EdEarl

There are differences between the weather and a person, including we can stop a serial killer from killing again; however, we cannot stop the weather (e.g., a tornado) from killing. Well, in both cases we can move to a safe location, but we can incarcerate a killer, not a tornado.

Youtube video A.I. is progressing faster than you think gives some interesting examples of how quickly AI is progressing. In addition Google has developed an AI coprocessor that is an order of magnitude faster than existing graphics processing units recently used for AI. The rate of improvement in AI is surprising; thus, IMO it will occur faster than we imagine.

True, jobs have been automated since the industrial revolution. However, AI and robots will be able to do anything we can do, and they don't need to be paid for working 24/7. We will be without jobs as we know it, just as most people before the industrial revolution didn't have jobs. The difference is that before industrial jobs, people worked hard to grow food to eat. Robots will do it for us in the future.

I don't fully understand what you ask. No thing can travel as fast as light. The fastest man made thing is a space craft. The sun's gravity accelerated these probes to these speeds, not rocket engines. However, 70 K/S is rather slow compared to the speed of light which is about 300,000 K/S. The Milky Way galaxy is moving about 600 K/S, our Sun is moving about 20 K/S around the Milky Way, and Earth is moving about 30 K/S around the Sun. There is a plan to make a fast probe to visit Alpha Centauri, which requires a speed of about 216,000 K/S.

Robots and AI are already taking jobs, and the number of jobs they take will increase until people have no jobs. For example, car autopilots are expected to take about 12M jobs by 2025. In general, I believe it will be a good thing. People didn't have paid jobs until the industrial revolution. I am retired, and happy not going to work. A guaranteed basic income would be nice. I take care of myself, interact with people, and grow a garden.

Big money politics that hire thousands of politicians to deny climate change and help corporations poison and otherwise destroy the environment and people.

The number of people who turned their science education into money is small. I don't claim to know them all, but some are Edison, Howard Hunt, and Elon Musk. All of these men also were willing to invest their personal funds into a business, and their skills included more than science.

The fuels that make environmental sense to put many people into space would be H2 and O2 or CH4 and O2; perhaps there are a few more. H2 and O2 can be made by electrolysis of water, but it requires a lot of energy and would be expensive. CH4 and O2 can be made from water and CO2 using high temperature and pressure; the process is reported to be relatively inexpensive. However, the amount of fuel required to rocket masses into space is very large. Thus, the cost will be high to rocket masses into space, maybe it could be reduced to $25,000. Even that price is too much for most people. It is likely a space elevator or similar technology is needed to move masses into space, and we can't yet, and may never, build one.

As batteries and autopilots improve, transportation will change. First, taxi service will become inexpensive and fast enough to displace at least some private ownership of cars. STOL aerocars will be viable, but are likely to be too expensive for many people. If taxi services offer both ground and air taxis, longer trip times can be reduced significantly. Hyperloop should reduce times for the longest trips over land with air service providing overseas travel. Taxis would carry passengers to and from hyperloop and air terminals. If such a taxi service becomes ubiquitous, the total number of vehicles will be about 20% of current worldwide fleets, because taxis will be used 80-90% of the time and parked 10-20% of the time; whereas, currently cars are parked 90% of the time and used infrequently. Such a service would need hands free charging stations, which might be induction or robot connected. How this kind of transportation system would affect the numbers and distribution of EV chargers is unknown.

The lithium supply is limited, but we can replace existing ICE. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Is-There-Enough-Lithium-to-Maintain-the-Growth-of-the-Lithium-Ion-Battery-M

I think battery developments will make this plan unnecessary. Battery development is currently increasing charge rates, specific energy, and number of recharges at about 5% per year. The Tesla mega factory is supposed to reduce production costs, and additional mega factories are already being planned. That 5% yields about 1.3x improvement after five years, and about 1.6x after ten years. That isn't a spectacular rate of improvement, but it is significant. Changing the petrol infrastructure to service flow batteries would take at least ten years. Within five years the cost of battery powered vehicles should be equal or lower than ICE vehicles, and charging stations are already widely available for Tesla cars and increasing for others. I prefer that the petroleum and coal cartels collapse from inactivity; their owners and managers have been poor stewards of the Earth.

Things seem magic when one does not understand them. If we could time travel, and took radio communicators (2 way radios) back to the dark ages, we might be accused of using magic if anyone saw us use those radios. Thus, emergence seems like magic because we don't understand what is required for sentience or consciousness. However, I expect that will change once we have a working AI that is convinced it is conscious and can convince some of us. That we cannot observe consciousness in another means a conscious AI will have difficulty convincing skeptics (most of us) it is conscious. On the other hand, it may not be important whether an AI is conscious or not as long as the AI does what we need and want. The reason it may not be important is we currently have no consensus definition of consciousness. Dictionary.com defines consciousness as, "awareness of one's own existence," and defines awareness as, "consciousness." My gut says that is the definition, but it isn't testable and may never be testable. I believe we will make AI conscious, and be able to test that each invocation to validate it is AI conscious. However, to compare AI consciousness with human consciousness may only be possible if we can accurately simulate a brain.

There are hypothesis about the nature of dark matter and dark energy, but no one knows much about either. Thus, your question may not be answerable.

Meditation is another way to release anger and other disturbing emotions.

I suspect this issue will not be resolved. Some people still believe in a flat Earth, and I think some people will always believe only humans are sentient, no matter how accomplished AI becomes.

The proposed SpaceX Earth-Mars Luxury Liner has a top stage of 17m diameter with a booster stage of 12m diameter. What is the benefit of having a 12m dia booster? I believe material and weight could be saved by having the booster 17m dia.

I've seen smarter cabinets in a furniture store.

The moon is a good place to make solar cells for use in space.

There are many reasons to be biased towards peace, including, Two wrongs don't make a right, and An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. However, if I could save more lives by killing rather than by not killing a wrongdoer, it makes sense to kill the wrongdoer, except one may be unaware of extenuating circumstances. This is not the only scenario that warrants taking a life or lives, but neither vengeance nor punishment are reasons to kill, IMO. I'm fortunate not to have been in such a situation.

Buddhist philosophy is in many ways rational, which is why I like it. On the other hand, parts are irrational, for example reincarnation, which is why I don't claim Buddhism or any religion.

So to punish the Syrians, you would let the hungry in the US starve, those without healthcare die, those without homes die of exposure, women without access to family planning get abortions in back alleys or have unwanted children who are abused, etc. I believe women who have been raped are beheaded in some countries; I'm sure we can find many thousands of examples of man's inhumanity to man. I think it is fiscally irresponsible for the US to become entangled in a foreign war, which is not being a dove; rather it is being rational.

What comes next. I suspect the Republicans are willing to spend another trillion on war to make some of the 1% richer; though, I hope not because I'm concerned it will bankrupt the country. Automation will continue to take jobs and make poor people more poor, and another trillion deficit will make people with few/poor jobs owe money they cannot repay. The Extremely Large Telescope and Square Kilometer Array will be built. Elon Musk will land probably land on Mars. etc. The supreme court may overturn Roe v Wade, and many women will die. Nick Hanauer, a 1%er, says if the rich continue the 99% will rebel and go after the plutocrats with pitchforks. I am angry, as many are. I'm not ready to lob a bomb onto the floor of the senate an congress, but I'd like to see those who take millions in bribes go to jail, except the Supreme Court made it legal. I really think we are too quick to go to war especially because greed is a big motivator. We need to fix our own house before we act elsewhere.

The experts posting in science forums, and their rivals working in universities, government and industry have developed cell phones and other things. If they didn't know what they were doing, your cell phone wouldn't work, rockets couldn't land on other planets, moons and asteroids, and we would still be riding horses instead of driving cars. The thesis of this thread, "All science forums lie to the public," shows a failure in the education of JohnLesser, and that is unfortunate for John, because it limits the jobs he can get, and it is a sad state of affairs that science education is under attack in the US.

He doesn't speak for all Buddhists, but he is an important spokesperson.

Before the Michelson–Morley experiment found the speed of light was constant, physicists thought light propagated through a Luminous Aether. There may be papers or notes from that era that explain the effects of light changing speed. Since then, it seems unlikely anyone would research or consider anything except the speed of light being constant. The Wikipedia article on the Luminous Aether captures some of that thought process, and is easy to access. Good luck.