We have a unlimited source of energy generator up in the sky. Humans need to get their act together and resist the urge for anti-human arguments. IMO we need to get going more than ever towards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_I

I predict that in 2040 there are going to be "space enviromentalists" that will try to prevent humans from exploring space in the name of keeping it as is.

Solving fusion power would be a watershed moment for humans and that's where the focus needs to be. The other one is Cancer that needs to be eradicated.

While I agree with where humans should be putting their minds to solving cancer and the energy problems facing us currently.

The problem of "unlimited energy generator" of the sun is that on the ground it is intermitted based on day/night and clouds, meaning we would have to create a surplus of energy during the day and store it for later use. We have been working on batteries, but there has been promise at using air or water "batteries" as well via compressed air or Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH).

I would highly recommend reading both Bill Gates's How to Avoid a Climate Disaster and Vaclav Smil's How the World Really Works, both of which have really shown what needs to happen to solve both our climate and energy problems going forward.

I read the Great Reset by Klaus Schwab. I felt so repulsed by it and will do everything in my power to push back on that non-sense.

I want human race to flourish and tackle problems, not regress back to the caves.

Completely agree there, I want to see humanity take the leap and become a type 1 and then a type 2 civilization.

It is mind blowing to me that the first diesel engine installed on a ship was 1903 and where we are 122 years later already touching space. I can hardly wait to see what the next 50+ years bring. It will be hard and I am sure we will have some growing pains, but going back is never an option.

It is only a hopeful sign if you believe humanity can successfully navigate a demographic inversion the likes of which it has never seen before, while managing the changing climate.

I do not see how this could be the case.

I agree.

A dramatic example, but I imagine a solid state battery (and the following generations) will be harder to design if half of the research team has to care for their senile mothers.

That happens in Italy?

Sorry for any confusion, I was responding to this:

> if you believe humanity can successfully navigate a demographic inversion the likes of which it has never seen before, while managing the changing climate.

I agree with the comment above mine, I do not believe we can manage this. With less population, specialization, and attention available among the polluting countries, I see those countries (such as Italy) reverting to things that are easier to manage.

Likely more stuff we can just grab out of the ground and burn.

Why is OPs sensible comment being down voted?

If you disagree, then post a reply saying why you disagree. Down voting is meant for posts that detract from the conversation, not because you disagree with something and can't be arsed posting a reply.

This isn't Reddit FFS.

Its basic Malthusianism which everyone on this board has seen debunked countless times. When people post low-effort doomsaying, they don't always deserve intelligent replies

there are far better ways to fix the environment than reducing humans.

But another reason why it 's good: more capital in fewer hands