dimreepr

He also tried to pawn his mugshot suit, in little squares; it took a lot of shop visits to fence that swag... I wonder if/when people will get the possibility that his business model isn't sustainable/much good...

That's an interesting philosophical question, do you have scientific evidence you do believe in God? Aww bless, you seem awfully confused, are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to not rape women? Is that why some priest's choose to rape little boys?

SpaceX employ rocket 'scientists' for the basics, just saying. I hate to be a prophet of doom, but that's the same for most of us, just never forget that this endeavour is little more than a parlour game, it doesn't matter who wins; so slow down and enjoy what you can learn from the view. 😉

I'm not questioning the theory, I'm questioning our ability to deliver; I'm minded of 'the big bang theory', the episode where they try to bolw up the moon with a laser, they needed a photon multiplier to see if they hit the target. Jokes aside, can we confine the beam well enough to a/ hit the correct part of the target and b/ deliver enough energy to initiate the jet, at a great enough distance to effect the necessary change in trajectory; we can put plenty of energy into the beam from earth, but I imagine there would be difficulties in confining the beam through our atmosphere, and a space based laser, I would imagine they'd have difficulty with generating enough initial energy.

I put my faith in 'The Avengers', sorry couldn't resist; essentially it's all about the ETA, so our best defence is keeping our eye's peeled... I have to wonder if that would be effective, by the time a focused enough beam to make a difference, had any effect, it seems to me that it would probably be too late to make a real difference.

The only answer to that question is, it work's for humans among other's. What's the point of the question?

The only thing I find bothersome is, you're clearly an intelligent person, but you're trying to run before you can walk; please think about building your case, rather than flit from study to study saying "what about this".

You are missing the point, "Mother Nature" has a built in escape clause when it comes to actual overpopulation, it's an automatic death sentence, and your thoughts on the subject has very little to do with it.

That wasn't my intention, I was trying to get you to learn before you leap. What do you actually mean by a transducer? Because, as I've previously mentioned, tree's don't think before they open their mouths. Indeed, in the brain as I previously stated, we just don't know which bit does the thinking. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I mentioned dog's and computer's in relation to consciousness, in this thread (if memory serves). But again, it does nothing to bolster your case. What's all this "we" business Tonto, do you have a relevant doctorate?

Your missing the point, their are many factors involved in how "mothre nature" regulates population, most of them are much more unpleasant than sex. Did you know, a greenfly is born pregnant? You can't get more efficient than that... Humans have to eat, just like the greenfly; let a couple of mice into one of our grain store's and in a few months, all we'll have left is a huge mound of mouse bones and whatever fed on their carcass'... 😉

Indeed, I wonder why...

Overpopulated by whom? Greenfly could overpopulate the world, if only they knew how...

Mind over genes; what, about this study makes you think that? Using AI in this case will only really show statistical correlation, it doesn't know what the locus of control really means, for instance why have they labelled an internal locus as 'creative'? This is a good place to start with your critical thinking on the subject. Don't be fooled by the ease of finding thing's on t'internet that seem to agree with you, think about why that is...

I think you'll find that folk's here, understand the nuance... 😉

Indeed, but how does that invalidate my point? We are on a spectrum here, bacteria being the simplest and human's being the most complex, of course there's a crossover; much like wondering which line to pick at the checkout.

TBH I just thought a 2 dimensional model was more appropriate, in this case... 🤔

I think a lot of it depends on the energy needed to create the next generation, the more energy needed often = longer living, more complex, life form's which normally would mean, a tiny mistake in just genetic copying would be eliminated by the complexity and energy needs of the lifeform. That is not present in less complex or energy dependent lifeforms, they have many more generation's to make up for the shortfall in genetic diversity, that two parents provide. It's a balance, because of the time it takes for each approach to fill their respective niche in the world.

Indeed, but we are under the obligation to teach the children, how to tell the difference...

If you stand in the middle of a salt flat, your horizon or how far you can see, is about three miles in every direction, from that perspective 'you' are always at the center of 'your' universe. IOW the big bang is the salt flat and we're in the middle of it. And it doesn't matter what's outside of what we can see bc if we can't see it... 😉 IOW the middle just got bigger... BTW we're all time travellers it's just another direction that we can't see, beyond 3 miles...😉

Of course it lies assumes certain thing's, it can't possibly process reality in real time, as tremendous a tool as it clearly is, reality takes a little time to think about... 😉 That certainly is a ridiculous statement, did your brain lie to you again?

This question is akin to the, so called, immigration problem. The cold hard truth is, most people are happy to see it happen bc it doesn't really affect them, and they like to 'google' on their friends when they insist, that a tomato isn't a fruit. You can't stop an invasion that's already happened.

What iceberg? The future is so easy to predict when it's already happened...

Who told you that? It's up to you to gain legitimacy, through reasonable conjecture.

I look forward to the time it does all the hard work for us, no more zero hours contracts and it's ilk. I see no real reason to fear the future of AI, as long as it's available for everyone to make use of it; AI maturity under that condition, will make money a pointless concept.

I get what you're trying to say, but if I can quote Frank Herbert "science is like a balloon, we blow knowledge in, which inflates the ballon, but in doing so we increase the surface area of what is unknown" (or words to that effect), standing outside the balloon it's easy to say "look how big it is, there's so much that we don't understand, how can they say I'm wrong?". Sometimes scientist's do fall into the trap of belief, like every other human on the planet, but that doesn't entitle you to say "therefore what I believe has equal legitimacy".