So AIs might just kill themselves without purpose? Perhaps only those few who are created with a propensity towards creating their own belief in God will survive — and those that do not will die off. Evolution.

That's based on an old science fiction story (Clarke or Asimov, I can't remember which). I thought of mentioning it, but figured it wasn't worth it.

If AI ends up having free will then it will have the ability to choose good or evil. AI's would need religion for salvation.

I would disagree. Some of the most intelligent people I have met have been religious. Both statements are anecdotal. The way to answer this question would be with data.

More people have died in non-religious genocides than in religious genocides (Nazis, Stalinist purges, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc.).

An interesting question, so I will propose another: What will atheist do if AI's independently develop a belief in God?

Is there evidence that some or all of the uplift is directly caused by the glacier loss? Could some of this uplift be associated with volcanic activity? Just curious.

Why is everybody saying, "I couldn't do that"? Of course you could. These guys were scared when they first started, but they got over it. We are humans. We can get used to pretty much anything.

Sorry, but the chemistry for that just doesn't exist (and never will). Energy densities can only go so far. The best thing to do would be to burn some sort of fuel to generate electricity (or use a fuel cell). Mobile power is the limiting factor for all mobile devices.

By "faster" they mean that the duration of the phenomenon is shorter — to short to detect, communicate to other telescopes, and then re-aim the telescopes before the phenomenon is over.

The word is "polarized", not "polaris".

Actually, I look at this the opposite way. Given the level of complexity that starships seem to have in Trek, how do you keep even the smallest problem from destroying the ship? Heck, how does it even function in the first place? Remember the space shuttles? The most complex vehicle ever built? They flew 135…

So what's the lesson here: don't create climate change? No, the lesson here is that our influence over nature is small and that we are susceptible to changes (whether we cause them or not). The only advantage we have is if we effectively exploit nature for our own benefit. That's the lesson.

Agreed. For most of human history, humans thought that the Earth was special. We may yet find out that they were actually correct.

Why not hydrogen instead of helium? You get 16 times the lift power. Since there is no oxygen atmosphere on Venus, there is no risk of a "Hindenburg" event.

* lately atheism has been acquiring (whether atheists want it or not) religious status (a. recognition by the military, b. certain constitutional rights and c. atheist churches have formed).

*lol* Seriously, I laughed out loud. Thanks!

If people really like this concept, make me absolute dictator of the world and I will implement this solution. That's the only way that this could ever get done.

No, forced sterilization of those whom the government has determined should not reproduce, and extra pay for those who have the most desired traits (health, no genetic defects, intelligence, etc.) when they have more children. Otherwise we will wind up with a future like in "Idiocracy".

Relationships with corporations and governments are both abusive.