420basteit

I've wondered this too. It seems like there is a solid argument that they could act as a harmful invasive species and damage or destroy ecosystems which they are introduced to. There is precedent for this in hippos which were introduced to South America.

However, these rare and unique megafauna are so valuable (imo), that the potential damage they could cause ecosystems we introduce them to may be outweighed by their increased resilience. The death of all wild elephant populations would be a massive blow to biology, animal psychology, and natural beauty; I wonder if we should think more about prioritizing their survival over other ecological considerations.

I'm absolutely not an expert in this area at all, just thoughts of a layman.

There is reason to consider this a possibility, since many molecules may be potentially harmful when inhaled as vapor, with unknown health effects (ie vitamin E acetate), but under combustion would deteriorate mostly or entirely into the carbon forms that have well understood effect on health -- as a previous commenter mentioned, 10yr lifespan reduction from long term continuous cigarette use.

There is just not longitudinal data available for vaporizing plants or synthetic nicotine/thc concentrates. It could be an even higher lifespan reduction than smoking!

Why do you find eusociality abhorrent?

I think you have a slight misunderstanding about the great filter.

If we found only microorganisms on the other plant that should indicate that the filter is behind us, life having died out on that planet before even reaching large scale organisms let alone technology.

If we find ruins of civilization and technology on the planet at either about the same stage as us or more advanced, then we can assume that the filter is ahead of us.

From one media manipulator to another: when you pay the premium price for a long-standing hacker news account, it's usually more convincing to let people find the comment history for themselves.

Probably not the same thing that guy was walking about, but this is a cool project going on at University of Washington - it's made for biological science workflows but it's really quite flexible.

https://www.aquarium.bio

Grass fed organic meat will solve all of our problems right?

Except for the fact that it is too expensive for most to afford, meaning only the upper class can eat the stuff and feel good about it; also it produces much more methane per pound of meat than the corn-fed and hormone-injected equivalent; and finally it requires MUCH more space -- space that could be used for more sustainable agriculture like soy farms or chicken factories.

Environmentally and economically it seems like America should be engineering it's meat. Ethically, this is a different story, especially with the torturing of animals that often accompanies this meat engineering process.

The reason that I personally stand behind the development of meat alternatives like the impossible, and cultured meat, is that these are attempts to continue increasing the environmental and economic viability of meat while simultneously eliminating the ethical issues completely.

Yes the alternative meat field is young and not effective right now, but that's no reason to abandon all hope that cheap sustainable meat-like sustenance is possible. Impossible should be lauded and encouraged to improve their product. Their very name is a clue that what they are trying to do is not easy, but I think if successful, it could pay off big for society.

However, even supposing these congestions are important to human wellbeing, the argument still fails to be compelling because it understates the development of psychological knowledge that would occur alongside the technological development.

Why shouldn't the techno Utopia be able to take advantage of psychological findings to maximize happiness of humans? If the theory about congestion leading to happiness is true and empirically discoverable, then the techno Utopia can take advantage of it to increase happiness by integrating the 'best' kind of congestion possible into the lives of its human constituents.

I personally agree that these congestions are inessential. They are only desirable insofar as they force people who ordinarily "live in the fast lane" to meditate, daydream, and socialize. These are actual essential activities in my opinion. When inefficiencies are removed people will actually have more time to directly focus on these things, rather than having their meditation/social time relegated to periods where they are waiting on something they should not have to.