Its probably this deleted post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10bhar2/will_we_all_be_famous_in_the_future/

> Step 1 is super hard to achieve and the main reason for it is, that you really need to take a HUGE amount of factors into account when driving. It requires much more than AI can deliver right now.

But may be not for too long in the future.

Isn't he just describing what an exponential graph looks like?

Plastic will not decompose to methane. And the reason not to convert it to something else is that that process will release its embedded co2 into the atmosphere.

Which would be best achieved by leaving that CO2 locked up in plastic in the landfill, not to convert the plastic back into fuel to be burnt.

When talking about plastic, are they not the perfect carbon capture vehicle, since they don't decompose?

> This allows us to de-carbonize every sector still using fossil fuels without them needing to spend years we don't have developing and implementing greener versions of their own.

The big issue is the above last paragraph - it allows existing fossil fuel using industries to continue as before, and likely use a mix of a small amount of synth gas and a large amount of fossil fuel, and pretend they are solving the problem, instead of doing the hard work of moving to a new process which does not use fossil fuel at all

Them maybe wait 10 years till the charging network catches up? Most people live in single family homes suitable for chargers.

Americans have no idea how good they have it energy-wise.

Actually around 60% of people have off-road parking.

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/66621/a-third-of-uk-homeowners-don-t-have-a-driveway-or-garage-to-install-a-home-chargepoint/

1/3 don't, so conversely 2/3 do.

So there is room to rise from about 1% of cars being EVs to 60%, which would take a decade, before this becomes a roadblock. Enough time to install chargers in every lamp post.

And install solar, since electricity prices are so high, payback is very quick.

> AA's analysis also mentioned that the cheapest way to recharge an electric car is to plug it in at home, which because of the government's energy price cap, could bring down the cost per mile to as low as 7.64 pence.

Good thing most charging is done at home then, right?

Replacement is obviously the most secure.

See, if you kill 3/4 of the people, but keep your property intact, you can have a new cycle of growth where you end up even richer!

> “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”

The answer - AI

That sounds like a false fact.

If China started asteroid mining, USA will soon follow. In fact I think the only reason USA is going back to the moon is because China said they would set up a base there.

> a population of 2 billion would ensure the current arrangements of world trade etc and allow a livable planet going forward.

There are two issues with this. 2 billion people living like Americans would actually doom the world faster.

Secondly, like the problem with the Thanos solution, 2 billion now would mean 8 billion in 80 years if the population boomed like post-WW2.

While you can keep going with fewer, the diversity of your economy would be lower and your progress slower.

For example I suspect you would have a lot fewer exotic fruit in your diet with 2 billion people. In the same way you will have fewer people researching the various types of batteries, and slower improvement over time.

The service economy is the part of the economy which is all about people helping each other, so with fewer people would mean fewer needed but again expect less diversity in the services that are available to you.

Same with manufacturing - a smaller population would have a less diverse range of products.

Some projects which are affordable in a large economy would not be affordable in a small economy, for example a space elevator which costs 5% of the world economy may be affordable, but one which was 30% would not be.

So for this question:

> what's the minimum population required for preserving all our knowledge, technology, and even progressing further, doing research and implementing results.

Probably not that many, but don't expect life to be the same qualitatively, and don't expect research to progress half as fast.

Or more the opposite - once we achieve it, maybe we need to drop the Artificial bit - Just intelligent and conscious computers.

One or the other.

The lede is buried:

> But the big standout is energy density. The researchers estimate that, even in this immature state, the technology stored about 685 watt-hours per kilogram, which is more than double most current batteries. It also managed an energy-to-volume that was just shy of double that of typical lithium-ion batteries. So, in that sense, it lives up to the promise of its two electrodes.

That should allow small commuter electric aircraft comfortably.

If you think about it, you do the same when you try and see things from someone else's perspective. You take on their point of view and you model their reactions as realistically as possible.

And when you done, you just discard them.

I think you need to add some balance to your rant. Implying things are done for no reason just makes you unconvincing.

I heard the amish actually use a lot of technology as long as they don't own it, and of course they still interface with the modern world via commerce e.g. the often run saw mills.

So I imagine they would be confronted by an increasingly bizarre world e.g. imagine of everyone had brain interfaces and communicated telepathically, and they would not be able to talk to people anymore.

I imagine there would be less demand for the things they sell.

Also imagine if people became immortal and any disease can be cured - do they take advantage of the advances or not, and does this affect their retention rate?