I was always septical about recycling efficiency
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
Don't get me wrong, I care a damn lot about the planet, but is recycling help the planet that much?
I mean, in 2014 How much % of world total pollution is avoided because of recycling? How much % of world total greenhouse gas is avoided because of recycling? How much % of world total landfill is avoided because of recycling?
And I mean the real number that are recycled, not the quantity that enter recycling center because half is sent to the landfill anyway and another half is lost in the transforming process (except maybe aluminium and some others)
Unless someone convince me of recycling efficiency, I think we should start thinking about other mean.I know there's still a lot of issue, but plasma gasification seem to have a bigger potential than recycling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.popsci.com/scitech/...
I mean c'mon, most of the community know that the moron lie to his people all the time.
Eventually he won't be able to hide the truth when access to communication will be more and more easily available and his "realm" will eventually revolt and head straight into a civil war. But until then, he could blather he fucked the president dog to show dominance for all I care.
Even if it look like a dumb post with an humoristic purpose, I seriously love this idea and I really wonder, light electron's mass problem aside, if it could ever be realizable.
1. All the diagrams give the impression that it will be like people flying through tubes as in Futurama. Instead you will be sealed inside a metallic "bullet", that runs in a metallic tube - no windows for you (sort of like James Bond in The Living Daylights). It's a pity if you have any sort of claustrophobia.
2. While the device doesn't run in a complete vacuum, it runs in an atmosphere that is low to the point of being unbreathable. But the device doesn't contain any onboard air supply - instead it relies on the driving compressor/fan assembly to compress the air to a human sustainable amount. So if the device loses power for any reason (electrical, mechanical, computational) then you better be able to hold your breath for a long long time.
Really? Are you seriously so close-minded to think of this as a problem? I guess you got this idea by taking airliner as reference which is simply dumb. The reason why airliner need onboard air supply is because there's not air available in case the cabin pressurisation fail. But in Hyperloop case, engineering emergency exit system seem far more logical than oxygen mask.
3. There was no indication that the loop itself was anything more than a single tube. Thus there is no capability to bypass any section. So if a device fails, all devices that are already in transit and behind it are screwed (see 2 above).
Yeah...if they ever present a working prototype, I'm sure they'll simply "forgot" to address safety issue like "what will happens if the Hyperloop fail (or hit an iceberg) in the middle of the desert?"
Great, but how about marking as malware every bundled software that come with an installer? It doesn't seem complicated to me, it I install SomeProgram.exe then any other software unrelated to SomeProgram.exe should be marked as malware and removed.
a lot of parachute issues are deployment problems at speed/ heat.
Take a spacecraft which is flying at thousands of MPH toward the ground, burning at 2000 degrees, and then deploy a soft fabric.
If you don't unfold it perfectly you lose everything. if one strand of folding rope is out of place you lose everything. The amount of engineering going into just the folding of a parachute would surprise you.
Yeah, about this...
Why is it so hard to develop a control unit to unfold the parachute? I know it's been used thousand time with success already but is there no other way than blowing up the cover and throwing that big ball of parachute and hoping it will unfold perfectly? (Yes, I know it's more controlled than that, but you get my point)
Yeah I was thinking about the similarity with Montreal's Bixi. And, actually, when you compare the bike they are almost identical : http://71.18.62.16/images/bixi...
The thing everyone always ignores is that no matter what, eventually your brain dies. Whether in you or after you've been uploaded to a computer or another brain or what have you. And when that happens *THAT* you is dead. *YOU* still experience the pain of death. YOU still cease to exist. There is something out there with your memories and thoughts, but they are not you any more than a photo album or journal is you.
The thing that everyone like you always ignores is that no matter what, cells are always dying. Constantly! Even brain cells! And then they get replaced by other cells! But that doesn't mean you cease to be you.
Exactly this!
That thought came to my mind a while ago. Eventually, our whole brain replace itself but we never cease to be, well, ourselves. Even though it's a generally accepted concept in/. community that our mind is our brain (and not our soul or anything religion related), it's mind blowing to think that I'm still myself even if our brain replace itself every 7 years (or 10 depending on the research). Or is my being is slowly disappearing to be replaced by perfect copy of myself and the memory of my past is actually the remain of my old self?
It's a complex but very fun concept to play with, but it's also quite terrifying sometime.
How is that energy stored initially? Giant capacitor banks, or flywheel to generator?
IMHO, it'll depend on many things. How much weight or space is an issue for carrier? What's the hazard if that storage is hit? How many backup is needed? Is operating life or ease to replace important? And we're not talking military grade equipment neither which I'm not very familiar with.
Whenever they think of, I guess it's gonna be a similar tech the navy have developed for their railgun : https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... And, according to my quick google search, it seem they are using Lithium Iron Phosphate battery technology.
Steam seems like an ideal solution to me. Steam expands so well the dynamic range of it's force curve seems apropos to the task. How much of the EM energy goes into force? surge currents and magneto striction are usually things people find shorten the lifetime of electo devices yet here they are at the extreme in these. Presumably there's no shortage of steam available and it's a great way to store energy.
Really? My intuition is completely the opposite. Steam may expands well in the dynamic range but electricity will do anything it's controlled to. Want an exponential acceleration? Linear? Sinusoidal? You name it.
With sectorization and a few feedback control unit, it seem to me that you could precisely and instantly control the power transmitted into the catapult anywhere along the ramp. You could also drastically change the speed if needed, also something that doesn't seem as easy with steam. You since those carrier are nuclear-powered it take way less space than a whole steam system.
But, since my field is electrical engineering, I guess my opinion is a little biased.
Granted it's a lot better than many other that prefer to sue your ass over discovering security flaw but, compared to some other bounty reward, isn't "up to" 1K$ a little low?
At first I would think about a pipe complex in the structure of the house so I could easily wire anything anywhere. But with the future going more and more wireless (even charging battery), it could become obsolete in a few year.
A few other idea are power outlet with USB and wireless power meter, wireless locking system, LED light bulb, smart thermostat, Solarcity's photovoltaic system with Tesla Battery, camera and security system connected to the network (and your cellphone) if your neighborhood isn't completely safe and finally a strong network paired with "Google fiber" like internet.
If this doesn't have Minecraft's extensive popularity, it's dead in the water.
FTFY
It's the growing popularity that made the modding community, not the inverse. As long as you got your fanbase and your game is mod-friendly it should work out. And AFAIK, LEGO have a freaking huge fanbase (and most of them are playing minecraft right now).
I'm just sharing a curious idea that came to my mind while reading the summary, what if we mount laser on the spacecraft that got a "graphene sail". I mean, AFAIK laser doesn't generate any trust (if it was the case, we could probably use fuel-free laser engine). And laser on graphene generate trust.
Please help me find where's the error, my brain hurt.
I agree that the story itself is not comparable to our lives, but the same can be said for most of the sci-fi or fantasy stories that try to address immortality. I've yet to read a book that's sole topic was discussing the philosophical dilemmas of extended life.
Just to be clear. My point is to take "any" novel as reference to discuss real life things is dumb. After all, it only show the perspective of the author on the subject and doesn't worth more than any of us. I've just talked about vampire because it was the OP's example. If I'm to bring a citation about the morality of the philology of immortality it'll have to come from a scientific research. Otherwise I'll just say my own personal opinion.
And in this case, my personal opinion is that if I ever get an "age reversing" cure (and supposing I reach old enough so all disease are curable), I'll be the happiest man on earth and I don't see how it could become a curse as long as I stay healthy and young. I love life and since I believe there's nothing after death (like there's nothing before life), I'm scared of it. I think that simply stopping to exist is the worst that could happen to anyone. It's a really sad thought, not existing anymore. So that's why I'm determined to live as long as I think there's still an good moment left in my life and I'll do anything to extend it. I also call bullshit on those "I believe what makes life special and precious is that it's finite" and if anything I'll find my life as even more precious at over 9000 years old than I find it now.
You're right if the only difference is the "device" (as you call it). But does I absolutely need to make a case to prove that the live of a protagonist of a vampire story is clearly not comparable to us? I mean, vampire story are not exactly "Got married and lived happily ever after" you know.
The story start with the protagonist brother who got murdered. Wanting to kill himself but got turned into a vampire because some vampire like him and wanted a padawan. Had to survive by murdering human but got disgusted by it. Eventually do it anyway. Had to feed on a little girl later and got even more disgusted. Girl turned into a vampire then more drama. Finally start liking the girl. They kill their mentor. More drama. Now alone, start seeking other vampire but the one they find try to kill them. More drama about feeding and turning human into vampire. Mentor come back for revenge and kill the girl. Protagonist is angry of losing her only friend and turn into a depressed lonely wanderer who's treated like a monster that need to kill to feed for over a century.
So yeah, I stand to my point that it's not comparable to my case if I ever get the cure of aging. I mean, the moral of that story is basically "if you live an immortal life of hurt, it'll become a curse". Yeah big surprise there.
Yeah....a book on vampire is certainly a good reference about this. I've read the book and, even if it was enjoyable at most at the time, I don't think it's even close to be applicable on this case (or on me in any case).
Complex systems, such as human bodies, often have a "bathtub curve" of failure probabilities. Numerous potential flaws are most likely at the start of the system's existence, which is why infant mortality and miscarriage remain noticeable even with the most advanced medical support. And as bodies age, more and more smaller flaws accumulate to cause more and more profound system problems. These range from vascular problems, likely to cause strokes and aneurysms, to the wear and tear on joints causing motion problems, to accumulated heavy metal poisoning and debris in the lungs, to the ongoing risk of cancers.
Until complete prevention or cures exist for all of those issues, it seems nonsensical to discuss the population issues of eternal life. Population _growth_ from people living even a decade longer is a much more real and noticeable issue in our economy and resources. So is the cost of medical care for those older people. We're already seeing problems with Medicare funding and elderly care being real economic and political problems in the USA. This is partly because, as we reach the far end of that "bathtub" curve for human beings, addressing one factor that might have killed people far earlier, such as very successful heart surgery and antibiotics for infections that used to kill older people easily, end when more complex and difficult problems finally occur.
I am, myself, old enough to feel these effects. They do accumulate.
True, but medicine is about to evolve faster than our longevity. We we invent something that grant us 20% more live, than in those new years we may invent something that grant 10%, and in those 35% etc.
The three main cause of death are aging, disease and trauma. And I can imagine medecine capable of removing the first two in a century or two.
I remember this article from a few years ago showing how much food we can create on earth. For instance, this self sufficient bulding can make food for as much as 50 000 people : http://www.popsci.com/cliff-ku....
And there's no end on on much bulding you can create. With nano-technology advance, we'll build highter and highter and bigger and bigger until we run out of material (and then we'll get them from space). Of course it also mean we'll eventually wipe out all "untouched" nature on the process but if humanity survive, it'll come to that.
One of many quality of humanity is his ability to adapt. If we cure the greatest cause of mortality then the devellopped country that will benefit first from it will have to put regulation to place to ensure decent population that follow our devellopement. Also, by living "forever" the whole retirement process will need to be rethinked. On top of my head, something like "2 years education - 36 years work - 10 years retirement (1 children)" indefinite loop could be an idea so, at any time, there's 2 worker for 1 retired adult and an (more and more) insignifiant number of children.
Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.
Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.
Ok I'll take a shot.
Our civilisation (mostly) depend on economy. And what's the biggest thread of economy in devellopped country right now? Population ageing. We get more and more older, health cost rise and rise and the economy crash deeper and deeper. Get my drift?
Idealy, economically speaking, people would work, make money and stay healthy until they die. The basis of our retirement system depend of having more income from the young than expence from the old and, currently, we're clearly not heading in the right direction.
Humans, like all life on planet earth, depend on evolution to improve the species. The old die, the new survive, and humanity improves. Achieving immortality would be akin to freezing humanity in time.
Unscientific and irrelevent. Evolution (mostly) happen on offspring and unless you think we'll stop having babies if we achieve immortality then, global warming jokes apart, humanity will not "freeze". Unless you pull a China on us claming "One-child policy" or something which won't happen even if we get stop getting old.
Note that if anything, this would mean you'd naively expect a lower temperature when there's more ozone (in fact the actual relation is more complicated).
Wait, even if it's almost completly unrelated,shouldn't more ozone result on "highter" temperature?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong, I care a damn lot about the planet, but is recycling help the planet that much?
I mean, in 2014
How much % of world total pollution is avoided because of recycling?
How much % of world total greenhouse gas is avoided because of recycling?
How much % of world total landfill is avoided because of recycling?
And I mean the real number that are recycled, not the quantity that enter recycling center because half is sent to the landfill anyway and another half is lost in the transforming process (except maybe aluminium and some others)
Unless someone convince me of recycling efficiency, I think we should start thinking about other mean.I know there's still a lot of issue, but plasma gasification seem to have a bigger potential than recycling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/...
I mean c'mon, most of the community know that the moron lie to his people all the time.
Eventually he won't be able to hide the truth when access to communication will be more and more easily available and his "realm" will eventually revolt and head straight into a civil war. But until then, he could blather he fucked the president dog to show dominance for all I care.
SOLAR Wind turbines!
Even if it look like a dumb post with an humoristic purpose, I seriously love this idea and I really wonder, light electron's mass problem aside, if it could ever be realizable.
1. All the diagrams give the impression that it will be like people flying through tubes as in Futurama. Instead you will be sealed inside a metallic "bullet", that runs in a metallic tube - no windows for you (sort of like James Bond in The Living Daylights). It's a pity if you have any sort of claustrophobia.
If you dislike the idea of long-range transportation without windows, I have bad news for you...
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
2. While the device doesn't run in a complete vacuum, it runs in an atmosphere that is low to the point of being unbreathable. But the device doesn't contain any onboard air supply - instead it relies on the driving compressor/fan assembly to compress the air to a human sustainable amount. So if the device loses power for any reason (electrical, mechanical, computational) then you better be able to hold your breath for a long long time.
Really? Are you seriously so close-minded to think of this as a problem? I guess you got this idea by taking airliner as reference which is simply dumb. The reason why airliner need onboard air supply is because there's not air available in case the cabin pressurisation fail. But in Hyperloop case, engineering emergency exit system seem far more logical than oxygen mask.
3. There was no indication that the loop itself was anything more than a single tube. Thus there is no capability to bypass any section. So if a device fails, all devices that are already in transit and behind it are screwed (see 2 above).
Yeah...if they ever present a working prototype, I'm sure they'll simply "forgot" to address safety issue like "what will happens if the Hyperloop fail (or hit an iceberg) in the middle of the desert?"
Great, but how about marking as malware every bundled software that come with an installer? It doesn't seem complicated to me, it I install SomeProgram.exe then any other software unrelated to SomeProgram.exe should be marked as malware and removed.
a lot of parachute issues are deployment problems at speed/ heat.
Take a spacecraft which is flying at thousands of MPH toward the ground, burning at 2000 degrees, and then deploy a soft fabric.
If you don't unfold it perfectly you lose everything. if one strand of folding rope is out of place you lose everything. The amount of engineering going into just the folding of a parachute would surprise you.
Yeah, about this...
Why is it so hard to develop a control unit to unfold the parachute? I know it's been used thousand time with success already but is there no other way than blowing up the cover and throwing that big ball of parachute and hoping it will unfold perfectly? (Yes, I know it's more controlled than that, but you get my point)
Yeah I was thinking about the similarity with Montreal's Bixi. And, actually, when you compare the bike they are almost identical : http://71.18.62.16/images/bixi...
Is this really a different company?
The thing everyone always ignores is that no matter what, eventually your brain dies. Whether in you or after you've been uploaded to a computer or another brain or what have you. And when that happens *THAT* you is dead. *YOU* still experience the pain of death. YOU still cease to exist. There is something out there with your memories and thoughts, but they are not you any more than a photo album or journal is you.
The thing that everyone like you always ignores is that no matter what, cells are always dying. Constantly! Even brain cells! And then they get replaced by other cells! But that doesn't mean you cease to be you.
Exactly this!
That thought came to my mind a while ago. Eventually, our whole brain replace itself but we never cease to be, well, ourselves. Even though it's a generally accepted concept in /. community that our mind is our brain (and not our soul or anything religion related), it's mind blowing to think that I'm still myself even if our brain replace itself every 7 years (or 10 depending on the research). Or is my being is slowly disappearing to be replaced by perfect copy of myself and the memory of my past is actually the remain of my old self?
It's a complex but very fun concept to play with, but it's also quite terrifying sometime.
How is that energy stored initially? Giant capacitor banks, or flywheel to generator?
IMHO, it'll depend on many things. How much weight or space is an issue for carrier? What's the hazard if that storage is hit? How many backup is needed? Is operating life or ease to replace important? And we're not talking military grade equipment neither which I'm not very familiar with.
Whenever they think of, I guess it's gonna be a similar tech the navy have developed for their railgun : https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... And, according to my quick google search, it seem they are using Lithium Iron Phosphate battery technology.
Steam seems like an ideal solution to me. Steam expands so well the dynamic range of it's force curve seems apropos to the task. How much of the EM energy goes into force? surge currents and magneto striction are usually things people find shorten the lifetime of electo devices yet here they are at the extreme in these. Presumably there's no shortage of steam available and it's a great way to store energy.
Really? My intuition is completely the opposite. Steam may expands well in the dynamic range but electricity will do anything it's controlled to. Want an exponential acceleration? Linear? Sinusoidal? You name it.
With sectorization and a few feedback control unit, it seem to me that you could precisely and instantly control the power transmitted into the catapult anywhere along the ramp. You could also drastically change the speed if needed, also something that doesn't seem as easy with steam. You since those carrier are nuclear-powered it take way less space than a whole steam system.
But, since my field is electrical engineering, I guess my opinion is a little biased.
Granted it's a lot better than many other that prefer to sue your ass over discovering security flaw but, compared to some other bounty reward, isn't "up to" 1K$ a little low?
At first I would think about a pipe complex in the structure of the house so I could easily wire anything anywhere. But with the future going more and more wireless (even charging battery), it could become obsolete in a few year.
A few other idea are power outlet with USB and wireless power meter, wireless locking system, LED light bulb, smart thermostat, Solarcity's photovoltaic system with Tesla Battery, camera and security system connected to the network (and your cellphone) if your neighborhood isn't completely safe and finally a strong network paired with "Google fiber" like internet.
If this doesn't have Minecraft's extensive popularity, it's dead in the water.
FTFY
It's the growing popularity that made the modding community, not the inverse. As long as you got your fanbase and your game is mod-friendly it should work out. And AFAIK, LEGO have a freaking huge fanbase (and most of them are playing minecraft right now).
*kinda like solar sail
Solar panels? Kinda like a solar cell, but with absolute control on the direction of the trust.
Exactly my thought. Someone answer this?
I'm just sharing a curious idea that came to my mind while reading the summary, what if we mount laser on the spacecraft that got a "graphene sail". I mean, AFAIK laser doesn't generate any trust (if it was the case, we could probably use fuel-free laser engine). And laser on graphene generate trust.
Please help me find where's the error, my brain hurt.
I agree that the story itself is not comparable to our lives, but the same can be said for most of the sci-fi or fantasy stories that try to address immortality. I've yet to read a book that's sole topic was discussing the philosophical dilemmas of extended life.
Just to be clear. My point is to take "any" novel as reference to discuss real life things is dumb. After all, it only show the perspective of the author on the subject and doesn't worth more than any of us. I've just talked about vampire because it was the OP's example. If I'm to bring a citation about the morality of the philology of immortality it'll have to come from a scientific research. Otherwise I'll just say my own personal opinion.
And in this case, my personal opinion is that if I ever get an "age reversing" cure (and supposing I reach old enough so all disease are curable), I'll be the happiest man on earth and I don't see how it could become a curse as long as I stay healthy and young. I love life and since I believe there's nothing after death (like there's nothing before life), I'm scared of it. I think that simply stopping to exist is the worst that could happen to anyone. It's a really sad thought, not existing anymore. So that's why I'm determined to live as long as I think there's still an good moment left in my life and I'll do anything to extend it. I also call bullshit on those "I believe what makes life special and precious is that it's finite" and if anything I'll find my life as even more precious at over 9000 years old than I find it now.
You're right if the only difference is the "device" (as you call it). But does I absolutely need to make a case to prove that the live of a protagonist of a vampire story is clearly not comparable to us? I mean, vampire story are not exactly "Got married and lived happily ever after" you know.
The story start with the protagonist brother who got murdered. Wanting to kill himself but got turned into a vampire because some vampire like him and wanted a padawan. Had to survive by murdering human but got disgusted by it. Eventually do it anyway. Had to feed on a little girl later and got even more disgusted. Girl turned into a vampire then more drama. Finally start liking the girl. They kill their mentor. More drama. Now alone, start seeking other vampire but the one they find try to kill them. More drama about feeding and turning human into vampire. Mentor come back for revenge and kill the girl. Protagonist is angry of losing her only friend and turn into a depressed lonely wanderer who's treated like a monster that need to kill to feed for over a century.
So yeah, I stand to my point that it's not comparable to my case if I ever get the cure of aging. I mean, the moral of that story is basically "if you live an immortal life of hurt, it'll become a curse". Yeah big surprise there.
Yeah....a book on vampire is certainly a good reference about this. I've read the book and, even if it was enjoyable at most at the time, I don't think it's even close to be applicable on this case (or on me in any case).
Complex systems, such as human bodies, often have a "bathtub curve" of failure probabilities. Numerous potential flaws are most likely at the start of the system's existence, which is why infant mortality and miscarriage remain noticeable even with the most advanced medical support. And as bodies age, more and more smaller flaws accumulate to cause more and more profound system problems. These range from vascular problems, likely to cause strokes and aneurysms, to the wear and tear on joints causing motion problems, to accumulated heavy metal poisoning and debris in the lungs, to the ongoing risk of cancers.
Until complete prevention or cures exist for all of those issues, it seems nonsensical to discuss the population issues of eternal life. Population _growth_ from people living even a decade longer is a much more real and noticeable issue in our economy and resources. So is the cost of medical care for those older people. We're already seeing problems with Medicare funding and elderly care being real economic and political problems in the USA. This is partly because, as we reach the far end of that "bathtub" curve for human beings, addressing one factor that might have killed people far earlier, such as very successful heart surgery and antibiotics for infections that used to kill older people easily, end when more complex and difficult problems finally occur.
I am, myself, old enough to feel these effects. They do accumulate.
True, but medicine is about to evolve faster than our longevity. We we invent something that grant us 20% more live, than in those new years we may invent something that grant 10%, and in those 35% etc.
The three main cause of death are aging, disease and trauma. And I can imagine medecine capable of removing the first two in a century or two.
I remember this article from a few years ago showing how much food we can create on earth. For instance, this self sufficient bulding can make food for as much as 50 000 people : http://www.popsci.com/cliff-ku....
And there's no end on on much bulding you can create. With nano-technology advance, we'll build highter and highter and bigger and bigger until we run out of material (and then we'll get them from space). Of course it also mean we'll eventually wipe out all "untouched" nature on the process but if humanity survive, it'll come to that.
One of many quality of humanity is his ability to adapt. If we cure the greatest cause of mortality then the devellopped country that will benefit first from it will have to put regulation to place to ensure decent population that follow our devellopement. Also, by living "forever" the whole retirement process will need to be rethinked. On top of my head, something like "2 years education - 36 years work - 10 years retirement (1 children)" indefinite loop could be an idea so, at any time, there's 2 worker for 1 retired adult and an (more and more) insignifiant number of children.
Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.
Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.
Ok I'll take a shot.
Our civilisation (mostly) depend on economy. And what's the biggest thread of economy in devellopped country right now? Population ageing. We get more and more older, health cost rise and rise and the economy crash deeper and deeper. Get my drift?
Idealy, economically speaking, people would work, make money and stay healthy until they die. The basis of our retirement system depend of having more income from the young than expence from the old and, currently, we're clearly not heading in the right direction.
Humans, like all life on planet earth, depend on evolution to improve the species. The old die, the new survive, and humanity improves. Achieving immortality would be akin to freezing humanity in time.
Unscientific and irrelevent. Evolution (mostly) happen on offspring and unless you think we'll stop having babies if we achieve immortality then, global warming jokes apart, humanity will not "freeze". Unless you pull a China on us claming "One-child policy" or something which won't happen even if we get stop getting old.
Note that if anything, this would mean you'd naively expect a lower temperature when there's more ozone (in fact the actual relation is more complicated).
Wait, even if it's almost completly unrelated,shouldn't more ozone result on "highter" temperature?