FastFourierTransform wrote:

Source of the post For example, it has been estimated that for a fluctuation to generate a brain our of this "soup of dissorder" you would need something like 1010^50 years, or 10100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. That number has 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 zeros. Compare that with the 93 zeros of years of the timespan covered by the video. What the video shows is a crazy small fraction of time compared to what would be needed to show a concious being pop-up by a sudden statistical fluctuation. But even if that is true, using the increasing exponential rate of time used in the video we shouldn't be there in to much time..... right? Wrong, because even with an exponential growth of the rate at which time flows you would still have to wait 3.8 x 1033 times de current age of the universe to get to that part of the video. Each 5 seconds doubling the speed of the video and still you would have to wait an incomprehensible amount of time to see that episode of the history of the universe. But when you reach that part of the video it would be quite fun, each few seconds a conscious being would pop-up into existence, and many other things, few seconds later that would start to become very usual as the speed of the video increases more and more, eventually there should be a moment when the entire universe could pop-up into existence again but this instant is way, way farther away, around a googolplex of times more than the time you would have to wait to get to the Boltzman brain part of the video (remember, this is with exponential increse in the speed of the video).

Stellarator wrote:

Stellarator wrote:

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post No, "huge swathes of the population" will not die from ~800 ppm CO2.

DoctorOfSpace wrote:

Source of the post Silly video with lots of bias, we have enough desalination tech to heavily desalinate if we were ever forced into that situation.  Nanotech running away has happened before on Earth,

Stellarator wrote:

Source of the post Care to elaborate? How exactly would widespread atmospheric concentrations of +/- 800ppm carbon dioxide NOT be harmful for overall human health in the long-term?

midtskogen wrote:

Stellarator wrote:

Source of the post Care to elaborate? How exactly would widespread atmospheric concentrations of +/- 800ppm carbon dioxide NOT be harmful for overall human health in the long-term?

Because that's normal indoor concentration and we would have known if people died from it.  A lot of people are exposed to such concentrations long-term and they survive fine.  While people spending nearly all their time indoors would benefit from more fresh air, it is for more important reasons than actually the air.

Below 1000 ppm people will be just fine.  Above that cognitive abilities begin to drop, like if you're in a crowded room when concentrations might reach a few thousand, but even if you're stuck in a room like that for life, it's not that which is going to kill you.

Cognitive and physical abilities also drop if you live 2000 masl, but you don't die from it, and even though you would perform better at sea level, it would be a stretch to say that living at 2000 masl is harmful.

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post I've seen studies showing that we can curb the problem if we halve our CO2 output by 2030.  Think this is likely?

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post China is projected to reduce their CO2 output by two thirds by 2030 and that will help a lot.