@sergeslothrop@JucheAffirmer Renewables cannot replace diesel, natural gas for high heat, etc (You cannot make solar panels using renewable energy). And we need oil for chemical stocks, plastics - as well as natural gas for fertilizers, etc.
@sergeslothrop@JucheAffirmer You might want to inform mining companies of that then, because they disagree LOL. To give one example, there is a severe shortage of AFFORDABLE copper, even if we substitute where we can, and recycle efficiently.
Well good luck with that I guess...
Degrowth is happening regardless of how we feel about it. It's just a question of do we manage it in a smart way, or do we experience at as crisis. My money's on the latter.
This is just the same vision of the world as degrowth environmentalism but with a "based" sheen. The actual alternative to degrowth and collapse is to turbocharge industrial and demographic development in order to expand into interplanetary and then interstellar space.
@patswazee5@JucheAffirmer China's economy is incredibly unstable. This moment won't last, and unless they can transform quickly to something else they're fucked (something they're keenly aware of btw).
@Ridings51164210@JucheAffirmer@snekotron Actually agriculture will no longer be possible in the way we do it today, because the energy sources that make it possible will simply become too expensive (and scarce).
Agriculture will become a larger part of the economy and you'll see a remigration back to the country.
@sergeslothrop@RichardCovetous@JucheAffirmer Do the central banks know this, because the falling rate of profit has framed most of their actions.
Unlimited credit was one of their solutions, and it has not been very successful (arguably it has made the problem worse).
@Placeholder004@ripplebrain They're not going to get their own system. They don't have the technical resources, or the financial capital. And this assumes that SpaceX has the spare capacity to launch these satellites for them.
Imagine if we did physics this way. Instead of having scientists study, and carry out experiments, we just got a bunch of punch drunk computer scientists to do thought experiments, and misuse the word fallacy.
Your implication reaches for the stochastic parrot fallacy. You are right about the mechanics, but underestimate the parrot
Take a minute and calculate just how much information is transferred by looking at a word's proximity to near neighbors in a 16,000 dimensional environment.
Here's an thought experiment: How many verbs are near neighbors to the noun "bear"?
What does this tell you about the properties of the noun "bear"?
Same exercise now with nouns and adjectives--what are the near neighbor nouns and adjectives of the noun "bear". Again, what do you learn about the noun "bear" from these near neighbors?
Our brain stores factual information in a very similar way. We don't have a database of "bear" facts in our brain some dude in a little control room looks up when we think "bear". There's no "bear" file in our brains. We have a bunch of thoughts which are near neighbors to the noun "bear" which get activated when we hear/think the word "bear".
From there, it's a recursive cascade.
One near neighbor of "bear" is the verb "lumbering". What are the near neighbors of "lumbering"? What do these near neighbors tell you about a "lumbering bear"?
What does this tell you about other words near to "lumbering" which might also be near to "bear"?
Can two nouns, "bear" and another noun near "lumbering" and "bear" fight each other? Can you use near neighbor words to create a story about these two nouns fighting each other? What are nearest neighbors to "fighting"?
"Godzilla" is a noun which is also near the adjective "lumbering". What would a fight between Godzilla and a bear look like? I'm betting that there is no written work about Godzilla and a bear fighting each other in ChatGPT's training set. Yet, it'll happily construct a story about this for you. That's a new knowledge construct, coming from your "stochastic parrot".