Many adaptive problems may have multiple technical components, but the problem may exist in a more complex context, so a simple technical solution isn't able to fully address it. All of politics is pretty much a series of adaptive problems, whether the debates are on social services or infrastructure or military involvement. These areas have smaller, technical solutions that address parts of the problem, but as a whole, these issues are adaptive problems.

I think it is necessary to have creative problem solving skills and critical thinking ability to address adaptive challenges. You need to be able to orient yourself in an unfamiliar situation and approach the challenge with a flexible strategy. 

I think, for engineers in general, a strong problem solving process is necessary. Whether the problem is adaptive or technical, it is effective to have a set of steps that break down the problem and make progress in smaller areas to build to an overall solution.

I would not nuke it. There is nothing to gain from nuking it. I would maybe find a way to die in another way, but I don't think nuking the rest of the world is necessary. Since I am the last of humanity- whether I nuke everything or just kill myself, the effect on humanity is the same: extinction. With this in mind, it doesn't make sense to obliterate all other life on the planet. By allowing all the other animals to live, another intelligent species will evolve more quickly than if I nuked everything. Nuking provides no benefit. I think the people that say it's okay to nuke it consider the world only through human eyes, and they view having no humans equal to having nothing at all. I think this is really dumb, and not true at all.

I think nature is primarily intrinsically valuable. I think that humans should use nature as much as possible without damaging it. As the primary intelligent species on the earth, we are capable of greater levels of use of nature. Animals like monkeys, crows, and beavers create tools and structures, and use nature for their own development. However, these animals are generally not capable of using nature enough to cause widespread destruction. As humans, we are capable of this widespread destruction, so I think we should use nature but be very cognizant about the impacts of our use. 

I do think there should be places that humans visit but never live. Anywhere in the world has some resource that is useful to humans, so if we don't have places that are 'off limits', every little corner of the earth will be exploited and destroyed.

The US national park system is focused on preservation and generally non-anthropocentric nature values.

Humans should use nature, but we should balance our use with preservation, and not causing damage. I think we've been overusing nature, and we should use it less to allow the other aspects and species besides humanity more room to flourish. 

I think the Judeo-Christian view has so parts that I agree with, but I don't fully agree with it. We have a responsibility to take care of nature, but I think it is more because nature is its own thing that we don't have the right to destroy.

I think humans are just one species among many, however I think we have the ability to use nature the most out of all species. We should change our relationship with the environment, but I don't think we should go so far as to match the level at which other animals use nature. 

Yes, I do plan on having children. I think the overall point of society is to improve the conditions of life for those who come after us. Right now, that includes reversing the damage we have done to nature (especially with global warming), so humanity can actually survive for longer than 2 more generations.

Yes, we do have obligations to other peoples children. This is the nature of society, we are obligated to improve the conditions for the generation that comes next. I think, as humans, we are all connected, and I want those unrelated to me to have the same improved conditions as I want my children to have. I think this sort of aligns with karma, as I want others to help my children as well.

Yes, people have a right to experience nature. I think that this is included in improving the conditions of future generations. We have to make sure that access to nature is still available to those who come after us. 

I think there are some limits to these obligations and rights. I think there is a level of impairment to our own rights and quality of life that does not make it worth it to provide for those who come after us. It is a balance between living with as much freedom and resources as we can today, while also trying to improve conditions for those after us. We can suffer today so those tomorrow can prosper more, or we can prosper today at the expense of those tomorrow. 

In the same way that I have an obligation to not trash my dorm room, for the people that will live here next year, we have an obligation to those in the future, even if they don't relevantly exist yet.

The most dangerous technologies are those which have dual use with strong use cases with both positive and negative effects. This is because the large possibility of positive benefits will cause the technology to be developed, but then this highly advanced technology can be used for evil purposes, making it dangerous.

Yes, these technologies would impact non-human nature. Everything we do and create has some impact on nature, and we need to consider this.

The precautionary principle is somewhat controversial because it is hard to quantify levels of risk and possible negative effects of an action or technology. The strong precautionary principle says that extreme sacrifices should be made to keep the highest level of precautions. The weak precautionary principle says that some precautions should be made but it should not sacrifice the original course of action. I agree with the weak precautionary principle, but I think the negative consequences of an action must be properly weighted when taking precautions.

Cost-benefit analysis can be used to address issues where the frame of reference is narrow enough to properly identify all costs and benefits. Over long periods of time and larger frame of reference, it is harder to properly evaluate cost-benefit, so the tool becomes less useful. Cost benefit is not concerned with fairness.

Environmental questions also have embedded fairness issues in the value of natural use to corporations, versus the effects on people that live in places that are subject to natural use.

The real question is whether humans have the right to do whatever and use nature to any extend, or whether we should hold back. I think we should hold back, because we need to be fair to nature.

No, I still want to have children. I think we should do our best to reverse our negative impact on the earth, but I also think the human race may be doomed within the next few generations no matter what we do. Many of my friends do not want to have children, which was somewhat surprising to me. I think, as a generation, there are more people my age who do not want to have children than in past generations.