In response to Open Thread #41
Comment author: zepedad 11 September 2018 07:59:25PM 0 points [-]

Possibly Highly Effective Ways to Address Climate Change

This thread by Josh Busby gives plenty of examples—

http://twitter.com/busbyj2/status/1038269431439388672

Skip the commentary I’ll add on after this sentence and just read that thread if you’re trying to save time.

As this article (https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/29/local-climate-efforts-wont-undo-trump-inaction?__twitter_impression=true) makes clear, local actions to address climate change that do not scale up to the national or higher level are just feel-good nothingburgers. It’s possible that every local action has a chance to scale to that level, but not all will scale at the speed that we need, and some actions taken to address climate change actually make things worse (see some advertising campaigns from the past.)

In response to Open Thread #40
Comment author: zepedad 08 August 2018 06:37:03PM 0 points [-]

Animal v. Human Prioritization

Hi all,

A person involved with EA said I should get involved with the forum, so here I am.

Here is/are my question(s).

1) Is (and should) morality be based on a combination of biology and strict logical induction?

If yes to 1), then here’s my deal.

I have a preference for valuing human life over animal life. However, if some animal species are more likely to live longer than the human species will, then would I be doing more good by prioritizing helping those animals out first and foremost?

This article— https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/earths-scorching-hot-history/566762/ — mentions crocodiles and sand sharks living under 1000 ppm CO2eq conditions. I’m not sure that humans can. Would I be doing more good trying to make sure that crocodiles and such animals can survive, and consider the human species a sunk cost at this point?

Let me know your thoughts as you’re able to, please. Thank you,

Donald Zepeda

In response to Open Thread #39
Comment author: zepedad 05 March 2018 04:05:03AM 1 point [-]

Hi.

Given recent absurd temperatures in the Arctic, I've never been less sure than I am now that the human species even can avoid an early and untimely death. For that reason, I am now also interested in continuing the human legacy, once humans as we know them today have disappeared. I assume that no intelligent species exists aside from what we are aware of here on Earth. For the endeavors of the human species to continue after we expire, we need to make sure ourselves that the closest thing to human endeavor continues, and not pin our hopes on something that may not ever find us, exist, or even be interested in reviving us should they find our DNA somewhere.

So, does anybody here know any work I can get involved with that works towards that end? Some thoughts that have interested me so far are uploading human memories and tasks into things and/or robots that don't need food or water and can withstand extreme heat and extreme weather events. (Resilient solar-powered items, for instance, that would do the best things that we would like to see done were we still alive.) I am also interested in merging with and/or shaping the future of the resilient species that are more likely to outlive us.

Any other suggestions? How should I pursue this?

Comment author: zepedad 18 October 2015 12:43:02AM 0 points [-]

Wouldn't the optimal outcome come about from activism led by at least semi-calculated movements? That being said, I understand the concern. There are perhaps not enough boots on the ground right now to the point where the necessity for actions might be higher than it is for analysis. I'll go see what this site has to say about starting movements and then see what I can do from there. : )