency supplies.

I think your not considering the increase in human population

Wrong. I do, so let's honestly consider: Earth has a total land surface area of approx 57.3M sq. miles of land, as opposed to bodies of water. That's about 29% of the total surface of Earth, according to my Nat'l Geo Atlas of the World. The 57.3M converts to 36.7B acres. Assuming 8B people on Earth, that's 4.6 acres/person. But, we cannot figure it that way, because not all landmass is livable human space. The Arctic occupies about 6% of total landmass. Mountain, 13%. Forest, 31%. meadow, 11%. Agricultural, 9%. Arable, 295. Urban, 1%. We actually have people living on all types of landmasses, some more than others. Just to make a point, let's evacuate all humans from Agricultural, Arctic, Forest, and half of Mountain, leaving Arable, Meadow, avnd 1/2 Mountain, or 46% of the landmass. The math yields 2.1 acres per person; 8 billion people, occupying 46% of the total landmass. You call that "fantasy?" Go ahead. We are not overpopulated; we are under-managing our land and resources. For example, why haven't we yet put an aqueduct from the upper Mississippi at the confluence of the Missouri to the Southwest, which typically starves for water? That would also mitigate flooding in the lower Mississippi. Why don't we build water desalination factories on shorelines around the world to provide more drinking water? Why don't we do more de-urbanizing and stop living like rats on top of each other? What percentage of the world population occupies even 1 acre of land per person, since there is obviously room to do so? In fact, given the world population, less than 1% of the world pop lives on an acre or more. By population and landmass alone, with no restrictions of human population, each person could occupy 3-4 acres each.

Yep, but how many human organisms are necessary.

Okay so I suppose that it takes X number of people to produce one genius, and then X number of people to sustain genii and material progress.

So what will happen when a real AI takes over the role of the genii...How many people will be necessary then?

Well I suppose it all hinges upon whether everything is either purposeful or purposeless.

And yep, overthinking the innate desire to breed and survive will be difficult...Perhaps it will be an AI's job to overthink that one for us.

Well I suppose it all hinges upon whether everything is either purposeful or purposeless.

Finite occupied space { @ } has no purpose, except for those, that, we humans apply to it { @ }

Finite Earth and its bio-sphere is our environmental safety net for our home isolated in the semi-vacuum of outer space and its ionizing radiation. Respecting our home is in competition to greed.

....all for one and one for all.. is the only spiritual wholistic, and viable longest term way forward for humanity.

Yes, we either escape or we don't.

And depending upon sustainability and human demand for Earth's resources, the majority of humans and all other species will depend upon the Earth for survival.

Though in terms of cooperation I'm not sure that we are any better than we ever were...Maybe selfishness and collective selfishness are a necessary quality of the progressive species.

As it is, we temporary mortals can only speculate.

As it is, we temporary mortals can only speculate.

Speculate via our experiences, which may include scientific research, to a greater degree than other less complex animals, and now with the beneficial aids of AI.

how many human organisms are necessary.

As many as there are.

what will happen when a real AI takes over the role of the genii.

When? More like "if," you mean. Your 'when' has no guarantee of occurring. To date, that's science fiction. I know a thing or three about fiction.

No, neither individual nor collective selfishness is an ideal condition. We need to be the exact opposite. The speculative question is, will we be that, or the present state? AI neither helps nor hinders.

Material evolution is irrepressible.

And human existence is already reliant upon technology.

Older people like us know the differences between now and back then...But younger generations are already unable to function without advanced technology.

Only an environmental catastrophe could force a cessation of the process...But that would only be temporary.

OK, so sci-fi, but sci-fi based upon sound reasoning and the indisputable process of material development.

So a thousand years from now when we a no longer memories, do you think that everything will be exactly as it is today?

Indeed.

Indeed.

Just saw Musk interview short about AI, and he says he leans toward the bright side of more and more robots running on AI, as he believes it lead to greater abundance on Earth.

Greater abundance? Does that mean a reduction in Erratic Climate Change due Global Warming > aka Greenhouse Effect?

So AI is going to save humanity via more abundance of what exactly? More tech in general, that, is not just smart, yet super intelligent aka Artificial Generalized Intelligence increase with what limits?

Look what humans biological access to more complex generalization abilities evolution has lead to Earths ecological circumstances and the chances for hydrogen bomb extinction. START to avert away from M.A.D was smart move by humans, yet, those agreements are slipping away.

Humanity is not collectively smart. If we were, there would be governmental regulation on humanities greed unlimited abundance.

Humans only need basic standard needs to find happiness. Even the rich have stated such for man years. Money does not buy happiness, and yes it can make life easier. Tiger Woods first wife stated such. Yeah, easier to hop on plane and fly back in forth across the oceans.

Humanity is shooting its ecological environement in the foot, in the ass, in the hands, in the ear etc and that can only lead to more fighting of fresh water and other resources to feed our greed for abundance{ over abundance is more likely correct } without regard for our ecological environment.

So Musk dropped his immediate desire to send humans to the moon, and settling back to reality, and stick to the moon.

One of these days Elon, to the Moon, says Ralph Cramdon of Honeymooners tv program. ...To the Moon Elon!!!.....fist clenched.

The last thousand years have demonstrated tech growth. I imagine the next thousand will, as well, and probably with greater growth.

Indeed.

Yes such is the basic human, that has evolved intellectually but not biologically.

And such is the effort that it still takes to even get to the moon...And our orbiting tin can is now giving up the ghost.

Yes, all that investment required in human earthbound gratification and self destruction.

Hmmmm Mars...Elon scratches head.

Yes, all that investment required in human earthbound gratification and self destruction.

Humanity needs a supreme international court who handles international stupidity lawsuits that, humanity is doing dumb stuff that borders on idiotic, for future well being of humanity.

....all for one and one for all....

AI is heading in that direction.