[augment001]

> The contention is if history has gone through multiple and innumerable cycles and has ended up at the same outcome multiple times before.

The first problem is that this is simply a false premise. Very few people would make such a claim, and none can back it up with evidence.

The second is that you still seem to think that technological change has no impact on history.

[than3]

Its not a false premise, there has been many anthropological studies that form the basis for catastrophism, extinction and a changing earth, they have been backed up with evidence for hundreds of years.

To claim otherwise is simply discounting a large body of scientific work which is highly credible and supported, how can you claim doing so is credible in any way?

The second is just putting words in my mouth, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion about what I think based off our short conversation here.

I never said it, I never inferred it, it looks to me simply like a psychological projection you've made of something you think, Largely because I don't believe that in the slightest. Not in the slightest, and no rational person would.

So can you clarify 'specifically' what I said that made you think that?

[augment001]

> Its not a false premise, there has been many anthropological studies that form the basis for catastrophism, extinction and a changing earth, they have been backed up with evidence for hundreds of years.

Did these past catastrophes involve AI and computers?