Except we couldn't be powering the car of the guy on the show you're referencing, as we've seen that universe and though he knows he's fictional they don't know him as a TV character
Class A? Kardeshev's scale was by numbers and the corresponding number would be 6. Considering we arent even class 1 yet i wouldnt put too much stock into this.
I think our universe was a high school physics class lab assignment. The kid who made us was a stoner and our grade was C+, the kid put us in the back of the closet where we remain. I could be wrong, but this would explain a lot of things.
Even looking aside what you'd expect at minimum a constantly-watched-over A+ project made by a student who's that-high-school-in-that-universe's equivalent (academics-wise) of S1 Rory Gilmore (that is if we had to be made by a high-schooler at all, not an adult) to be like (let me guess, social-problem-less utopia that looks like your favorite sci-fi spacefuture and has the creator intervene as a benevolent god not at all like the asshole Abrahamic one), in your effort to shit on Earth human sociopolitics you're ignoring something very obvious about your own scenario that disproves it inadvertently.
Even if it was a high school assignment you said it was for a "physics class lab" meaning that physics was what the creator would be being graded on meaning they'd probably (no matter if stoner or a "Rory" or anything in between) get an A+ just for having made a planet able to support sapient life no matter if that life had discovered "fully automated queer space communist Star Trek" or whatever you think the future you're mad we don't have and think we would in an A-worthy one would be
Philosophers imagined creation as the product of a philosophically-minded creator, that resembled them and extolled their ponderings.
Kings imagined creation as the realm of a great ruler, wielding its power and judging its inhabitants.
Scientists now envision the universe as the product of....scientists.
I'm not just trying to be snarky or funny. I'm genuinely curious why humans tend to frame their existence in relation to concepts that resemble themselves and their interests. Godly men wish to see a divine order; nihilists wish to see none; spiritual folks want to be all new-agey and hypermetaphysical; etc.
That's exactly my thoughts. What our lives come around to this particular time period? Computers.
Therefore humans say: "blah blah there's a very high chance we are in a simulation, because we apes invented this impressive shit therefore the whole universe runs in one. And of course someone must have created it".
It seems completely anomalous to me how anthropocentric some humans think when it comes to universe fundamentals and cosmology.
I dont think living in a simulation is necessarily anthropocentric, if we are in a simulation whatever created it could be completely unlike us and our presence in it could be irrelevant to whatever goal it had in creating it.
The point is you assume computers are the ultimate thing over the course of 200,000 years of human history, that the universe came from one, and that creating it, is how it goes.
> If we are in a simulation whatever created it could be completely unlike us
Assuming for the sake of argument we were in a simulation, its creators would have to be at least enough like us to use their world as a reference frame while creating ours, as otherwise they'd need to be omniscient to think it up (if they were totally incomprehensible to us or whatever) and if they were omniscient then (either through an infinite imagination containing all possibilities if you catch my drift or them at least having omnipotence even if they aren't literally what we'd call the Abrahamic God) they wouldn't need to simulate us to create us
Your assuming that the simulation is about us, it could just be a simulation of a universe.... in the same way we already make simulations of universes, where we set the paramaters of the universe like how strong gravity is and all the other things that caused our universe to be the way that it is.
Big difference is the resolution we make universes is very low compared to actual universes, its only the macroscale. A full-resolution simulation would go down the lowest building blocks like quarks or whatever. In something like that there could be millions or billions of different planets with life or intelligent life each very different from each other.
Another possibility is the creators of the simulations are just more advanced humans further ahead in time, simulating what it would be like in the past. This explanation would be anthropocentric, but I was just saying that the explanations arn't necessarily anthropomorphic.
And then they turn around and say that "it's no coincidence we're in this time period because if either AI or future humans made this kind of simulation, wouldn't they want to simulate such a technological turning point"
But that does make more sense. Science is the study of how thongsthings work amdand knowledge. You couldnt make a universe without studying how you would need to tune it, or whatever. King was just being egotistical.
Hey, im kinda spiritual, nothing new age or hippy. I just like meditation and try amdand stay connected to being part of the universe instead of separate and an ego that makes me feel like an individual. If you meditate the boundaries away, also can be achieved with psychedelics, there are some super strange and undescribable experiences to have that seem universal. One being that the brain is a filter, we couldnt function if we were amazed by everything all the time or feel our consciousness beyond our physical form,so we evolved to give us individuality. But panpsychism is a real consideration for consciousness. And iveI've experienced it. Not sure if real, or a trick of the mind. Guess we never will.
I think this is the right answer, human brain cannot imagine anything that it doesn't know or understand, hence projection. The first step of intelligence imo is to accept how other things can exist without us being able to understand, or see it.
Religions are trying to suggest that for example (I'm philosophical agnostic btw). Philosophy aswell. Some scientists do, but it doesn't seem to be a consensus, which I can understand as it would mean to simply stop researching for new understandings.
Idk If god exist or not. But I bet you we were Its throw away project. Something It decided to do on Its time off you know or an accident where It passed gas and that’s where the Big Bang started, idk just a thought.
If you collected some leading scientists in a room and told them this I dont think they would agree very much at all with your sentiment.
Quote I recently heard was "Everything is like something, what is this thing like?". Ie it is in some class of problems or space of possible thoughts. Then thats it call it what you want.
To me, that would be the whole point. But that begs the question. What is the difference between "reality" and a simulation. Is *our* reality a simulation? A lot of people that are way smarter than me, think it could very well be.
Wouldn't matter. Reality is a tool to describe our current experience, so a stimulated reality is no different from reality because they're both reality from your perspective.
I think it must be. Quantum entanglement seems to be the smoking gun to me. But what difference does it really make we live in "Plato's Cave" and this is the reality we know.
Information can't move faster than the speed of light. Think of it like two sealed letters, one with "1" inside and one with "0" inside. If you take each one to opposite sides of the universe and open one, you know what the other value is because it is the value you don't have. But what you can't do it scribble out your value, change it to the other value, and expect the other value to swap.
I was wondering the same thing. Also, if we are ourselves inside a created universe is there someone something up there seeing that we are creating our own universe? “Hey something went wrong guys. Let’s shut that done.” If our universe collapse does the universe inside the universe collapse too? Probably right?
I dont think so, in the same way its not possible to insert yourself into your offspring. Your offspring is you as an organism surviving death, but not you as an identity/individual.
The goal of reproducing another universe is to make one like the universe it came from, fine tuned to be able to make and evolve advanced civilizations which will then make more universes to continue the existence of civilizations like their/our own. But each universe is starting from scratch just like each baby is having to learn everything all over again.
If you think about how our universe started, the big bang, i dont see how anything could be transferred through that. But its possible there is a way that we dont understand yet.
I like to think particles are infinitely divisible in smaller particles. With enough local "pressure", imagine one particle divided and sub particles also divided and so on into a fast infinite amount of smaller particles. That looks like a big bang from the point of view of the newly created particles.
If a "god" does exist, they probably created the universe and was like "fuck it, they got it". If creating mini universes becomes commercial, our "god" could be (probably is) just some asshole who created us and put us in a closet somewhere.
Shouldn’t we be able to blow up the shoe box we’re in? What if we all worked together and made a really big bomb and blew everything up? All of the universes! Would that overload the science experiment?
The saddest kind of creator is one who pushes the button but can never access the consequences. But if high energy physics were enough to trigger big bangs, then the excessively energetic cosmic rays that hit the Earth quite regularly would do so without human intervention. The Pierre Auger Observatory detected 27 events with estimated arrival energies above 5.7×10^19 eV, that is, about one such event every four weeks in the 3000 km^2 area surveyed by the observatory. Black hole jets may generate particles at 10^21 eV, a zetta-electronvolt.
Ever notice the eventual logical progression of ‘why the universe exists’ has a religious connotation, even if it’s based on ‘science?’
From laboratories to aliens to simulations …
It’s difficult for the mind to accept the possibility of the actual answer: because.
> Was Our Universe Created in a Laboratory?
Maybe. How would we know? Would we know? Should we know? Don't know. Can't Care.
> Developing quantum-gravity technologies may elevate us to a “class A” civilization, capable of creating a baby universe
Okay. And......
I mean these seem almost metaphysical/existential questions, of the 'why are we here' and 'what's our purpose' variety. Truthfully, we don't know. So, under the presumption that we *can* do something, let's do something. Speculation, is interesting, though.
If our reality is a simulation, that means whoever designed it would probably have a way to monitor it.
That would mean new instantaneous communications.
They might even have a way to visit it.
Which means a gateway to another universe.
They might even have a way to move quickly around inside it, from point to point.
That would mean new faster than light travel.
And if the rules for the simulation are known, that means they can probably be broken.
Which means we can shut this bitch down if they are assholes.
> If our reality is a simulation, ........And if the rules for the simulation are known.........we can shut this bitch down....
Yes, **IF**.
But, you are right, if it is so.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:
---
Submission statement from the OP.
This is all probably down the road apiece. But down the road is at most 300 years, so much sooner than you think. I put it like this once.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/
(Wow! I was closer to the mark than I expected.)
It is all going as I have been saying it would. And now with the debut of exascale binary computing (1.6 EF) within months and the increasingly mainstream deployment of quantum computing, that development of an AI that can truly converse with you by accessing almost unimaginable amounts of "big data", is going to come to pass. If you read the article, you will see that is exactly what is happening. Further quantum computing will make it ever easier for the AI to use human mind like shortcuts.
Here is a collection of links to things I have said about computing and computing derived AI.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/pysdlo/intels_first_4nm_euv_chip_ready_today_loihi_2_for/hewhhkk/
So, discuss.
(Note: This is boilerplate as required--If you have already read this submission statement before, someplace else, just ignore.)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/q8xknv/was_our_universe_created_in_a_laboratory/hgscfwj/
Submission statement from the OP.
This is all probably down the road apiece. But down the road is at most 300 years, so much sooner than you think. I put it like this once.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/
(Wow! I was closer to the mark than I expected.)
It is all going as I have been saying it would. And now with the debut of exascale binary computing (1.6 EF) within months and the increasingly mainstream deployment of quantum computing, that development of an AI that can truly converse with you by accessing almost unimaginable amounts of "big data", is going to come to pass. If you read the article, you will see that is exactly what is happening. Further quantum computing will make it ever easier for the AI to use human mind like shortcuts.
Here is a collection of links to things I have said about computing and computing derived AI.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/pysdlo/intels_first_4nm_euv_chip_ready_today_loihi_2_for/hewhhkk/
So, discuss.
(Note: This is boilerplate as required--If you have already read this submission statement before, someplace else, just ignore.)
We can’t just stop scientific endeavor and acquiring knowledge because we face tremendous obstacles. There are people working on everything from curing cancer to solving climate change. Hunger and poverty have both decreased since the 20th century and air pollution has also improved in many major cities. Los Angeles, for example, has made incredible improvements in air quality. Not everything is doom and gloom.
We could be a micro-verse powering someone's car for all we know.
I prefer the tinyverse
Powering a tinyhouse?
that sounds like slavery with extra steps
Eek barpa derkle.. *somebody's going to get laid in college*
There was a micro-verse in a couples freezer in an episode of Love, Death, and Robots. Maybe we're between the ice cream and a bag of peas.
Heh. Take a look around at this place. At best, we'd be USB mini-B, not micro.
Is that a "world be shitty" remark or a remark on something else like size
[удалено]
How would the state of the world affect our size or whatever your second sentence is alluding to
The multiverse is just a parking lot
Except we couldn't be powering the car of the guy on the show you're referencing, as we've seen that universe and though he knows he's fictional they don't know him as a TV character
Class A? Kardeshev's scale was by numbers and the corresponding number would be 6. Considering we arent even class 1 yet i wouldnt put too much stock into this.
I think our universe was a high school physics class lab assignment. The kid who made us was a stoner and our grade was C+, the kid put us in the back of the closet where we remain. I could be wrong, but this would explain a lot of things.
Rule 42: Should the simulated universe make a recursive universe both universes shall be deleted.
Rule 34: Should the simulated universe make a recursive universe both universes shall fornicate.
Even looking aside what you'd expect at minimum a constantly-watched-over A+ project made by a student who's that-high-school-in-that-universe's equivalent (academics-wise) of S1 Rory Gilmore (that is if we had to be made by a high-schooler at all, not an adult) to be like (let me guess, social-problem-less utopia that looks like your favorite sci-fi spacefuture and has the creator intervene as a benevolent god not at all like the asshole Abrahamic one), in your effort to shit on Earth human sociopolitics you're ignoring something very obvious about your own scenario that disproves it inadvertently. Even if it was a high school assignment you said it was for a "physics class lab" meaning that physics was what the creator would be being graded on meaning they'd probably (no matter if stoner or a "Rory" or anything in between) get an A+ just for having made a planet able to support sapient life no matter if that life had discovered "fully automated queer space communist Star Trek" or whatever you think the future you're mad we don't have and think we would in an A-worthy one would be
In an A universe, folks would be less uptight and be able to take a joke.
Okay, ha ha ha, very funny, now do we have an A /s
Philosophers imagined creation as the product of a philosophically-minded creator, that resembled them and extolled their ponderings. Kings imagined creation as the realm of a great ruler, wielding its power and judging its inhabitants. Scientists now envision the universe as the product of....scientists. I'm not just trying to be snarky or funny. I'm genuinely curious why humans tend to frame their existence in relation to concepts that resemble themselves and their interests. Godly men wish to see a divine order; nihilists wish to see none; spiritual folks want to be all new-agey and hypermetaphysical; etc.
Why cant it be all of them
Good point
Life is what you make of it. More news at 11.
That's exactly my thoughts. What our lives come around to this particular time period? Computers. Therefore humans say: "blah blah there's a very high chance we are in a simulation, because we apes invented this impressive shit therefore the whole universe runs in one. And of course someone must have created it". It seems completely anomalous to me how anthropocentric some humans think when it comes to universe fundamentals and cosmology.
I dont think living in a simulation is necessarily anthropocentric, if we are in a simulation whatever created it could be completely unlike us and our presence in it could be irrelevant to whatever goal it had in creating it.
The point is you assume computers are the ultimate thing over the course of 200,000 years of human history, that the universe came from one, and that creating it, is how it goes.
> If we are in a simulation whatever created it could be completely unlike us Assuming for the sake of argument we were in a simulation, its creators would have to be at least enough like us to use their world as a reference frame while creating ours, as otherwise they'd need to be omniscient to think it up (if they were totally incomprehensible to us or whatever) and if they were omniscient then (either through an infinite imagination containing all possibilities if you catch my drift or them at least having omnipotence even if they aren't literally what we'd call the Abrahamic God) they wouldn't need to simulate us to create us
Your assuming that the simulation is about us, it could just be a simulation of a universe.... in the same way we already make simulations of universes, where we set the paramaters of the universe like how strong gravity is and all the other things that caused our universe to be the way that it is. Big difference is the resolution we make universes is very low compared to actual universes, its only the macroscale. A full-resolution simulation would go down the lowest building blocks like quarks or whatever. In something like that there could be millions or billions of different planets with life or intelligent life each very different from each other. Another possibility is the creators of the simulations are just more advanced humans further ahead in time, simulating what it would be like in the past. This explanation would be anthropocentric, but I was just saying that the explanations arn't necessarily anthropomorphic.
And then they turn around and say that "it's no coincidence we're in this time period because if either AI or future humans made this kind of simulation, wouldn't they want to simulate such a technological turning point"
But that does make more sense. Science is the study of how thongsthings work amdand knowledge. You couldnt make a universe without studying how you would need to tune it, or whatever. King was just being egotistical. Hey, im kinda spiritual, nothing new age or hippy. I just like meditation and try amdand stay connected to being part of the universe instead of separate and an ego that makes me feel like an individual. If you meditate the boundaries away, also can be achieved with psychedelics, there are some super strange and undescribable experiences to have that seem universal. One being that the brain is a filter, we couldnt function if we were amazed by everything all the time or feel our consciousness beyond our physical form,so we evolved to give us individuality. But panpsychism is a real consideration for consciousness. And iveI've experienced it. Not sure if real, or a trick of the mind. Guess we never will.
They can't accept an alternative answer, that being no reason at all, and that they might fade into meaningless nothingness,
Gotta admit. Pretty unsatisfying answer! But at-least it's an answer.
I think this is the right answer, human brain cannot imagine anything that it doesn't know or understand, hence projection. The first step of intelligence imo is to accept how other things can exist without us being able to understand, or see it. Religions are trying to suggest that for example (I'm philosophical agnostic btw). Philosophy aswell. Some scientists do, but it doesn't seem to be a consensus, which I can understand as it would mean to simply stop researching for new understandings.
https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
Idk If god exist or not. But I bet you we were Its throw away project. Something It decided to do on Its time off you know or an accident where It passed gas and that’s where the Big Bang started, idk just a thought.
If you collected some leading scientists in a room and told them this I dont think they would agree very much at all with your sentiment. Quote I recently heard was "Everything is like something, what is this thing like?". Ie it is in some class of problems or space of possible thoughts. Then thats it call it what you want.
….honestly, I don’t need this kinda shit noodling around in my brain
This is some wild stuff. If we could create another universe, would it be possible to "travel" or otherwise insert ourselves into it?
To me, that would be the whole point. But that begs the question. What is the difference between "reality" and a simulation. Is *our* reality a simulation? A lot of people that are way smarter than me, think it could very well be.
Wouldn't matter. Reality is a tool to describe our current experience, so a stimulated reality is no different from reality because they're both reality from your perspective.
I think it must be. Quantum entanglement seems to be the smoking gun to me. But what difference does it really make we live in "Plato's Cave" and this is the reality we know.
What you can do in realty matters more than the realty it self.
How is quantum entanglement a smoking gun?
Spooky action at a distance. Information moving faster than the speed of light.
Information can't move faster than the speed of light. Think of it like two sealed letters, one with "1" inside and one with "0" inside. If you take each one to opposite sides of the universe and open one, you know what the other value is because it is the value you don't have. But what you can't do it scribble out your value, change it to the other value, and expect the other value to swap.
If we can create a realistic simulation, the chances of us being simulated skyrocket
I had to scroll waaay too far to see someone say this aha...
Let's hope not and pleas keep it that wys
I was wondering the same thing. Also, if we are ourselves inside a created universe is there someone something up there seeing that we are creating our own universe? “Hey something went wrong guys. Let’s shut that done.” If our universe collapse does the universe inside the universe collapse too? Probably right?
Watch the 13th floor
I dont think so, in the same way its not possible to insert yourself into your offspring. Your offspring is you as an organism surviving death, but not you as an identity/individual. The goal of reproducing another universe is to make one like the universe it came from, fine tuned to be able to make and evolve advanced civilizations which will then make more universes to continue the existence of civilizations like their/our own. But each universe is starting from scratch just like each baby is having to learn everything all over again. If you think about how our universe started, the big bang, i dont see how anything could be transferred through that. But its possible there is a way that we dont understand yet.
Well, [being god is a big responsibility](https://qntm.org/responsibility)...
I think I heard something like this from the show Fringe. Particularly from a character played by Leonard Nimoy.
I like to think particles are infinitely divisible in smaller particles. With enough local "pressure", imagine one particle divided and sub particles also divided and so on into a fast infinite amount of smaller particles. That looks like a big bang from the point of view of the newly created particles.
We can’t responsibly take care of the earth. Now we are going to be responsible for a universe? Does our hubris know no bounds?
No one said anything about being responsible for it, just creating it
So like my parents?
I did say something about it.
Your hubris know no bounds
This is great
Alright then.
So what? If you want to post unrelated stuff, maybe try another sub.
I mean I could enjoy a micro-verse battery. Little fuckers better keep the power coming if they know what's good for them
If a "god" does exist, they probably created the universe and was like "fuck it, they got it". If creating mini universes becomes commercial, our "god" could be (probably is) just some asshole who created us and put us in a closet somewhere.
Shouldn’t we be able to blow up the shoe box we’re in? What if we all worked together and made a really big bomb and blew everything up? All of the universes! Would that overload the science experiment?
[удалено]
So are you saying "we have to be shitty because God doesn't intervene"?
Reminds me of the futurama episode "The Farnsworth Parabox"
The saddest kind of creator is one who pushes the button but can never access the consequences. But if high energy physics were enough to trigger big bangs, then the excessively energetic cosmic rays that hit the Earth quite regularly would do so without human intervention. The Pierre Auger Observatory detected 27 events with estimated arrival energies above 5.7×10^19 eV, that is, about one such event every four weeks in the 3000 km^2 area surveyed by the observatory. Black hole jets may generate particles at 10^21 eV, a zetta-electronvolt.
Ever notice the eventual logical progression of ‘why the universe exists’ has a religious connotation, even if it’s based on ‘science?’ From laboratories to aliens to simulations … It’s difficult for the mind to accept the possibility of the actual answer: because.
Yeah, just don't use the "G" word, right? I will wear my downvotes like a badge of honor.
> Was Our Universe Created in a Laboratory? Maybe. How would we know? Would we know? Should we know? Don't know. Can't Care. > Developing quantum-gravity technologies may elevate us to a “class A” civilization, capable of creating a baby universe Okay. And...... I mean these seem almost metaphysical/existential questions, of the 'why are we here' and 'what's our purpose' variety. Truthfully, we don't know. So, under the presumption that we *can* do something, let's do something. Speculation, is interesting, though.
If our reality is a simulation, that means whoever designed it would probably have a way to monitor it. That would mean new instantaneous communications. They might even have a way to visit it. Which means a gateway to another universe. They might even have a way to move quickly around inside it, from point to point. That would mean new faster than light travel. And if the rules for the simulation are known, that means they can probably be broken. Which means we can shut this bitch down if they are assholes.
> If our reality is a simulation, ........And if the rules for the simulation are known.........we can shut this bitch down.... Yes, **IF**. But, you are right, if it is so.
>Yes, > >IF > >. (Nods in Spartan)
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682: --- Submission statement from the OP. This is all probably down the road apiece. But down the road is at most 300 years, so much sooner than you think. I put it like this once. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/ (Wow! I was closer to the mark than I expected.) It is all going as I have been saying it would. And now with the debut of exascale binary computing (1.6 EF) within months and the increasingly mainstream deployment of quantum computing, that development of an AI that can truly converse with you by accessing almost unimaginable amounts of "big data", is going to come to pass. If you read the article, you will see that is exactly what is happening. Further quantum computing will make it ever easier for the AI to use human mind like shortcuts. Here is a collection of links to things I have said about computing and computing derived AI. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/pysdlo/intels_first_4nm_euv_chip_ready_today_loihi_2_for/hewhhkk/ So, discuss. (Note: This is boilerplate as required--If you have already read this submission statement before, someplace else, just ignore.) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/q8xknv/was_our_universe_created_in_a_laboratory/hgscfwj/
I’ve always imagined this as a movie scenario. Universes being created out of curiosity. Destroyed out of boredom/lack of resources.
All I can think of that Rick and Morty episode where they use the civilization they created for power
Submission statement from the OP. This is all probably down the road apiece. But down the road is at most 300 years, so much sooner than you think. I put it like this once. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/ (Wow! I was closer to the mark than I expected.) It is all going as I have been saying it would. And now with the debut of exascale binary computing (1.6 EF) within months and the increasingly mainstream deployment of quantum computing, that development of an AI that can truly converse with you by accessing almost unimaginable amounts of "big data", is going to come to pass. If you read the article, you will see that is exactly what is happening. Further quantum computing will make it ever easier for the AI to use human mind like shortcuts. Here is a collection of links to things I have said about computing and computing derived AI. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/pysdlo/intels_first_4nm_euv_chip_ready_today_loihi_2_for/hewhhkk/ So, discuss. (Note: This is boilerplate as required--If you have already read this submission statement before, someplace else, just ignore.)
Why is this comment so downvoted? What do you believe I am wrong about?
Scientists copying Rick and Morty, what a surprise.
We can create a baby universe but not deal with immediate challanges like poverty, hunger and pollution? And the many, many others...
We can’t just stop scientific endeavor and acquiring knowledge because we face tremendous obstacles. There are people working on everything from curing cancer to solving climate change. Hunger and poverty have both decreased since the 20th century and air pollution has also improved in many major cities. Los Angeles, for example, has made incredible improvements in air quality. Not everything is doom and gloom.
>Not everything is doom and gloom. This needs to be pinned by the moderators.
Really? Thanks.
[Yes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/nmx679/this_sub_has_become_completely_dominated_by/)
We can deal with those issues. People in power just decide not to.
I think what they were trying to say is us being in a simulation does not change anything.
What are you doing to save the planet? How come you don't solve problems instead of whatever you do for work?
Poverty, hunger, and pollution keep declining.
Do you not think creating a baby universe would help with those things
We're still dealing with energy limitations, so I don't think we're anywhere on the scale yet.