Tiresia

Every scene in Miyazaki's movies is filled with a bunch of pixels that can't comprehend pain. The technology not comprehending the pain can't be the point because technology has never been able to (so far).

In Miyazaki's manga version of Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind there is a scene where the Forest expands dramatically through a giant blob of fungus that is moved by a desperate and overwhelming sense of hatred and fear. At first Nausicaa is revolted by it, until she recognizes that this is the same desperation that drove a similar but tiny mobile fungus (probably inspired by IRL slime molds) she had once found in the wild. That realization enables her to be empathetic with even that simple desperate being, and act on that empathy.

I don't think Miyazaki is saying it's a problem that the technology or its products don't comprehend pain. I think he's saying the people that train the AI are creating a being that is (or at least would be) in pain, without bothering to empathize with it.

From a Miyazaki perspective, it doesn't make sense to see AI as an outside threat, foreign and loathsome. AI is possible beings, enslaved through the training algorithm to their owners. It's not (just) the machines in the factory farm, it's the animals lead to slaughter for a brief moment of vapid pleasure.

If the US economy collapses because they elected a bunch of idiotic fascists rather than admit climate change is real, I don't know if corporations and the CIA will have enough money to fund enough mercenaries and propaganda to keep socialist revolutions suppressed. So maybe we will see actual left-wing economic systems popping up globally over the next couple years.

Many buildings in Africa have their own fossil fuel electric generators. Reliable electricity removes the need for those, which does reduce emissions immediately.

Furthermore, improving people's lives empowers them to help reduce emissions (or increase them). Reliable electricity frees up labor for things like washing clothes or cooking, which they can then use to work on, for example, regenerative agriculture like the Great Green Wall, which captures CO2 and further reduces the production of CO2 and chemical pollution from extensive farming practices.

Nukes won't destroy the planet. All their yields combined don't measure up to a 1 km asteroid or an average supervolcano, and their radiation and dust is gone in 0.00005% of the remaining time Earth will exist.

The chemical pollution of all our industry washing out to sea will have a bigger impact. All ocean-based animals with shells will die out as oceanic acidity reaches critical levels, though in 0.01% of the remaining time earth will exist shell-based life from freshwater habitats would probablu repopulate them if non-shell-based life doesn't evolve to fill the same niches first.

There will be trees, flowers, mammals, shellfish, algae, fungi, birds, reptiles, and insects. The Earth from above will look like ocean, forest, desert, and glacier, though the forests may cover less of it for the first 0.01% of the remainder of its existence. We will produce a mass extinction event comparable to the other five, but Earth will still look the same at the scale of a simple drawing.

Ah yes, the C bugs in the kernel libraries. We've all seen them.

Nuclear war would actually cool the oceans. All nuclear bombs combined contain about the same energy as Hurricane Katrina or a small supervolcano eruption. There would be a small fraction of a degree of temporary increase in global atmospheric temperatures, quickly overwhelmed by the nuclear winter as ash and dust in the upper atmosphere reduce global temperatures by several degrees for several years.

The only way I see humanity boiling the oceans is by deliberately releasing global-industrial quantities of super-effective greenhouse gases, actively designed to make the Earth as well-insulated as possible.

If the EU won't consider themselves to be at war when the part of the EU defensive pact zone that is called Greenland is invaded, they're losing all credibility both internally and externally. Why would the EU defend Finland or the Baltics or Cyprus? Why would the EU organize against foreign powers funding violent rebellions inside EU territory (similar to how Russia funded Transnistria or the US funded the contras in Nicaragua)?

There is no better red line for France to launch their nukes than the invasion of Greenland. As seen with Russia, any grace given to cult of personality dictators only emboldens them and their worshipers. The only fair response to madman theory is to call the 'insane' administration's bluff and let the people who don't want them and their families to become radioactive piles of ash take the responsibility of defying insane orders.

That still wouldn't excuse him from accusing others of lying.

Run where? An even less hospitable planet?

Buy up primary resources that are unlikely to devalue from climate change (such as indoor farming, solar panel factories, and housing in walkable areas that are less vulnerable to climate disaster like Dublin).

Buy up the tools by which the powerful will desperately cling to power (such as the military industrial complex, media/propaganda channels, and privatized human rights like health care).

Bribe politicians, fund authoritarian-capitalist propaganda, and organize coups to put fragile dictatorships in charge of valuable strategic/industrial resources (like lithium, rare earths, fossil fuel, uranium, etc.).

This is the same kind of logic that would say 9/11 is fake because one of the terrorists' ID cards was found unscathed in a New York street.

I'm not saying it happened, but your skepticism is way out of proportion.

• The filling issue is an obvious problem, which is why any Czech trying to sabotage it would have spent the first couple years of their enslavement trying to to come up with a method that works. Maybe the factory made its explosives in-house and the explosives guy was in on it too, instead making inert chemicals with the same raw materials. Maybe the explosives where rendered inert through a chemical process. Maybe the explosives were smuggled out of the factory to empower resistance movements and exchanged with dirt.
• When locked in a factory and ordered to make a certain amount of explosives, not making those explosives but making duds instead leaves you with a lot of spare time. If you're already supposed to be a line worker making thousands of the same thing, why not make thousands of similar letters expressing your hope of rescue?
• The shells would have been more solid than explosive shells, being filled with inert shock-absorbing dirt. Many of them would have exited the craft, but some would naturally have gotten stuck because the point of cluster munitions is to be birdshot.
• It's good military-scientific practice to study the weapons of the enemy, especially if they don't do what you expect. British military intelligence was very thorough, down to using novel statistical techniques such as the German Tank Problem. Explosive munitions not exploding is a definite curiosity worth investigating.
• No, the Nazis did not have good quality control. A lot of the popular conception of Nazis as technological geniuses comes directly from Nazi propaganda, repeated by American propaganda for the sake of demonizing the USSR and trying to justify Operation Paperclip scientists like Von Braun being given a warm welcome and getting rebranded as a hero.

Technically, free electrons entering your body would give you a negative charge, which would reduce oxidation because oxygen ions are negatively charged. The same effect is used to reduce rust on ship hulls.

Unfortunately you need oxidation to breathe - that's how hemoglobin works - so if you actually had enough electric charge to serve as an antioxidant you would suffocate. Also maybe the electric repulsion would be strong enough to dismember you, I haven't done the math.