Raw LLM Responses

I frequent here and there, r/collapse more often (at least it seems so from my post history...on this account ;)) I like this debate. But it really has some flaws. The basic one is: all parts of the debate - categories like energy - are given equal weight. It's even reflected in the way this debate flows, jumping from one topic to another. It's not right. This doesn't give the justice to the things we face. I did not write the usual "challenges" line, since I don't think this reflects what is happening in any way. We're now entering the big paradigm shift, of which size has no precedent in the whole history of civilized humans. The debate has put economy, AI, jobs, energy first. But all of this, as well as theoretical grounds on what this is based on - is created with the assumption that our planet will continue to function as it is now - as a stable, rich environment giving us the right climate for our crops to grow and right temperatures and humidity for our bodies to function properly. Based on that, for thousands of years now - which is a blip when in perspective - we created better and better tools to utilize materials we "discovered" on this planet. Each generation we continued to grow. We began a spike 200 years ago, with fossil fuels. This shot our population (from 1 to 7,4 bln and rising approx 73 mln annually; accounting for slowering growth the expected number is between 10 to 11 bln per century's end), our tech (rail, lights, cars, antibiotics, internet) and our consumption (take plastics, reaching ~299 mln tons produced in 2013 from essentially 0 a century's ago). This is a huge accomplishment that has put our specie definitely on the top on the chain. However... science is - for me, as I don't have any other way to prove it unequivocally - our biggest achievement. However, for over 2-3 thousand years (while definitely peaking now) it has not moved us permanently into a good direction. We're now wasting all this progress - for we've forgotte