At the risk of trivializing this... who knew Spaceballs was prophetic?
How the fuck do we get out of this trap we've built for ourselves?
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
41 points (97.7% liked)
Hacker News
5217 readers
417 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a self solving problem. It will be solved when there are a lot fewer of us.
RFK Jr is trying as hard as he can to cull the herd. Salad?
Or, at least, his worm pilot is. Securing abundant food for future generations!
Stop and smell the roses while they're still there. Accept they'll be gone sooner rather than later.
If there's any feasible solution to this mess, I think it'll come either from extra-terrestrials or artificial intelligence, and only one of those two provably exist.
Sure, AI datacentres burning gigawatts of power and spewing hot water will be the solution. Great idea! Would you like me to write up a business plan for that?
Another person conflating AI with data centers. This species is doomed.
There has been evidence of extra terrestrial life? I don't count infrared absorption bands of some small organic molecules strong enough to be counted as proof of life, if that is what you mean.
Nope, none exists and I don't have high hopes given the expediency necessary.
Here's to hoping the culmination of all human knowledge can devise a system of carbon capture that exceeds the efficiency of nature, i.e. trees, on an incredibly accelerated timeline. Otherwise, we're boned.
Well there sure as hell hasn't been proof of artificial intelligence.
We have machine learning and over hyped sentence completer.
Sure, buddy, whatever you say. It's just a stochastic parrot? A glorified search engine, right? An overclocked Speak N' Spell?
Well, regardless, if you have no faith in the paradigm-shifting technology of AI, then assume it's not an option to consider - so we're completely and utterly doomed. Happy? Enjoy the remainder of your life!
Delusional
You'll get better, probably. Maybe. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, at least.
Try harder
Okay, my toes are crossed, too, but I'm not sure how long I can hold this pose. Get well soon, please!
Try harder
For you? Anything, since the opinion of a delusional idiot means so much to me!
Try harder
Intelligence requires understanding and comprehension, something a machine that can't count the number of R's in strawberry correctly obviously doesn't have.
And after seeing how you misunderstand or misinterpret my comments here, it seems you lack it as well.
Yeah, because the technology is already at the apex of possibility. There's no room for improvement, and we should give up now. You're right again.
Again, no idea how you can get that from my comment.
Please show me where I said AI can never exist?
You said it already does exist and I confronted that statement.
You are really the doomer here. You stated multiple times now, that we should just give up if we don't gobble up the population manipulating machine of the elites instead of working for a fairer and better future.
I've talked to enough contrarines to know your arguments, I'm just taking a shortcut to the end of each.
You don't like what I have to say. Fine, I got that. Let's hear your proposed solution that will recapture all the carbon now in the atmosphere before the Earth becomes uninhabitable to most species.
Well capturing all carbon in the atmosphere would be disastrous, but that is needless pedantry on my side, I know what you mean: reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels.
First point: stopping the increase of more CO2
Second point: planting fast growing trees and plants and algae farms like there is no tomorrow, pun very much intended, then putting the carbon into the ground where it came from instead of letting it rot and be released again. Natures way of binding carbon is more effective then any other way we currently have or are currently researching. To bind carbon chemically you need something to bind it with and there just isn't anything readily available on earth, we would need to create it first by investing energy into it, making it less efficient then nature managed to create via a billion years of evolution.
Third point: adjusting global society to the changes that are going to happen, since we can't just magic stuff away. It's going to take time and it will not be as easy as it would be if it would have been done 50 years ago. But doing it today is easier than in 50 years. There is no magic solution that will just save us. We need to do it ourselves, so start helping it!
Here's to hoping the culmination of all human knowledge can devise a system of carbon capture that exceeds the efficiency of nature, i.e. trees, on an incredibly accelerated timeline.
Even if the mass compilation of mostly scraped comments from social media networks could somehow produce useful guidance on addressing climate change, those systems are owned and operated by people who are making money from the way things are. Even if the stochastic text spewer did, for the sake of argument, actually give them the correct answer (which is to stop burning fossil fuels) they would ignore it and ask for a different answer.
Exactly!
WE KNOW THE ANSWER ALREADY! The people in power just don't like it.
The people who vote don't like that, and they put the people in power.
Chicken egg problem in my eyes: rich powerful people use mass media and economic hardships of their own making to manipulate people into voting right wing and anti science politicians, who then continue pushing that agenda.
Its not as we ever had elections really free of influence by the powerful elites.
Your democracy is and always has been a lie
Delusional, still. Guess even the toes weren't enough.
Lol cope
Col lope
Try harder
This is like saying the solution to an ongoing house fire is to hide the matches.
Not at all. And honestly I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
To stay with your metaphor: we know exactly how to extinguish the fire, but the home owner would need to allow his pool water to be used for it. Which he doesnt, even though he can't use the pool at all when the house has burned down.
I came to that conclusion because I know about the reinforcement and albedo effects, and understand that stopping use of fossil fuels immediately is only one part of any realistic solution. It's like when you are taking a shower, and you adjust the water temperature - that just starts the process, and you need to wait to find out what the temperature will be as a result.
If we stopped using fossil fuels right now, we're still doomed in thirty years, once the climate has (hopefully) stabilized as a result of stopping all fossil fuel usage now.
Yeah, but we are not even stopping burning fossil fuels. So in that regard hiding the matches is very much lessening the damage if the arsonists are still continuing to set new fires.
And you are the doomer. Every degree less is worth fighting for. So fight and don't just give up.
There's no such thing as burning to death only a little.
The arsonists were not stopped, the fire is raging, and I'm saying that the only solutions to putting the fire out (not preventing the fire from getting bigger but actually putting it out) are either coming from aliens or an intelligence greater than our own.
You don't believe in either, so I'm not sure why we're continuing the conversation. Stop trying to stomp on my last remaining hope, you doomer.
Positive nihilism is where its at, buddy!
Burning to death only a little means it is slower and you live longer. We are all going to die in the end one way or another, so why not be nice to each other, enjoy the roses and leave the world a better place then we found it?
Every degree is worth fighting for. Don't disregard the work people are doing and try to help in the ways possible to you instead of giving up and relying on a saviour figure.
The headline here seems like a massive reach given
We analysed serum bicarbonate (HCO3−), calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) levels from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2020 as indirect proxies for atmospheric CO2 exposure
They took concentrations of three chemicals in the blood, took them as markers of CO2 concentration and then are extrapolating projected increases in CO2 concentration to increase those trends. That's some pretty nasty mangling of independent and dependent variables. The correlation is interesting and likely warrants further study, but "toxic atmosphere in 50 years" is total clickbait.