ACG

So the technological accelerationist way.
That seems to be way the people elected with Trump, but it's risky. Cutting off aid to the Southern Hemisphere a step in the right direction, but don't you think employing more nuclear fission reactors would buy us more time? I'm really surprised how even scientists don't really point out their mid-term viability any more.

It will fail, because that kind of monumental task would require a predominantly white population driving all the progress forward, and the politicians are working in the opposite direction.

lmfao personally I blame the internet for deforestation and I blame crypto mining for temperature rises

That's not entirely true, in fact, a lot of the decisions that destroy humanity in the long term are usefull for faster scientific progress, in the short term at least, since they benefit economic growth.
There is a naive assumption, we'll be able to safely master genetic engineering soon enough for the dysgenic effects of current moral standards not to matter, but that wouldn't matter to a breakaway civilization.

Well you see that's because of the ice caps melting. When the poles melt, they're like big ice cubes and they cool the earth right back down. It's a self-regulating effect that the scientists won't tell you about.

While nuclear fission reactors by themselves produce no CO2.
To mine and transport uranium we need to burn fossil fuels for powering the mining equipment which produces 1.1 kg of CO2 per kWh.
Also a nuclear power plant needs about 200000 tons of concrete.
The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of CO2 according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
To make 1 tonne of concrete it produces between 290 and 410 kg of CO2 according to University of Dundee.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute(NEI) nuclear power plants provided 11% of worldwide electricity with about 450 nuclear plants.
We would need to build nearly 4500 more power plants to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power. (not including an energy demand increase of 100% in which case we need 9000 more power plants)
There is probably not enough sand on the Earth to produce that much concrete.
Proper sand for concrete is already a scarce resource.

People who support nuclear power never look at the big picture.

This is true, but once the ice caps have melted the cooling stops and warming increases even faster, because there is no longer any ice to absorb the heat.
Also currently the polar and Himalayan ice caps melt faster than that they can regenerate.
If they didn't the ice extend would remain relatively stable.

Lmao, who fucking cares if you starve to death without water and 60C outside in your cardboard shacks, tropical monkeys. I am glad, we'll have cherries and apples growing in polar belt in next 50 years.

They are mined with GM-free organic African manual labor. Haven't you seen that Intel video about how they get their minerals and precious metals?

/thread

You'll probably instead master a good kick in the ass by a genetic defect. We can't even build non-defective CPUs or software, and here you want to play god, instead of just keep the white race around to do what we've been doing well for thousands of years.

Why don't we just shoot a rocket towards the sun with all the waste as a payload?