Existential and Global Catastrophic Risk

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Existential and Global Catastrophic Risk

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

DrSunshine posted:

Another thing I wanted to mention is that I think existential and global catastrophic risks are intersectional issues. I haven't really seen any discussion of this in the academic literature, which speaks to the lengths to which the X-risk community is blind to these concerns.

I think the answer that current existential risk people would give is that the risk is so large that intersectionality doesn't matter. Who cares about whether the apocalypse kills marginalised groups first if privileged groups are merely next in line to die.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2020 17:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 15:07

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

DrSunshine posted:

I don't think this is a very enlightening statement. All you've done is make an observation about life as a negentropic process and equated the second law of Thermodynamics to suicide, just to give it that wooo dark and edgy nihilistic vibe. It's poetic but ultimately fatuous. Are you saying that a universe that is full of lifeless rocks and gas would be more preferable? Moreover using the term "attempt" and "suicide" attributes agency to the universe, when all it is doing is acting out laws of physics. Furthermore, if we take the strong anthropic principle to be sound, it would appear that life (and perhaps by extension, consciousness) in a universe with our given arrangement of physical constants would be inevitable - just another physical process that should be guaranteed to occur in a universe that happened to form the way it has. In that sense you couldn't ascribe any moral or subjective value to life's existence, it simply is in the same sense that black holes are.

Yeah but adding the "life is more liek a suicide attempt :smuggo:

" bit at the end is deservedly making fun of people who think that life existing on some random rock has a grand meaning for the entire universe.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2020 17:25

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Here�s my understanding of it from a old Scientific America article:

�It takes a rather long time for heat to move out of the earth. This occurs through both "convective" transport of heat within the earth's liquid outer core and solid mantle and slower "conductive" transport of heat through nonconvecting boundary layers, such as the earth's plates at the surface. As a result, much of the planet's primordial heat, from when the earth first accreted and developed its core, has been retained.

The amount of heat that can arise through simple accretionary processes, bringing small bodies together to form the proto-earth, is large: on the order of 10,000 kelvins (about 18,000 degrees Farhenheit). The crucial issue is how much of that energy was deposited into the growing earth and how much was reradiated into space. Indeed, the currently accepted idea for how the moon was formed involves the impact or accretion of a Mars-size object with or by the proto-earth. When two objects of this size collide, large amounts of heat are generated, of which quite a lot is retained. This single episode could have largely melted the outermost several thousand kilometers of the planet.

Additionally, descent of the dense iron-rich material that makes up the core of the planet to the center would produce heating on the order of 2,000 kelvins (about 3,000 degrees F). The magnitude of the third main source of heat--radioactive heating--is uncertain. The precise abundances of radioactive elements (primarily potassium, uranium and thorium) are poorly known in the deep earth.

In sum, there was no shortage of heat in the early earth, and the planet's inability to cool off quickly results in the continued high temperatures of the Earth's interior. In effect, not only do the earth's plates act as a blanket on the interior, but not even convective heat transport in the solid mantle provides a particularly efficient mechanism for heat loss. The planet does lose some heat through the processes that drive plate tectonics, especially at mid-ocean ridges. For comparison, smaller bodies such as Mars and the Moon show little evidence for recent tectonic activity or volcanism.�

Now that picture painted above might be getting dated, it is 30 years old. If there is a new model post it.

"It takes a rather long time for heat to move out of the earth" doesn't mean "like 4 billion years". You're misunderstanding what your quote is saying.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 19:05

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Longtermists vastly overrate their ability to predict the future.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2022 09:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Existential and Global Catastrophic Risk