US gov subsidizes Teslas anyway so why not take what it already paid for, mount it on the ordinance and drop on some fire? I mean cost is not an issue anymore as money is spent already. Unless of course Teslas Guided Big Boring Bombs are not up for the task in which case the subsidy should be stopped immediately.
Now imagine some algorithm that enthusiasts call AI already being part of some unjustified lay off action or disabling some users from their financial SW etc - how do you appeal to a company that does not have anybody at help desk because algorithms do it all right and there is no programmed way to repeal the decisions made?
Amount of informational garbage being spread by monsanto and by their opponents is as some may say huuuuuge. This does not allow for a reason and fact based discussion. That is the only safe conclusion that one can reach here. Sadly the one side may pay for its way and we cannot be sure if it does not affect scientific results as well if the process has not severely been affected by their money in a negative way. The other side use emotions to switch of brains as it could not fight straight for decades. The result is that we have no possibility to find out. I stopped trusting most of what I read on this in media. I also stopped paying for media altogether a year ago. Why should I pay for this garbage? This has serious consequences for me as I live in the dark but also for the society at large . Not because I am so important but because there are plenty of people that feel misinformed and have no trust and the numbers grow it seems. Mostly this means 'the other side' of the dispute is not to be trusted which means no agreement can be reached. We will continue this path I am sure. Till things stop to work as the truth is - no industrial production of food will do without technology including chemicals affecting our health negatively if used in a wrong way and sometimes we made mistakes and chemicals we use just kill us slowly. If we take this and bann all chemicals there will be not enough food for everybody. Maybe that is good because there are too many people around anyway?
Go and try. They give it to almost anybody. There even was a soldier of German Army that applied as a Syrian refugee and got it. You just need have some stamina and protest the negative asylum decisions as long as it takes. The majority of people that come refuse to tell the authorities where they come from and to show a pass which makes it impossible for German state to send them home.
The reason I mentioned it here is that the actual experiment is being done on quite a large scale - there have been 1.6m of these people in 2015 since then the number fell to 200k per year. Most of them are not eligible for refugee status (called Asylum in Germany) but they protest as long as it takes, they also organize protests in rare cases when they are actually being deported so the state is effectively providing for them as it is legally forced to do so although they have no legal right to stay. Here you have your limited size UBI. The actual direct costs on federal level is approx 30-40bE (federal budget is 350b a year) so it is not so massive as you may imagine. The flow is smaller than in 2015 but it does not show any signs of stopping so the cost is likely to increase. We will see how long Germany is capable of paying this much for people that do not contribute(*) directly to economy( - there is a market for social services there which was not there before and property prices go up as these people that stay have the right to housing provided by community. The experiment lasts. We will see how long it will go well.
If you want to try, then as I said, please do - come over, hide away your pass and claim asylum. I can imagine that if you say you are from Syria it can still work. As stated they accepted a soldier of German army who did not know any of the languages used in Syria and did not look like a citizen of the country so the chance is there. One more thing. It seems German administration actually works if you follow the rules, so if you come, claim asylum and follow all the rules and do not use violence during attempts at deportation the chances that you will be deported are quite high. It may even be that they send you or your family a bill for all the costs so once you commit you have to fight.
* - there are reasons for that but scholars still discuss what these are. It is irrelevant for our discussion here of which point is - whether UBI is feasible.
We may soon find out if it works. Germany has free housing and pocket money for all that can reach German social authorities and say 'asylum'. The system is not supposed to work like this but due to huge numbers of people that were arriving it has become UIBI - the negative decision can be objected in front of the court and because courts are overloaded by hundred of thousands of cases they cannot give answer on time - in 3 years if they are not expelled people get what amounts to residence permit. There are some other nice things about it but this is is - UBI as everybody wanted. Not all Germans are happy tho so the system may yet be scrapped but majority of Germans support it so something big would be required for them to stop it.
There is this other thing - if the patrol car prevents the crime from occurring in the first place then how is algorithm coping with that? How are algorithm users going to cope with that? I mean all the money spent on y2k bug were wasted because hardly any problems have been seen. The same happened to financial regulation that has been removed which apparently helped the 2008 meltdown to occur. Examples are numerous. Then another q. - if I know a guy or group of guys are up for no good can I do anything - that would be pre-crime sort of thing and in essence something that is a direct argument against free will and if so breaking parts of the foundations of our justice system.
NOx and particulates are generated in much bigger amounts by nature than by current fleet of cars on the streets where I live. This does not stop lawmakers to produce silly laws but it does not change reality. It may change CO2 production due to diesel bans in big cities. Let us hope that next generation of donkey based transport will be more env. friendly. This said the summary is silly - any increase in business is causing increase in energy consumption and sometimes you cannot concentrate certain activities for practical reasons. You extremists want to save the planet then do something with massive and hardly uncontrollable increase of population size mostly in Africa. This can actually do something. Whining in social media about how bad something is, will just waste more resources because of energy and materials wasted in a process. It is also silly.
Norwegians were just lucky to be in a right spot and to have homogeneous enough a society and to invest in a way it worked for them. This is probably impossible to replicate elsewhere w/o much effort in controlling population in some way and that does not work well. They or most of them) must want it that way and be ready to negotiate instead of building militias to get what they see as their own. Considering the world vision agenda 2030 this may change drastically in the future. I also tend to think it is really difficult to find the reasons beyond wealth of the nations. Not sure about Norway but Swedes were poor like hell at then end of 19th century or why otherwise so many migrated to US back then? US on the other hand is rich but not regularly - there are places where it looks like 3rd world country. I suspect US is just big enough and heterogeneous enough for huge variations and on top of it you have the ideology there or American Dream and that even the poorest are future millionaires, being poor only temporarily. This has not worked well for waves after wave of immigrants but does not work so well for established societies and communities. The final answer to the question what makes nations wealthy cannot even be answered because of the nature of the being called nation - Germans refuse to accept such thing ever exists and it is almost official ideology that all people are the same w/o any difference in genetics and culture. This works only so far and we will see how well their Merkel experiement of 2015 will go. Probably not very long as they are stupid enough to destroy own industry too.
What I have seen in Sweden however is that they have different ideologies but they corrected them. Even open door policy has been suspended (w/o much talk about it) when they saw it is unmanageable. Similarly they have fixed their socialist experiment of 1970 after it produced huge deficits.
There was a book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond - it does not have to be correct in its claims but it is interesting because it shows that there are so many successful societies and yet we have no clue why they are so.
There is no such a thing as a completely free market that is a place where agents can handle as they please w/o any restrictions. This is not true in any of the country that has a rule of law and justice system as these make restrictions on agent's activities. There are different levels of freedom in different places this much is true. Communal ownership is just the way human societies work. I do not know one that does not have it except maybe ones like NK where everything belongs to Kim but even there he has to give some to some communities (generals and party members and some parts of the populace) or else he will be deposed. I am also old enough to remember living under communists in east of Europe. Even in Soviet Russia there were thing that were owned by private people as well as communities and the state. At the end it is the level of freedom that you grant agents which make a difference. In fact private exchange works everywhere. It is just differently limited in different places. There are of course ideas that drive some groups of extremists one or the other way but pragmatism eventually wins at least to the effect that biggest faults are corrected. In fact communal ownership is just a special case of private ownership.
Work is just another place people live. They have a relatively clearly specified tasks (if they are lucky) and well organized workplace so that they can indeed spend most of the time working but that is not how humans function. This of course has consequences for comparative advantages of automation. But the point here is: if you force people just to show up at work, do what they are paid for and go then the pay will have to be higher if any significant mental activity is involved, But fortunately for owners the automated supervision software will eliminate first these evil, hormon induced interactions and then the humans that used to engage in them. I am already happy to witness the future.
They did not bother to ask anybody about CETA and other allegedly freetrade agreements, nor did they ask us if we want Dublin IV or open borders in the south, they did not ask anybody when they agreed on forced relocation (thanx to the bloody nationalists in Poland and Hungary for making it fail), they did not ask us if we want to punish Brits for seeing EU commission for the bunch of asshats they actually are. These few cases where national assemblies actually asked some important questions and the answers were not to EU liking they were ignored or the q. was asked again till it was 'correct'. So now they ask us a q. that makes not much difference to majority of us. What for? To give us impression that we matter? Or is there some other sinister plan behind it? For me it just increases the tension I have every 14 of July - I like to think that people of this continent rise up, march to EU commission, pull these bastards out of it, and after applying tar and feathers rush them through the streets beyond the city limits. 14 July seems a good date for that. Every year I am disappointed. But I am sure that time will come. I hope to take part in this. Time to depose Junkers, Asselborn, Merkels etc of this world. Not that it changes situation sufficiently or for long. It just has to be done once in a while or else these people think they are the brilliant essence of what everybody wants.
In the neo-marxist lands of Germany we still have working systems from the capitalist times - the radio telling my clock what time it should show. The clocks reset in the middle of these two nights of the year. It still does not make any sense but the clocks are doing that w/o interwebs. I suppose some time in not all that distant future it may become illegal to be off grid because such deviations help in spread thoughtcrime.
That is the way we go. Very unfortunate. especially as there were countless people fighting oppression from governemnt and paying high price for it. Yet now when instead on the square or in a newspaper we express our opinions in public space of FB, Google or some other big one it seems it is ok to censor. I understand that private property etc means you should have control. But if your private property is open to the public and serves as public space where people express opinions then so be it.
It is always easy to say if it is other guy's problem, or? How about some obscure and unknown to you algorithm decides that you are dead and locks all your accounts? How do you even call help desk (assuming you know who is responsible and that they take calls from minions like you and me) if your mobile contract has been cancelled? There was an article here about guy who whose contract was wrongly marked as terminated by HR system - it took people 3 weeks to reverse from that mistake. Your statement shows that Milgram experiment was correct and showed real attitudes - we do not have guys in black uniforms with some odd emblems on it to tell us what to do and whom to persecute but we have our new algorithmic overlords.
I would imagine that your question should be asked. Considering the area i.e. human health - this maybe he case although the majority approach to any also automatic authority is such that this probably be implemented the way the HR system in UK was done and the overwrite function will not be present.
Not sure if there was a plan. I mean besides 'Merkel is forever' one. The fact is however that this was all predictable. But first things first: borders were open before you just had to show a pass, sometimes visa and some such. This is not a closed border. I lived under closed border regime together with Merkel so I can tell. The open border that she and her minions are blathering about is no border - no checks allowed. This goes as far as not to check age of people claiming to be minors - something that in Germany has a significant financial reward for the 'minor'. As for refugees - I would not call all of them rapefugees but the media refusing to address these problems for 3 years now made it impossible to distinguish between those that rape and those that don't. So here we go. A regime that refuses to control borders is at some point forced to install cameras on each railway station and public square and equip it with face recognition software - that is what previous minister of interior started doing after wave of crime (that according to the official statistics does not exist) started making people uncomfortable.
It is of course Google's fault. But also the guys who did system design as even if you can migrate the VMs in case of HW failure you cannot migrate between google servers if google thinks you are evil. What one should be doing is having multiple instances working in HA setup in case one goes off the other part of the brain goes from hot standby and takes over. If more is at stake more redundancy is needed. So in this case you need two different infrastructure subcontractors and HA done between them as well as internally with hot SBY taking over as soon as the other side dies - that is complicated. From what I have seen telecom is using similar setups of hierarchical redundancy on the process level, in machine itself and then geographical if the system is critical. On top of that the same is done in test systems. If you want security you need at least 3 systems : 1 active and 2 SBY - this mainly because in case of maintenance you lose one instance. Just remember this - high redundancy means usually less utilization - your accounting will not like it. At the end of the day you have to make calculation what you can pay and what risk does that mean.
I think you are getting it too complicated. The usual way things get resolved these days is that a law comes and mandate the CO2 production per some unit or another must be lower than X and then decrease by Y every year. If done consequently this will also reduce the number of humans on this planet all by itself.
We breath too. Come to think we also fart. The gases that come out of our orifices contain CO2 that were not there when the gases got in.
If you want to reduce CO2 production you will have to address the population size. Possibly in a rather involuntary way as at least one major religion still says you should procreate because the boss wants it so. Big chunks of the other other major religion say the same. So it will stay involuntary measure. Nerds can produce zika like solution I suppose. I just hope they do not overshoot.
I feel with you but calling things we do a destruction is very anthropocentric. After all, this is all, that all forms of life do - move the boundaries as far as they can. The pristine empty countryside was thus destroyed by the invading plants from the sea first and then to make things worse the fish has followed. What you possibly mean is that we have reached the boundary - this we can only know from behind it. So far we have always managed to extend it and survive local collapse even if local meant half of the world (Toba explosion ~70kya for instance). I am not such a big fan of going to Mars but if a colony can be established it can also reach point of self sustainability. There is a point in another statement about interstellar travel i.e. that it very well be impossible or at least with the means we have now it is.
Slashdot Mirror
The word censorship does not refer only to government actions or else we would not talk about 'government censorship'.
US gov subsidizes Teslas anyway so why not take what it already paid for, mount it on the ordinance and drop on some fire? I mean cost is not an issue anymore as money is spent already. Unless of course Teslas Guided Big Boring Bombs are not up for the task in which case the subsidy should be stopped immediately.
Now imagine some algorithm that enthusiasts call AI already being part of some unjustified lay off action or disabling some users from their financial SW etc - how do you appeal to a company that does not have anybody at help desk because algorithms do it all right and there is no programmed way to repeal the decisions made?
Amount of informational garbage being spread by monsanto and by their opponents is as some may say huuuuuge. This does not allow for a reason and fact based discussion. That is the only safe conclusion that one can reach here. Sadly the one side may pay for its way and we cannot be sure if it does not affect scientific results as well if the process has not severely been affected by their money in a negative way. The other side use emotions to switch of brains as it could not fight straight for decades. The result is that we have no possibility to find out. I stopped trusting most of what I read on this in media. I also stopped paying for media altogether a year ago. Why should I pay for this garbage? This has serious consequences for me as I live in the dark but also for the society at large . Not because I am so important but because there are plenty of people that feel misinformed and have no trust and the numbers grow it seems. Mostly this means 'the other side' of the dispute is not to be trusted which means no agreement can be reached. We will continue this path I am sure. Till things stop to work as the truth is - no industrial production of food will do without technology including chemicals affecting our health negatively if used in a wrong way and sometimes we made mistakes and chemicals we use just kill us slowly. If we take this and bann all chemicals there will be not enough food for everybody. Maybe that is good because there are too many people around anyway?
Yes they are clearly at stage 2.
Guttenberg project is not an ancient Roman mega- corp thing but is still blocked in Germany by Google due to German court order.
Go and try. They give it to almost anybody. There even was a soldier of German Army that applied as a Syrian refugee and got it. You just need have some stamina and protest the negative asylum decisions as long as it takes. The majority of people that come refuse to tell the authorities where they come from and to show a pass which makes it impossible for German state to send them home.
The reason I mentioned it here is that the actual experiment is being done on quite a large scale - there have been 1.6m of these people in 2015 since then the number fell to 200k per year. Most of them are not eligible for refugee status (called Asylum in Germany) but they protest as long as it takes, they also organize protests in rare cases when they are actually being deported so the state is effectively providing for them as it is legally forced to do so although they have no legal right to stay. Here you have your limited size UBI. The actual direct costs on federal level is approx 30-40bE (federal budget is 350b a year) so it is not so massive as you may imagine. The flow is smaller than in 2015 but it does not show any signs of stopping so the cost is likely to increase. We will see how long Germany is capable of paying this much for people that do not contribute(*) directly to economy( - there is a market for social services there which was not there before and property prices go up as these people that stay have the right to housing provided by community. The experiment lasts. We will see how long it will go well.
If you want to try, then as I said, please do - come over, hide away your pass and claim asylum. I can imagine that if you say you are from Syria it can still work. As stated they accepted a soldier of German army who did not know any of the languages used in Syria and did not look like a citizen of the country so the chance is there. One more thing. It seems German administration actually works if you follow the rules, so if you come, claim asylum and follow all the rules and do not use violence during attempts at deportation the chances that you will be deported are quite high. It may even be that they send you or your family a bill for all the costs so once you commit you have to fight.
* - there are reasons for that but scholars still discuss what these are. It is irrelevant for our discussion here of which point is - whether UBI is feasible.
We may soon find out if it works. Germany has free housing and pocket money for all that can reach German social authorities and say 'asylum'. The system is not supposed to work like this but due to huge numbers of people that were arriving it has become UIBI - the negative decision can be objected in front of the court and because courts are overloaded by hundred of thousands of cases they cannot give answer on time - in 3 years if they are not expelled people get what amounts to residence permit. There are some other nice things about it but this is is - UBI as everybody wanted. Not all Germans are happy tho so the system may yet be scrapped but majority of Germans support it so something big would be required for them to stop it.
There is this other thing - if the patrol car prevents the crime from occurring in the first place then how is algorithm coping with that? How are algorithm users going to cope with that? I mean all the money spent on y2k bug were wasted because hardly any problems have been seen. The same happened to financial regulation that has been removed which apparently helped the 2008 meltdown to occur. Examples are numerous. Then another q. - if I know a guy or group of guys are up for no good can I do anything - that would be pre-crime sort of thing and in essence something that is a direct argument against free will and if so breaking parts of the foundations of our justice system.
NOx and particulates are generated in much bigger amounts by nature than by current fleet of cars on the streets where I live. This does not stop lawmakers to produce silly laws but it does not change reality. It may change CO2 production due to diesel bans in big cities. Let us hope that next generation of donkey based transport will be more env. friendly. This said the summary is silly - any increase in business is causing increase in energy consumption and sometimes you cannot concentrate certain activities for practical reasons. You extremists want to save the planet then do something with massive and hardly uncontrollable increase of population size mostly in Africa. This can actually do something. Whining in social media about how bad something is, will just waste more resources because of energy and materials wasted in a process. It is also silly.
Norwegians were just lucky to be in a right spot and to have homogeneous enough a society and to invest in a way it worked for them. This is probably impossible to replicate elsewhere w/o much effort in controlling population in some way and that does not work well. They or most of them) must want it that way and be ready to negotiate instead of building militias to get what they see as their own. Considering the world vision agenda 2030 this may change drastically in the future. I also tend to think it is really difficult to find the reasons beyond wealth of the nations. Not sure about Norway but Swedes were poor like hell at then end of 19th century or why otherwise so many migrated to US back then? US on the other hand is rich but not regularly - there are places where it looks like 3rd world country. I suspect US is just big enough and heterogeneous enough for huge variations and on top of it you have the ideology there or American Dream and that even the poorest are future millionaires, being poor only temporarily. This has not worked well for waves after wave of immigrants but does not work so well for established societies and communities. The final answer to the question what makes nations wealthy cannot even be answered because of the nature of the being called nation - Germans refuse to accept such thing ever exists and it is almost official ideology that all people are the same w/o any difference in genetics and culture. This works only so far and we will see how well their Merkel experiement of 2015 will go. Probably not very long as they are stupid enough to destroy own industry too. What I have seen in Sweden however is that they have different ideologies but they corrected them. Even open door policy has been suspended (w/o much talk about it) when they saw it is unmanageable. Similarly they have fixed their socialist experiment of 1970 after it produced huge deficits.
There was a book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond - it does not have to be correct in its claims but it is interesting because it shows that there are so many successful societies and yet we have no clue why they are so.
There is no such a thing as a completely free market that is a place where agents can handle as they please w/o any restrictions. This is not true in any of the country that has a rule of law and justice system as these make restrictions on agent's activities. There are different levels of freedom in different places this much is true. Communal ownership is just the way human societies work. I do not know one that does not have it except maybe ones like NK where everything belongs to Kim but even there he has to give some to some communities (generals and party members and some parts of the populace) or else he will be deposed. I am also old enough to remember living under communists in east of Europe. Even in Soviet Russia there were thing that were owned by private people as well as communities and the state. At the end it is the level of freedom that you grant agents which make a difference. In fact private exchange works everywhere. It is just differently limited in different places. There are of course ideas that drive some groups of extremists one or the other way but pragmatism eventually wins at least to the effect that biggest faults are corrected. In fact communal ownership is just a special case of private ownership.
This reminds me of this quote :"what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak"
Somehow it fits here.
Work is just another place people live. They have a relatively clearly specified tasks (if they are lucky) and well organized workplace so that they can indeed spend most of the time working but that is not how humans function. This of course has consequences for comparative advantages of automation. But the point here is: if you force people just to show up at work, do what they are paid for and go then the pay will have to be higher if any significant mental activity is involved, But fortunately for owners the automated supervision software will eliminate first these evil, hormon induced interactions and then the humans that used to engage in them. I am already happy to witness the future.
They did not bother to ask anybody about CETA and other allegedly freetrade agreements, nor did they ask us if we want Dublin IV or open borders in the south, they did not ask anybody when they agreed on forced relocation (thanx to the bloody nationalists in Poland and Hungary for making it fail), they did not ask us if we want to punish Brits for seeing EU commission for the bunch of asshats they actually are. These few cases where national assemblies actually asked some important questions and the answers were not to EU liking they were ignored or the q. was asked again till it was 'correct'. So now they ask us a q. that makes not much difference to majority of us. What for? To give us impression that we matter? Or is there some other sinister plan behind it? For me it just increases the tension I have every 14 of July - I like to think that people of this continent rise up, march to EU commission, pull these bastards out of it, and after applying tar and feathers rush them through the streets beyond the city limits. 14 July seems a good date for that. Every year I am disappointed. But I am sure that time will come. I hope to take part in this. Time to depose Junkers, Asselborn, Merkels etc of this world. Not that it changes situation sufficiently or for long. It just has to be done once in a while or else these people think they are the brilliant essence of what everybody wants.
In the neo-marxist lands of Germany we still have working systems from the capitalist times - the radio telling my clock what time it should show. The clocks reset in the middle of these two nights of the year. It still does not make any sense but the clocks are doing that w/o interwebs. I suppose some time in not all that distant future it may become illegal to be off grid because such deviations help in spread thoughtcrime.
does not work in Africa but I guess there they do not have this nonsense either or?
That is the way we go. Very unfortunate. especially as there were countless people fighting oppression from governemnt and paying high price for it. Yet now when instead on the square or in a newspaper we express our opinions in public space of FB, Google or some other big one it seems it is ok to censor. I understand that private property etc means you should have control. But if your private property is open to the public and serves as public space where people express opinions then so be it.
It is always easy to say if it is other guy's problem, or?
How about some obscure and unknown to you algorithm decides that you are dead and locks all your accounts? How do you even call help desk (assuming you know who is responsible and that they take calls from minions like you and me) if your mobile contract has been cancelled? There was an article here about guy who whose contract was wrongly marked as terminated by HR system - it took people 3 weeks to reverse from that mistake. Your statement shows that Milgram experiment was correct and showed real attitudes - we do not have guys in black uniforms with some odd emblems on it to tell us what to do and whom to persecute but we have our new algorithmic overlords.
I would imagine that your question should be asked. Considering the area i.e. human health - this maybe he case although the majority approach to any also automatic authority is such that this probably be implemented the way the HR system in UK was done and the overwrite function will not be present.
Not sure if there was a plan. I mean besides 'Merkel is forever' one.
The fact is however that this was all predictable. But first things first: borders were open before you just had to show a pass, sometimes visa and some such. This is not a closed border. I lived under closed border regime together with Merkel so I can tell. The open border that she and her minions are blathering about is no border - no checks allowed. This goes as far as not to check age of people claiming to be minors - something that in Germany has a significant financial reward for the 'minor'. As for refugees - I would not call all of them rapefugees but the media refusing to address these problems for 3 years now made it impossible to distinguish between those that rape and those that don't. So here we go. A regime that refuses to control borders is at some point forced to install cameras on each railway station and public square and equip it with face recognition software - that is what previous minister of interior started doing after wave of crime (that according to the official statistics does not exist) started making people uncomfortable.
It is of course Google's fault. But also the guys who did system design as even if you can migrate the VMs in case of HW failure you cannot migrate between google servers if google thinks you are evil. What one should be doing is having multiple instances working in HA setup in case one goes off the other part of the brain goes from hot standby and takes over. If more is at stake more redundancy is needed. So in this case you need two different infrastructure subcontractors and HA done between them as well as internally with hot SBY taking over as soon as the other side dies - that is complicated. From what I have seen telecom is using similar setups of hierarchical redundancy on the process level, in machine itself and then geographical if the system is critical. On top of that the same is done in test systems. If you want security you need at least 3 systems : 1 active and 2 SBY - this mainly because in case of maintenance you lose one instance. Just remember this - high redundancy means usually less utilization - your accounting will not like it. At the end of the day you have to make calculation what you can pay and what risk does that mean.
I think you are getting it too complicated. The usual way things get resolved these days is that a law comes and mandate the CO2 production per some unit or another must be lower than X and then decrease by Y every year. If done consequently this will also reduce the number of humans on this planet all by itself.
We breath too. Come to think we also fart. The gases that come out of our orifices contain CO2 that were not there when the gases got in. If you want to reduce CO2 production you will have to address the population size. Possibly in a rather involuntary way as at least one major religion still says you should procreate because the boss wants it so. Big chunks of the other other major religion say the same. So it will stay involuntary measure. Nerds can produce zika like solution I suppose. I just hope they do not overshoot.
I feel with you but calling things we do a destruction is very anthropocentric. After all, this is all, that all forms of life do - move the boundaries as far as they can. The pristine empty countryside was thus destroyed by the invading plants from the sea first and then to make things worse the fish has followed. What you possibly mean is that we have reached the boundary - this we can only know from behind it. So far we have always managed to extend it and survive local collapse even if local meant half of the world (Toba explosion ~70kya for instance). I am not such a big fan of going to Mars but if a colony can be established it can also reach point of self sustainability. There is a point in another statement about interstellar travel i.e. that it very well be impossible or at least with the means we have now it is.