●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bySpazmania ( 174582 ) writes:
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man and solid scientist. His abilities as a futurist leave something to be desired.
twitter
facebook
byLead Butthead ( 321013 ) writes:
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man and solid scientist. His abilities as a futurist leave something to be desired.
He seem to be rather optimistic. I gave it no more than a few hundred years.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMashiki ( 184564 ) writes:
He seem to be rather optimistic. I gave it no more than a few hundred years.
300 years ago, people said that half the world would starve to death. And people would be fighting for the rats in the big cities in Europe. ~40 years ago, they said that people would be starving to death and fighting for the rats in cities to survive. Didn't happen in either case. It's not any different then the "we're going to run out of oil/gas/etc in 10 years." That has been repeated since the 1970's. Or "the water will be so toxic, that only the rich will afford clean water." Or "in the future students will only see trees in a museum" types of stuff. Remember ~6 years ago it was "we're now at peak oil!11111eleventy one" and everything is doomed? Except that isn't the case. It didn't happen, and the "better get used to $200/bbl because that's the new normal" didn't happen either.
You know what happens in every case? It's either full out propaganda bullshit, or individuals failing to understand that human ingenuity can solve actual problems. People like Norman Borlaug solved that food problem. Improvements in basic finding and extraction methods solved oil/gas problems. More trees are planted every year then are cut down, but that doesn't stop environmentalists from claiming that it's the end of the world. There's problems sure, there's problems with luddites and environmentalists screaming that "insert thing will destroy the world" or going absolutely insane and making claims like "*insert GMO* crop is poison" and people starving to death because of lies. Or the continued "nuclear energy will kill us all" bullshit.
We'll survive another 1000 years as long as we don't nuke ourselves, or have massive wars where even the most basic things like no chemical/biological warfare are thrown out the window. Ingenuity will see that we make those 1000 years.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bySperbels ( 1008585 ) writes:
Your faith that ingenuity will solve all problems before they happen is a little ridiculous. And frankly, a panicking electorate is probably the best way to mobilize government to hedge our bets against a potential disaster. If the government doesn't do something, who do you think will? You think the market will miraculously self correct? BS. The market brings us unstable bubbles with violent and sudden collapses. The government mitigates or prevents these disasters.
bysilentcoder ( 1241496 ) writes:
And you are magically going to get EVERYBODY not to do something stupid ? You didn't do so well a few days ago...
Not to mention - there is nothing you as an individual can do about the things that represent real risks to our survival. You have the tech to detect an asteroid early enough that it can be deflected and to send something to deflect it ? You think you (or indeed humanity) has any tech that would let us survive a volcanic superplume ?
What is your genius individualist plan for a gamma ray burster ?
byn3r0.m4dski11z ( 447312 ) writes:
"It's not any different then the "we're going to run out of oil/gas/etc in 10 years." That has been repeated since the 1970's."
Gas was slowly getting more expensive till the saudi's dumped dumped all the oil on the market a few years ago. This collapsed the alberta economy as well as Venezuelas.
No one knows how much oil they have in saudi arabia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And fracking will really end a portion of humanity so that doesnt make us survive longer either.
byXyrus ( 755017 ) writes:
...Ingenuity will see that we make those 1000 years.
Stupidity will see we won't make the next 100. Or have you not been paying attention?
byMashiki ( 184564 ) writes:
Or kill ourselves in our own waste products, like frenzied yeast. But we don't need to worry about that, because AGW is just a hoax. After all, we're smarter than yeast, right?
Depends, can you get the insane environmentalists to fuck off and stop blocking every type of disposal/reclamation/breeder reactor?
byPseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) writes:
I don't think we will survive another 1000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet.
He seem to be rather optimistic. I gave it no more than a few hundred years
I'm thinking 3 months tops, some time after Jan. 21st.
Oooh, I want to play! I predict that humanity will go extinct before I finish this sentence.
Damn!
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymu51c10rd ( 187182 ) writes:
Next time type slower...
byarth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
He is either being very optimistic, or he hasn't been following current events.
I'm thinking 3 months tops, some time after Jan. 21st.
Willing to make a friendly wager?
byhumptheElephant ( 4055441 ) writes:
I would say about 50 years plus or minus 49years.
byAvitarX ( 172628 ) writes:
We're really adaptable, I would think a population collapse wouldn't eliminate humanity personally.
Civilization will likely end, but I doubt humanity.
byarth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
We're really adaptable, I would think a population collapse wouldn't eliminate humanity personally.
Civilization will likely end, but I doubt humanity.
I wouldn't automatically presume that modern man would be the fittest of all Earth's creatures, nor necessarily fit enough to survive.
We're adaptable primarily because of society. Without it, we don't hold any big advantages over other animals. We've been able to shed protections that were unnecessary because society protected us. Modern man doesn't need to be especially strong or fast or equipped to survive winter without housing or weeks without food. We're not the same as our ancestors who survived
byAvitarX ( 172628 ) writes:
The population bottle neck was 70,000 years ago, we are effectively the same as them.
byDarkOx ( 621550 ) writes:
Population collapse will occur due to disease, lack of food, or lack of fresh water (possibly due to sea incursions). In any case the survivors will be able to extract a lot of useful materials and tools scavenging the ruins of society. So I think a small group of humans probably can survive most predicted and predictable calamities.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMarxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * writes:
Where do you think rain comes from? More ocean surface area, on a warmer planet, means MORE fresh water, not less.
byDarkOx ( 621550 ) writes:
Yes and small groups of people can certainly survive utilizing cisterns etc. Keeping a large municipal area in water on the other hand usually means a big open air reservoir, and lots of large population centers are long the coasts, vulnerable to sea incursions.
If there was a sudden sea level rise, it would be very difficult to keep those populations adequately supplied with water.
byJim Sadler ( 3430529 ) writes:
I am not so certain that humanity can survive warming and rising seas. For example we have numerous nuclear reactors located on beaches that simply can not be plowed down and cleaned up. The nuclear contamination alone might exterminate the seas. Then we have the sad fact that many coastal cities have environmental hazards that can not be removed or mediated in any way. Even the stunning number of human graves would pose a disaster for our oceans. I would imagine that Miami Fl. has several million grav
bypenguinoid ( 724646 ) writes:
So I think a small group of humans probably can survive most predicted and predictable calamities.
Let's see...
1) Sun going red giant in next billion years, melting the planet.
2) Hostile or uncaring superhuman AI
3) Overly effective bioweapon (after maybe 100 years of exponential improvements in genetics/protein folding)
4) Nuclear war, especially after several dozen other countries get nuclear weapons then rising tension causes them to get a lot more, followed by attacks on each others' bunkers.
byAnne Thwacks ( 531696 ) writes:
Nope. The rich ones have very little experience of life in tough conditions, and generally depend on delegating difficult tasks to others.
The bible says "The slum dwellers will do really well. Ghetto girls are really hot. The posh will be stuffed!" (Your translation might word it a bit differently, but perhaps you should not rely on a 5th century version of Google Translate).
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
Smart ones, healthy ones, people with weapons, and especially people who've trained and prepared.
bysilentcoder ( 1241496 ) writes:
The preppers are more likely to CAUSE extinction, war or societal collapse than they are to actually survive it.
It is logically impossible to plan for the unpredictable, ergo their plans WILL be wrong and WILL not help them - at all. It's impossible for any of them to get it right except by pure chance.
Logically the people most likely to survive (if it's something survivable - so not a nuclear holocaust, volcanic superplume or gamma ray burster for example) will be the ones best capable of ingenuity, who ca
byyoungone ( 975102 ) writes:
Modern man doesn't need to be especially strong or fast or equipped to survive winter
Winter is an awful lot easier to survive if there is not 2 metres of snow on the ground, and the landscape swarming with huge hungry animals desperate for a feed.
Lots of places on Earth fit that description, so humans will be able to survive there fine.
byMarxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * writes:
Most Americans could survive a winter without food- and be far more efficient hunters when spring came around.
byAnne Thwacks ( 531696 ) writes:
Most Americans could survive a winter without food
But how many could survive a winter without cable TV?
Parent
twitter
facebook
bysilentcoder ( 1241496 ) writes:
Slashdot crowd should be fairly safe from a nuclear war.
Basements could make halfway decent bomb shelters...
byGodwin O'Hitler ( 205945 ) writes:
Best comment in this topic. Why is it indispensable that humans survive?
When there's no more there's no more. Fucking off from the earth changes what exactly?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Came in to find the guy who think hes smarter than Hawking. Found him in five seconds.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bySpazmania ( 174582 ) writes:
I may not be smarter than Hawking but I'm easily smart enough to recognize when even geniuses are speaking with the wrong orifice.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byLQ( 188043 ) writes:
I may not be smarter than Hawking but I'm easily smart enough to recognize when even geniuses are speaking with the wrong orifice.
Well I guess a speech synthesizer is a different orifice from usual but a lot of sense does come out of it.
bySpazmania ( 174582 ) writes:
Lol, that's because the killer AIs he keeps predicting have taken over the speech synthesizer and are trying to fool the rest of us in to looking out for killer aliens while the AIs quietly take over the world.
bysilentcoder ( 1241496 ) writes:
I'm pretty sure that Hawking has no functional orifices to speak out off at all. That's why he speaks with the robovoicer.
byDutch Gun ( 899105 ) writes:
Agreed. What I'd like to know is what makes anyone think that he's got the answers to our future when everyone else who's made such far-sighted doomsday predictions has so far demonstrated to be ridiculously wrong. Remember, by now billions were supposed to be starving to death, we'd be out of oil, the ice caps were supposed to be gone, and/or we'd have destroyed ourselves in nuclear hellfire.
I do agree that we should strive to spread out into space, so as to avoid leaving all our eggs in one basket, but unless its something completely out of our control, like a massive cosmic event, then sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore. We've got plenty of serious problems we need to deal with without resorting to hysterics. Even if it doesn't mean the end of humanity, there are still some potentially bad scenarios we'd like to avoid. But every time scientists or environmentalists make wackadoo doomsday predictions that don't come true, it actually HURTS credibility of those that were more responsible.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMyFirstNameIsPaul ( 1552283 ) writes:
Yeah, it really annoys me that sites promote anything an expert says as being just as valid on topics for which the expert is, definitively, not an expert. Anyone even remotely familiar with economics that has made even a precursory glance at distant predictions of mankind's fate is familiar with Thomas Malthus.
byPenguinisto ( 415985 ) writes:
Devil's Advocate: There is a problem with the phrase "...but unless its something completely out of our control, like a massive cosmic event, then sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore."
By the time humanity comes to the realization that something terminally wrong is occurring, it may well be too late to reach out into space as a second home.
If the calamity involves resource depletion, we will have run out of sufficient resources to create a self-sustaining colony somewhere else. If it involves so
bylgw ( 121541 ) writes:
If the calamity involves resource depletion, we will have run out of sufficient resources to create a self-sustaining colony somewhere else.
You're "not even wrong". There is no meaningful form of "resource depletion" that we face - the concept doesn't even make sense, unless we're talking post-SciFi-apocalypse.
When we build something out of iron, we don't change the amount of iron. We're not likely to run out of fossil fuels, since we keep discovering them faster than we burn them - the problem with fossil fuels is that they're too plentiful, not the other way around - but even if we did, we're not going to run out of solar power in the life
bymark-t ( 151149 ) writes:
We're not likely to run out of fossil fuels, since we keep discovering them faster than we burn them
Uhmmm... no. Do the math here... it takes only moments to burn what can take many tens of thousands of years to form. Anyone should realize that even if what you said happened to ever be true at one point in time (and at one point, it may have been), it is not indefinitely sustainable. The only thing that will keep us from literally running out is that the costs of obtaining it are going to continue to r
byMarxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * writes:
They just discovered another 2 billion barrels today under Texas.
bymark-t ( 151149 ) writes:
And based on the rate at which we burn it, that much be depleted in about a day as well.
So.... unless they are finding that much more every single day, my point stands.
bymark-t ( 151149 ) writes:
Fucking submit button is too close to preview... I meant about a month. Every month... they'd have to find that much every month.
Can't go back and edit my post, so I'm following up.
bymark-t ( 151149 ) writes:
And... I just realized that I am still off... I misread billion as million. 2 billion barrels would indeed last a while... probably about 50 years at our current levels of consumption (although that is expected to rise).
Although I do maintain that this cannot last forever.
bynaughtynaughty ( 1154069 ) writes:
The US consumers about 7 billion barrels of oil per year
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... [eia.gov]
That means a 2 billion barrel find would last less than 4 months
That makes your 2nd guess the closest
byFlea of Pain ( 1577213 ) writes:
And there are waaaaaay to many buffalo for us to worry about hunting them. They just keep reproducing!
bylgw ( 121541 ) writes:
They just discovered another 2 billion barrels today under Texas.
Off by an order of magnitude.
The USGS says "An estimated average of 20 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids are available for the taking in the Wolfcamp shale, which is in the Midland Basin portion of Texas' Permian Basin."
bytnk1 ( 899206 ) writes:
You have a point, to some degree, and I agree with the fact that eventually, there has to be an end.
But bear in mind that there have been a lot of ten thousand year cycles in the history of the Earth. I mean a whole lot of them. This means that there may well be less oil than we would want, but probably not as little as we fear.
In any event, the real argument against burning oil has always been pollution and the fact that oil is much more efficiently used in making plastics. I do think we should move awa
bylgw ( 121541 ) writes:
Uhmmm... no. Do the math here... it takes only moments to burn what can take many tens of thousands of years to form
Proven oil reserves have grown every decade since we started burning the stuff. The tech to find and extract oil grows as fast as it needs to to keep us in oil. The global push to cut CO2 emissions will leave us with plenty of oil in the ground when technology eventually, inevitably, leaves oil behind.
The only thing that will keep us from literally running out is that the costs of obtaining it are going to continue to rise
Well, that was the argument before the whole global warming kerfuffle. But that's just it - we were never going to run out. "The cure for high commodity prices is high commodity prices." Eventually some
byMarxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * writes:
It is not deadly to stop using fossil fuels
byfahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) writes:
I do agree that we should strive to spread out into space, so as to avoid leaving all our eggs in one basket, but unless its something completely out of our control, like a massive cosmic event, then sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore.
The History channel has been running this series, "Doomsday: 10 Ways the World Will End": 1: Killer Asteroid, 2: Black Hole, 3: Rogue Planet, 4: Nuclear War, 5: Solar Storm, 6: Mega Eruption, 7: Gamma Ray Burst, 8: Earth Out of Orbit, 9: Alien Invasion, 10: Deep Sea Disaster
The episodes on Black Hole, Rogue Planet and Gamma Ray Burst are especially cheery.
byPotor ( 658520 ) writes:
There is clearly something wrong if the History channel is in the business of futurology.
bytnk1 ( 899206 ) writes:
I find that #6 is probably the most likely, but also the most likely to be survivable (we've survived supervolcanos before as a species). Followed by #4 and #1.
Most of the astronomical ones like a Black Hole or Gamma Ray Burst are not incredibly likely. A GRB could, in theory come from anywhere, but you need some sort of generator for one, and it has to be close enough that it will not have dispersed. We have a good idea what causes GRBs and those objects are not exactly stealthy and we're not aware of s
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
Remember, by now billions were supposed to be starving to death, we'd be out of oil, the ice caps were supposed to be gone, and/or we'd have destroyed ourselves in nuclear hellfire.
The timelines may be off, but we may be very well our of cheap oil in the future (especially if externalities are included), the ice caps most likely will be gone in a few centuries at the latest, and the food situation could get bad at least for tens of millions if climatic conditions significantly change while the population will be at its highest point - it actually seems we're headed that way. Remember that even the 2008/2011 events caused some serious unrest. At least it's virtually certain we're not i
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
Well, that's nice to know. Good for you! It doesn't address the issue of total costs, but at least the prices are going to stay reasonable.
byDelwin ( 599872 ) writes:
There's some caveats to this. We cannot continue our growth based society for more than about 200 more years. This is because energy usage is directly tied to growth and in about 200 years we'll boil the oceans just with the amount of power we use.
If we can transition from a growth based society to a stable society then we could continue on Earth but that society doesn't look a whole lot like the one we have now.
Likewise climate change is already on track to radically alter our planet from what we've known for the entirety of human existence. Yes the human race will adapt and survive but what kind of society (and technological level) we will have after that period of adaptation is completely unknown. All we know is that it will look nothing like what we have now.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDarthVain ( 724186 ) writes:
You would stagnate our capitalist economy!
Anyway it is probably self limiting. You're assuming growth based on historical data, which assumes no self limiting systems inherently in place. Conflict for example, and other things like famine and sickness. As growth continues it will outstrip resources (baring some sort of magic technology). As resources become more scarce, they become more valuable. As they become more valuable they will become more desired. As they become more desired, well you probably get t
byorgangtool ( 966989 ) writes:
I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore
The first step to virtually guaranteeing that something happens is to let your guard down.
byMrKaos ( 858439 ) writes:
Agreed. What I'd like to know is what makes anyone think that he's got the answers to our future when everyone else who's made such far-sighted doomsday predictions has so far demonstrated to be ridiculously wrong.
No one can predict the future. We have comprehension, mathematical modeling and a capacity to extrapolate where that will take us depending on the accuracy of the model.
I doubt there are many people who can bring the amount of mental effort required to make such a prediction. I think Hawking
byRaisey-raison ( 850922 ) writes:
I also wonder when people think that we can somehow figure out a way to travel at light speeds to get to another planet. The alternative is to spend thousands of years traveling to another planet and potentially find it uninhabitable or die on the way. Any other planet would have a distinctly different gravity - one on which we have not evolved. How would we enable a breathable atmosphere? How would we remove toxins from the environment. It's quite probable that most of the environment would in one way or a
byfahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) writes:
... would we only take scientists, engineers and mathematicians?
Sure, everyone else could go in Ark B [everything2.com]
bylgw ( 121541 ) writes:
I also wonder when people think that we can somehow figure out a way to travel at light speeds to get to another planet.
The door isn't quite closed on that yet. There's still a lot we don't know about the fundamental physics of space-time, with interesting work ongoing to understand just what exactly space is. However, it seems a safe bet that any sort of FTL "hack" will take a lot of energy - far beyond what we could do as a civilization today.
So, while I wouldn't say FTL is a "never", it's not in any of our lifetimes. Basically, it's far enough out that it's beyond the "prediction horizon" for technology. We should pla
byKiloByte ( 825081 ) writes:
I don't think our knowledge of physics is likely to be that much off where it comes to relativity. On the other hand, with a lot of non-fundamental research we can get to a nearby star system within a few tens thousands year. Yeah, we can make a flyby in a tiny fraction of that time, but having to decelerate at the destination makes the whole affair enormously harder. This might sound like needing generational ships which would require a large population to stave off degeneration, but I think we can defe
bylgw ( 121541 ) writes:
An FTL "hack" would be altering spacetime, e.g. wormholes, such that the distance was shorter. There are enough different expert ideas about the possibility of wormholes to leave it at "experts disagree", but we don't even really know what space is. More and more though, it seems to be "a thing, not a place".
bykhallow ( 566160 ) writes:
The alternative is to spend thousands of years traveling to another planet and potentially find it uninhabitable or die on the way. Any other planet would have a distinctly different gravity - one on which we have not evolved. How would we enable a breathable atmosphere? How would we remove toxins from the environment. It's quite probable that most of the environment would in one way or another be toxic.
The obvious answer is "engineering". We have a huge track record of solving hard problems. This is just a bunch of hard problems most which would already be solved in order for the dilemma to happen at all. If you're flying for thousands of years to another star system, then you've solved the gravity problem; how to enable a breathable atmosphere; and how to remove toxins from the environment.
How would we get a significant number of people to this planet?
It's just a matter of mass. So much habitat, resources, etc needs to be brought per person. So want more people to g
bykuzb ( 724081 ) writes:
All futurists leave something to be desired. Grand claims that will only be proven true or false long after the futurist is dead are only useful to sell shitty books. They are usually full of shit.
We all love Hawking, but it seems like every time he steps up to talk about something these days it's topics which are WELL outside of his expertise.
bySpazmania ( 174582 ) writes:
David Brin, who does not claim to predict the future, did a remarkable job with his settings in Earth, published 1990. He describes a world-spanning wireless data network, forums that look virtually identical to modern social media, social implications of ubiquitous cell phone cameras recording to the cloud, etc.
In 1990. When cell phones big bricks that did phone calls, one-way pagers were just starting to become widespread, the Internet was half a decade away from being generally accessible to the public a
bykuzb ( 724081 ) writes:
It wasn't that hard to envision in 1990. Most of us that were involved with BBSes already knew networked systems were the future.
byjafiwam ( 310805 ) writes:
At least we can think ahead now a bit, instead of facing near-term nuclear war with Russia.
byDickBreath ( 207180 ) writes:
A flaw in Hawking's thinking is that he seems to believe that humanity SHOULD escape extinction.
Everywhere that humans go they bring conflict, war, and untold suffering on other humans. Often motivated by greed for obscene wealth, lust or power over others. Do we really want that to ever escape from this solar system? Maybe that's why the stars are so far apart.
bySpazmania ( 174582 ) writes:
If you believe that nihilist crap, help mother gaia by removing yourself from her presence.
byRoger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
Maybe that's why the stars are so far apart.
The stars are far apart because gravity is very weak and the fact that we know that is one of the many reasons why we absolutely should escape from this solar system. We may have a long way to go still but look at how far we have come. The humans of 2-3 millenia ago had far more conflict, death and suffering. Do you really want to throw all that away and start again with whatever evolution randomly throws up next? It might come up with a species which is far worse.
bykilfarsnar ( 561956 ) writes:
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man and solid scientist. His abilities as a futurist leave something to be desired.
I agree. What I don't understand about his position is that if humans fuck up the planet to the point where we need another one, what will stop us from fucking up that one too? It seems that if we were to learn to manage our societies, population and resources in a sustainable manner we could live on this planet for a very long time. That's a big "if" of course. But I think we will have to learn that in order to survive on any planet.
byBlack Parrot ( 19622 ) writes:
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man and solid scientist. His abilities as a futurist leave something to be desired.
Unlike futurism, cosmology is a field that someone can actually be good at.
bySpazmania ( 174582 ) writes:
Which would be relevant if his reported comments were legitimately rooted in cosmology instead of futurism.
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
I think you're confusing cosmology with cosmetology.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byAltus ( 1034 ) writes:
One would hope that curbing or reversing global warming will be easier than colonizing and terraforming another planet....
byMr0bvious ( 968303 ) writes:
Well, you see we've got about 7 billion humans here all sabotaging any effort to fix global warming.
There will only be a few on Mars and they'll all have a vested interest in terraforming their new home.
Earth for human inhabitants is screwed.
byMitchDev ( 2526834 ) writes:
I voted for "Extinction-Event Asteroid" rather than Clinton or Trump....
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMarxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * writes:
You are too late on climate change at any rate. The story is the same as it always was: Adapt or die.
bygnick ( 1211984 ) writes:
It's always been "adapt or die." Always will be. I object to calling Earth a "fragile planet." We evolved here - We're tailor fit for this planet. Finding another that's more robust against us is laughably unlikely. I'm not against exploring or even inhabiting other planets, but this "pick up the species and move" in the next 1,000 years seems silly.
bycapebretonsux ( 758684 ) writes:
Heh.
"Finding another that's more robust against us is laughably unlikely. "
Cockroaches.
...and suddenly a Trump presidency begins to make sense...
byTapeCutter ( 624760 ) writes:
this "pick up the species and move" in the next 1,000 years seems silly
Indeed, terraforming Mars for human habitation won't happen until we work out how to fix/maintain the life support system on this planet.
byAnne Thwacks ( 531696 ) writes:
With Trump in the White House, we will be lucky to survive 10 years.
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
In spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence that humanity must act or face grave consequences from climate change.
How's life in cloud-cuckoo-land?
bylgw ( 121541 ) writes:
Clinton wasn't going to do anything about climate change and her starting WW3 with Russia to appease the defence contractors that own her definitely wouldn't have helped the situation.
Now that's just not true! Nuclear winter would have set back global warming by decades, if not centuries. She was the only candidate willing to actually do something about global warming!
Parent
twitter
facebook
byYvan256 ( 722131 ) writes:
Fry: This snow is beautiful. I'm glad global warming never happened.
Leela: Actually, it did. But thank God nuclear winter canceled it out.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byProzacPatient ( 915544 ) writes:
Now that's just not true! Nuclear winter would have set back global warming by decades, if not centuries. She was the only candidate willing to actually do something about global warming!
All I can tell you about that is that patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?
byMerk42 ( 1906718 ) writes:
Because there are only two* parties in the U.S., Democrat and Republican. Once you register with one party, anything anyone does in that party is Right and Good and anything anyone does in the other party is Dumb and Wrong.
*no one cares about third parties, they just throw your vote away.
byarth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
The crazy Americans are a minority
Citation needed.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGavagai80 ( 1275204 ) writes:
The crazy Americans are the 96% majority who voted for what they knew was a horrible candidate, on the grounds that they didn't want the other lizard to win.
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
It's kind of like how the crazy Americans keep claiming that "Democrat candidate XYZ is going to steal our guns!"
So "Operation Fast and Furious" happened before you were born? That scandal, which resulted in the death of one of the American Border Patrol, was a Democrat conspiracy intended to result in the seizure of guns. It would have, too, if it hadn't been exposed.
Then there's also the orchestrated outcry over the nonexistent "gun show loophole".
byPlus1Entropy ( 4481723 ) writes:
So "Operation Fast and Furious" happened before you were born? That scandal, which resulted in the death of one of the American Border Patrol, was a Democrat conspiracy intended to result in the seizure of guns.
While a complete and utter clusterfuck, that is not what Operation Fast and Furious was at all. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite, where they were letting criminals walk away with guns instead of seizing them. That's why it's called the ATF "gunwalking" scandal.
bykimvette ( 919543 ) writes:
That is exactly what we are afraid of.
Trump is just a stupid greedy trust fund brat who is famous for being a bully and really doesn't have what it takes to lead.. while Pence is truly scary in his zealotry and bigotry (never mind that his doctrine directly counterfeits the bible he claims to believe)
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
The assumption that Obama is stupid is part of what has enabled him to do so much damage. Go ahead, let your blind anger help Trump get his way.
byTough Love ( 215404 ) writes:
It's may be logical to say if you are a HRC supporter you are not a Trump supporter.
You appear to have interpreted "sounds like" in a way that the OP did not intend. "Sounds like a Trump supporter" could mean "seems to be a Trump supporter" or it could mean "uses rhetoric similar to that of a Trump supporter". I am reasonable confident that the latter was the intended meaning: uses the trailer trash rhetoric of a typical deplorable Trump supporter. Of course, not all Trump supporters are deplorable, or at least, not all of them are completely deplorable, but the ones who say things like "w
byTough Love ( 215404 ) writes:
The bulk of the attacks I've heard about have been done to Trump supporters.
You have remarkably selective hearing.
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
Who's rioting now? And why is George Soros paying them $1500/week?
byTough Love ( 215404 ) writes:
If you need evidence, check out the comments to any Youtube video involving Trump, for one thing.
As I said, you have remarkably selective hearing, in addition to being an ass.
byPlus1Entropy ( 4481723 ) writes:
I wish I'd read this before responding to your comment above.
So uh, yeah, Operation Fast and Furious is whatever you want it to be. Have a nice day!
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
d Discussion
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...