[Don Patrick]

I counter your conspiracy theorist opinion site with NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence . Will that do? The difference between AI labrador keepers and climate change is facts.

I will certainly grant that the doom scenarios resemble the unsubstantiated robot apocalypses, and that public reception has been similarly bloated. But whether environmental activists are "commies" out to "destroy capitalism" is beside the point, as they are neither part of the scientists or governments who acknowledge the problem. You may live in a country where government and people stand greatly divided, but I do not, and yet my people have acknowledged the same problem, scientists and farmers alike. The Dutch have tamed the raging ocean twice over with engineering and cooperative effort. Wouldn't you say that is similar to trying to stop a volcano?

I don't mind if you think yourself powerless, but that you cannot help it does not mean the problem ceases to exist by closing your eyes. All I ask is that you do not oppose me as I and other scientific minded people try and preserve the majority of life forms and ecosystems as we know them. This is the reason I chose to make my AI a think tank instead of an entertainer.

[Art]

Ocean and volcano = not really the same with regard to putting a cork in it but whatever....

Point is, I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to be.
The other point is that Global Warming has been given a more discrete name of "climate change". It doesn't sound so dramatic or doomsday-ish.
Regardless, it remains the subject of political posturing, party politics and all sorts of fringe science!

Look at the growth in sheer numbers of the airline industry! one of the biggest polluters of our skies in history, next to the industrial revolution! Their numbers have grown to staggering rates and yes, NASA does have a record of that too!

This was supposed to be our thoughts on Elon Musk's claims of AI not a political debate. Debates are best served on specific Debate Forums of which I'm sure there are many. This is not one.

You need not get so defensive if your opinion gets met with an opposing point of view. We're humans and it happens. It does not naturally make your opinion the correct one just because you believe or state it as such. That's why they're called opinions and we're each entitled to our own, right or wrong, good or bad.

I gladly defend your right to voice your opinion whether or not I happen to agree with it or not.

moving on...

Part of the problem (as I see it) is people! World Population increases is eventually going to kill the planet, or it's people. It can only sustain so much.
People need transportation. Current transportation involves the outdated internal combustion engine = bad mojo!
Air travel, as mentioned...not good.
War...rockets, missiles, explosions on a global scale are doing a number on the planet.
Less than 3.5 % of the Earth's people are Farmers!! Just where do we expect to get food from? Laboratories? Yumm!
Poking holes in our atmosphere and contrails in the skies for whatever reason...again...not a scientist.

So yes, I am doing my part. I still work, pay taxes, repair infrastructure for transportation, drive a car that consistantly get me 50 + mpg / kpl or however you label consumption where you live. I also plant, grow, can / freeze my own produce from my garden every year, without any "cides" (pesticides, herbicides, insecticides). I have 5 sources of heat for my climate changing house so hopefully one or two of them might meet committee! It's hard to tell.

I also resent that you claim that I am NOT a scientific minded individual such as yourself and other learned members of the scientific community! It was NOT MY conspiracy theorist site, merely one I found for you to read. I did not choose sides either way nor do I intend to.

And lastly, just how is your "think-tank" AI helping this "climate change" dilemma? Care to share some insight?

Now, if we can politely return to the topic at hand...the oh-so-intellectually-stimulating, Elon Mush...I mean, Musk!

[Don Patrick]

I didn't mean to imply that you weren't scientific-minded. The reason I throw scientific facts at you is because I know you are, and should be more likely to believe in science than public opinion. Am I defending an opinion or am I defending confirmed scientific fact from a popular trend of public denial? If I thought you a lesser man, I would have simply walked away like you were "someone wrong on the internet". But if you will not choose sides either way that is alright with me.

Human population growth is definitely a big problem, if not -the- underlying problem. I just got the figures from the WWF: In 1950 we had 2.5 billion humans. In the span of 50 years we've expanded to 7 billion humans, and in that I share your views. To tie this back into robot apocalypses and my work: I'm building AI to learn facts by reading documents, which should allow it to become an instant scientific expert on climate change (language comprehension is still at insufficient levels now). I then intend to wire its inference functions to deduce the various causes of problems, and have it explore possible solutions and effects that humans, who are not made of pure logic, would not easily consider. Most probable it should logically conclude that if humans are the cause of the problem, the humans had best be eradicated, and there you have Elon's robot apocalypse

Now, "eradication of humans" will make most people chime in with Elon Musk. But in doing so they overlook the nature of the AI. Nobody ever said it would have the motivation to carry out the solution as well as solve it in theory, or that it would do so without the aid of the most powerful resource on Earth: 7 billion human units. I'm programming mine to report and discuss solutions instead, at which point it should not be hard to teach it that killing humans is an unwanted effect, takes an abundance of resources, and risks nuclear retaliations that worsen the problem rather than fix it. The AI might then suggest that instead of increasing the death rate, we reduce the birth rate, which is perfectly logical, but does require thought beyond the knee jerk reaction.

In greater likelyhood though, by the time I get my AI to operating conditions, I will be 65, its solutions will come too late, and both I and my AI will be burnt at the stake by an Elon Musk cult, a la Frankenstein.

[Art]

A noteworthy response and thank you for your explanation. I'm not sure of the exact time period but I think it was around 1970 that countries started the mantra ZPG (Zero Population Growth), because some of the far thinking individuals of that time, saw a not so distant future with overcrowding a planet no longer able to support them!
Natural resources would be stretched or exhausted to near depletion. Many of our waters are in danger of over fishing. Drinkable water is somewhat doable with the advent of modern filtration and desalination systems. Still the scenario would put a severe strain on our Earth.

There have been numerous articles written about a suggested limit of how many people Earth can hold and support (food, water, shelter). Others state rather heartlessly that war, famine, pestilence is good for humanity as these things serve to "think out" the herd so-to-speak. AIDS, Ebola and numerous other maladies have also been mentioned as natures way of dealing with over population.

I think (not sure if they still promote the practice) China or Japan rewarded the parents for only having one child and limited them to no more than two! (send it back or pay a penalty, perhaps).

Point being, something really needs to be done to cut back on population growth. No longer do couples need to have 6 kids to help tend to the farm, which was one main reason years ago). If we divided those 7 billion people into equal parts (for the sake of example), male and female, that's 3.5 billion males and 3.5 billion females, they get together and over several years, each couple has 6 children. That's 7 X 6 = 42 Billion people within a possible decade. People live much longer than even a decade ago so it becomes easy to see where this path takes us. Earth's surface area (land) is approximately 148 million square kilometers. It wouldn't take too many more productive years to start piling up.

Of this land, we know not all of it would be habitable, practical or reachable.

So yes, the robots, at least any good robot worth his salt, would quickly see that we humans are NOT the solution, we are the Cause of the problem. Those blasted carbon units anyhow!!

Soylent Green simply mandated that every person reaching the age of 65 or 66 (can't recall), was basically given a nice send off. Refreshing drink, beautiful scenery on a huge screen while lying on a comfortable reclined bed and given a deliciously refreshing drink. After 20 minutes, the person would simply close their eyes and go into a wonderful dreamy sleep...Forever!!
Movie with Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson - 1973 - Great movie for the time period. Quite visionary.

[Don Patrick]

I also know a few Star Trek episodes where they deal with er... excess elderly in similar manner. Not that I approve morally, but I did stop donating to healthcare organisations who wish to prolong the lifespans of people over 80.
I remember it as being China who allowed couples max. 1 child or death, something quite rigorous anyway. A zero population growth would theoretically solve overpopulation in one century, but it is also against human nature: Everyone wants to live on through their children. Personally I'd urge a limit of one successor per human, and I would do so by making it practically unaffordable for a couple to have a third child.
The WWF's statistical curve anticipates 9 billion humans by 2050, by the way. I'm not sure where we're going to put them.

The thing with all the robot apocalypses is that with a little thought we know that the most logical solution to just about every human problem is to remove the humans. And knowing that, why on earth should that conclusion go unchecked as fiction would have it? I can't even imagine scientists who'd be that braindead and yet would manage to build world's most sophisticated AI.

On second thought, I think I will be burnt at the stake by the Elon Musk Gestapo rather than by his followers, seeing as he's been pouring money into robot apocalypse prevention.