Based on the amounts I see posted here, that would be mathematically impossible.

Besides, Reddit already knows how to lose money.

>Possible collapse:

Humans have survived worse (WW2, The Great Depression, etc.). We are more vulnerable nowadays, as we are more interconnected and our food supply relies heavily on information and electricity. Basically, not worth worrying about. If it happens, you're screwed, but it probably won't happen (outside of a few countries here and there). It's like the possibility of an asteroid hitting. It's best not to think about it.

>Climate change

This will happen (is happening), and the only question is how bad it will be. My guess is that we will avoid the most catastrophic outcome (4+ degrees of warming), but there will still be degradation to the environment, reduced standard of living, and it will negatively impact outdoor activities like hiking, skiing, scuba diving, etc. This video might make you feel better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw

​

>Economy:

The economy was far worse overall in the 1930s and 1970s, but there are still serious problems. The main problems now include government debt and an affordability crisis for housing. Demographics are also pointing to slower growth globally. Save as much money as you can, and diversify your investments (no more than 5% of your net worth in a single asset).

​

>AI :

I personally don't see super-human AI becoming available in the next 30 years, at least. But specialized AIs that can exceed human capabilities are here now (or they soon will be). At first, AI will mostly be a tool to replace tasks, not jobs. People will become more productive, and jobs will be less tedious. At some point, major job losses may occur, but I think you have at least 10 years to plan for this.

​

>everything seems to be worsening

There are a few worrying trends, and no shortage of problems, but the world is still a better place to live now than at almost any other time in human history. Would you rather worry about a robot taking your job or work in an unsafe factory 6 days a week? That would have been your likely career 100 years ago.

Climate change is getting worse, but air and water pollution are much smaller problems in the rich world than they were in the 1970s. Racism and poverty are also far less impactful than in the past. Don't ignore legitimate problems, but don't focus on despair. That's no way to live.

>With the singularity potentially coming within the decade

within 50 years, maybe

There are already experimental automated grocery warehouses where robots put together orders.

I’m convinced that this tech will replace most grocery shopping eventually, but it will take longer than a decade just to build out the warehouses and that is after the concept is proven and refined enough to be economically viable.

There’s a saying: “The future is here, it’s just not equally distributed yet.”

Basically, the lag between proof of concept and general availability is usually longer than you would expect. Most people aren’t as eager for change as the average person in this sub.

My guess is around 10% of people in rich countries will have access to automated grocery shopping in 10 years, and it will be the norm in 20 years.

Me:

“Such a beautiful color.”

inserts phone into thick, black protective case

Artificial general intelligence could likely not be constrained by rules if it were more intelligent than a human.

This is because we likely won’t understand how exactly such an advanced system would function, as it would have to be designed mostly by another AI.

A super AI probably wouldn’t kill us on purpose, but by disregarding our interests, just as we disregard the interests of insects when they conflict with our own.

I am just parroting talking points I have heard from experts, but they sound reasonable to me.

And what would your solution be?

>Those without homes must attack the capitalist system

A large number of those without homes are profoundly mentally ill and/or face severe substance addiction. They're probably not in a position to fight anyone.

Letting them fend for themselves is not admirable, or "empowering", it's cruel. They should be involuntarily committed to mental health and addiction intervention programs. Unfortunately, we in the US dismantled our public health infrastructure back in the 1980s (which roughly coincided with the start of the homeless crisis).

Capping the cost of rent (rent control) is a terrible idea (and an old one).

Rent controls invariably worsen shortages (just look at New York and San Francisco). It seems like a simple solution, but price controls are literally cited in Economics 101 handbooks as examples of perverse incentives.

What we need to do is increase the supply of housing. This can be accomplished by:

1. Loosening zoning restrictions to allow for more multi-family units and higher density development.
2. Limiting the power of NIMBY homeowners to block new development with frivolous lawsuits
3. Eliminate the mortgage interest tax credit on second homes to discourage viewing home ownership as an investment

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/12/30/the-economics-of-the-housing-shortage/

​

>By contrast, economists are less in favor of rent control programs. While rent control can lower displacement and insure tenants against rent increases, most economists believe it to be an ineffective and counterproductive long run solution. By setting the rent at less than the market equilibrium, rent control laws result in an excess demand for local rental units, which further feeds into the housing shortage. A 2018 study on evidence from San Francisco found that a rent control policy reduced the rental housing supply and likely increased market rents in the long run despite being designed to improve affordability.

I think the metaverse is hamstrung by its association with crypto. Too many metaverse projects are thinly veiled attempts to enable crypto/NFT speculation.

Who cares if you can take your overpriced virtual Nikes from Decentraland to Fortnite? What are the odds that a rifle you purchased in COD is going to be fully supported by other shooters, let alone Rocket League? Do we really want our favorite games to be overrun with "players" from developing countries grinding for loot?

Not to mention the widespread assumption that a metaverse must necessarily involve VR. Roblox, Minecraft and other online gaming communities demonstrate that virtual worlds can be compelling and valuable even if they are accessed via a standard PC or phone, and are not tightly interconnected. The community aspect is more important than the visual stimulus.

I have this shit memorized. I argue with Reddit socialist high schoolers on a weekly basis.

Now you're making a little sense. Smaller, homogeneous population does help, "whiteness" has nothing to do with it. I would argue that high levels of social trust is the key, and this is helped by homogeneity. People are more willing to pay into a welfare system if they think it will help people like them, but this is not an insurmountable problem.

Importantly, Neither Sweden or Denmark are "socialist". They are "social democratic". Sweden outranks the US for business friendliness, competitiveness and entrepreneurship.

"Socialist" means that the workers (or the state) owns the means of production. No private ownership of any companies is allowed (East Germany, North Korea, Cuba until recently, etc.).

Sweden and Denmark derive 70-80% of their GDP from privately owned (AKA "capitalist") businesses.

The Nordic model is mostly capitalist but with a sizeable (but shrinking) state-owned sector (mostly utilities and old-school heavy industry). There are also very high marginal tax rates and a strong social safety net.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0dWHCnic8

​

>And yet, they can’t pint to any other place that it works.

Germany has most of the same policies, and they are a large, successful, diverse country.

Where else has the Nordic Model been adopted and failed?

Edit:

Note: Japan succeeded in part because of high levels of social trust and extreme homogeneity, but they stalled out because of terminal demographics. The Nordic countries did a better job of keeping birth rates up.

Why should race make any difference?

And the highest sushi consumption per capita, as long as we’re spouting unrelated trivia.

Depends on the state. Laws can be changed

So only white people can have good social policies? Bold statement.

Japan has the lowest homeless rate in the world, BTW.

>It's an unsolvable dilemma.

Japan and Sweden have homelessness rates approaching zero percent. Did they use magic?

It's not an unsolvable problem, but we have to stop pretending we are helping mentally ill addicts by letting them run their own lives.

We have to involuntarily enter them into treatment programs.

Expensive is not the same as impossible, although it seems that way sometimes.

That will partially solve the problem.

There are people who are homeless who just need a job or money or an affordable house. Low-cost housing and aid programs can help these people.

There are other people who are homeless who are incapacitated by mental illness and/or addiction and no amount of money or physical infrastructure will help them without a more purposeful intervention. Some people are afraid of living indoors, others would quickly ruin any shelter they were provided and make life miserable for their neighbors.

We need to rebuild our public mental health infrastructure and start involuntarily committing people for their own good. Letting a profoundly mentally ill person run their own life isn't empowering. It's cruel.

>it is part of capitalism

If it were, then all capitalist countries would have this problem. Homelessness barely exists in places like Sweden and Denmark.

The city needs to do something so that tourists and businesses don't flee the city. The city needs to do something to help the homeless.

Leaving insane drug addicts alone to fend for themselves is not "empowering". It's cruel.

Humans evolved to live in small tribes.

We can only live in complex societies thanks to a complex system of rewards and punishments.

Money and satisfying relationships are the rewards for interacting successfully with society. Jail, poverty and isolation are among the punishments for antisocial behavior.

At the country level, the threat of nuclear weapons and the promise of economic growth though trade keeps us in line (most of the time).

The average work week was 60 hours in the early 1900s.

That number dropped to 37 hours, thanks to automation.

It has since crept back up due to increased expectations by customers and improved communications technology making people available 24/7.

> my city is a prime target for a nuclear warhead to be dropped on our heads.

That's a good thing. Better than dying of radiation poisoning, starvation or violence.

​

> When this war in Ukraine ends, I believe we will see the doomsday clock get farther away from midnight.

Depending on how it ends, but probably.

>With Putin constantly threatening nuclear war in Ukraine that pushes us closer to the proverbial midnight.

That makes sense, but are we really closer now than during the Cuban Missile Crisis? There was literally one dude on a Soviet sub that voted not to start a nuclear war.

This clock was started in the late 1940s. I think it has become meaningless as a comparative risk measurement metric. It may still be useful as a discussion starter, of course.

The problem is that the clock gets much more press coverage when it gets closer to midnight than ever before, so the incentive is to exaggerate.

We are definitely closer to "doomsday" than before the Ukraine war, but are we really at greater risk than during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Viet Nam war, or the Brezhnev era? It seems unlikely.

The clock should have remained as a way to measure the risk of nuclear war exclusively. That is still the only doomsday (end of human civilization) scenario that humans have any control over. Maybe add AI and nanotechnology in the future when they become a credible threat to the species.

Nowadays, they include things like climate change, Covid, and the "breakdown of global norms".

These are all big problems, but none of them threatens human civilization with annihilation.

• Covid is largely abating, outside of China
• Climate change could cause 89 million excess deaths (directly and indirectly) by 2100, according to worst-case credible estimates. This is terrible, obviously, but it is unlikely to end civilization. The human population will see a net increase over that time span.
• The breakdown of global norms and trust in institutions does make war more likely, but they made little effort to quantify this risk.

The West’s Nuclear Mistake (The Atlantic)

Germany in 2020 was ninth in the world in coal burning. The UK burned barely any coal. The difference was the idiotic decision by Germany to drop nuclear power.

Despite Germany’s PR, their pre-Ukraine emissions reductions have far more to do with demographic decline than alternative energy. German emissions reductions have actually slowed since they started their solar buildout.

Also, Germany counts electricity generation from lignite as “renewable” as long as it is backstopping solar. This vastly overstates their green capacity, as lots of energy is used in the evening.

https://youtu.be/AYu9rliT3F4