Raw LLM Responses

Well this guy had it covered: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam Although I believe that you have an error and an omission. The error is I think in believing that an uncertain future leads automatically to a rejection of moral codes and a turn to hedonism. I don't "not leave gum on the bus" for the future of my children, but for the next person in ten minutes. The collapse of civilisation in 2030 has no influence on this behaviour. Also in think there's a tendency to exaggerate today's problems in an existential sense relevant to those faced by various races and nations during world war 2. Certainly existential threats have been faced and experienced by many past civilisations, and it was often a turn to hedonism that facilitated collapse, so perhaps you have cause and effect wrong. Will shutting down all computers improve any of the challenges you've listed, for example? But I digress. Your omission is one of labour. *work to fix the problems*. If they are fixable via revolution, then they are fixable without one. Simply stop buying things. A mass movement to end consumption can be imagined without kidnapping and arms and explosions. Besides, you've said that this is inevitable barring a scientific miracle, and then you've asked to assume that it's inevitable even if we disagree, then proposed a change of govt as a possible solution. You've written off suicide as useless in countering absurdity because it essentially even more absurd -- but accept armed revolution and the murder of others acceptable, even though it cannot help in the face of the inevitable. Also you've neglected any philosophy by anyone ever suggesting that violence should be avoided. That's a big loophole you've allowed yourself. So we are left with this: Is it really inevitable? Well, extraordinary claims require strong proof, and you don't have it. The onlynway to complete your though exercise is to *assume* that it is. So if it is, we can't *know*