Since this was a major running issue of the entire democrat party during these past elections, why is it that virtually nobody is seriously talking about large scale R&D projects or construction projects involving solar power?
I have come up with any number of concepts for solar power, both government owned and privately owned, creating an infrastructure of solar power which will meet virtually all transportation and residential needs. There isn't much of anything like this being done anywhere in this country, and certainly not on any respectable scale. Why?
Example:
Solar paneled highways.
Build a roof above all major state and inter-state highways. this is covered in solar panels. It is constructed wide enough and high enough to allow for road maintenance vehicles for future re-paving and widening projects. It is constructed strong enough to survive the strongest reasonable wind event or siesmic event, staying perhaps 50-100 miles inland from the coast to avoid the worst hurricane wind damage(since the structure is elevated.)
The benefits of this would be manifold:
1) Governments or power companies don't need to buy land, because the same land space is used both for power generation and transportation, and is already owned by the government anyway. Well, they may need to buy a few feet wide strips on each side of the existing roads, but not like making an all new road.
2) The shading from this structure reduces the need for air conditioning in automobiles, increasing fuel efficiency. IN addition, because the road surface is no longer in direct sunlight, the road and the tires of vehicles are at a lower temperature, increasing their lifetime as well.
The total amount of solar energy available(solar constant) on the stretch of road between the I-10/I-12 split in Baton Rouge to the Hammond exit, assuming a structure with a 100m wide roof, would be 8,742,400,000watts. Now of course we don't have ideal solar panels, so lets just pick a round number, like 25% efficient(as I understand it, there are actually much better panels than this now). At 25% efficiency, that comes to approximately 2,185,600,000watts(2.2 gigawatts).
Ths is constructed perhaps in 100m segments.
Anyway, two gigawatts. This is just along one stretch of interstate highway. Imagine if this was done everywhere!
This is too stupid to break apart on a point-by-point basis, but I have a few notes:
manifold? really?
Your solar panels on highways idea is dumb for a number of reasons.
1) It reduces driving visibility
2) The effect of direct sunlight on highways is a negligible factor
3) There's absolutely no good reason to do this
4) It's a nightmare
The government doesn't build power plants, companies do. The government can help finance, subsidize or give tax breaks, but it doesn't build power infrastructure.
manifold? really?
Your solar panels on highways idea is dumb for a number of reasons.
1) It reduces driving visibility
2) The effect of direct sunlight on highways is a negligible factor
3) There's absolutely no good reason to do this
4) It's a nightmare
The government doesn't build power plants, companies do. The government can help finance, subsidize or give tax breaks, but it doesn't build power infrastructure.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 28 2009, 01:45 PM)
This is too stupid to break apart on a point-by-point basis, but I have a few notes:
manifold? really?
Your solar panels on highways idea is dumb for a number of reasons.
1) It reduces driving visibility
2) The effect of direct sunlight on highways is a negligible factor
3) There's absolutely no good reason to do this
4) It's a nightmare
The government doesn't build power plants, companies do. The government can help finance, subsidize or give tax breaks, but it doesn't build power infrastructure.
1) Not siginificantly. In case you didn't know this, there are very large underground tunnels in America, Europe, and elsewhere whereby people drive through all the time both day and night.
2) So you say. Try turning off your AC in louisiana or texas and drive around for a while on the interstate or a state maintained highway. By the way, a significant amount of road damage is caused by heat wedging.
3) An unfounded statement with no supporting arguments or evidence. There are plenty of good reasons to do this. Some of which I actually bothered to address, which you have not.
4) See above. Also, calling an idea "stupid" just because you don't like it doesn't count as a legitimate argument against it.
The government SHOULD build infrastructure. Why wouldn't they? Don't you realize all major land-based transportation is facilitated by government already? In an world where pure electric vehicles are shortly going to be the norm, solar power is simply a necessity(particularly since pessimist liberals refuse to do nuclear.) The Solar panels simply become a necessary aspect of the ALREADY GOVERNMENT CREATED AND MAINTAINED transportation infrastructure. After all, any civilization should have its infrastructure planned in such a way for maximum long term benefits to civilization, not individual capitalist organizations.
Your view of human civilization is simply an absurd view whereby people and governments are expected to forever settle for being controlled by a handful of elitists who own everything, and do everything for their own personal selfish gain. The existing capitalist model in America is actually no better than despotism.
My view of human civilization is one whereby people eventually have mutual ownership of the government, infrastructure, and energy resources, and do what is in the benefit of humanity as a whole, within a moral framework which protects human life first and foremost.
manifold? really?
Your solar panels on highways idea is dumb for a number of reasons.
1) It reduces driving visibility
2) The effect of direct sunlight on highways is a negligible factor
3) There's absolutely no good reason to do this
4) It's a nightmare
The government doesn't build power plants, companies do. The government can help finance, subsidize or give tax breaks, but it doesn't build power infrastructure.
1) Not siginificantly. In case you didn't know this, there are very large underground tunnels in America, Europe, and elsewhere whereby people drive through all the time both day and night.
2) So you say. Try turning off your AC in louisiana or texas and drive around for a while on the interstate or a state maintained highway. By the way, a significant amount of road damage is caused by heat wedging.
3) An unfounded statement with no supporting arguments or evidence. There are plenty of good reasons to do this. Some of which I actually bothered to address, which you have not.
4) See above. Also, calling an idea "stupid" just because you don't like it doesn't count as a legitimate argument against it.
The government SHOULD build infrastructure. Why wouldn't they? Don't you realize all major land-based transportation is facilitated by government already? In an world where pure electric vehicles are shortly going to be the norm, solar power is simply a necessity(particularly since pessimist liberals refuse to do nuclear.) The Solar panels simply become a necessary aspect of the ALREADY GOVERNMENT CREATED AND MAINTAINED transportation infrastructure. After all, any civilization should have its infrastructure planned in such a way for maximum long term benefits to civilization, not individual capitalist organizations.
Your view of human civilization is simply an absurd view whereby people and governments are expected to forever settle for being controlled by a handful of elitists who own everything, and do everything for their own personal selfish gain. The existing capitalist model in America is actually no better than despotism.
My view of human civilization is one whereby people eventually have mutual ownership of the government, infrastructure, and energy resources, and do what is in the benefit of humanity as a whole, within a moral framework which protects human life first and foremost.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2009, 03:32 PM)
The government SHOULD build infrastructure. Why wouldn't they? Don't you realize all major land-based transportation is facilitated by government already? In an world where pure electric vehicles are shortly going to be the norm, solar power is simply a necessity(particularly since pessimist liberals refuse to do nuclear.) The Solar panels simply become a necessary aspect of the ALREADY GOVERNMENT CREATED AND MAINTAINED transportation infrastructure. After all, any civilization should have its infrastructure planned in such a way for maximum long term benefits to civilization, not individual capitalist organizations.
You don't understand politics. Energy companies don't want competition from the government, so they pay politicians to fight legislation that they find threatening. The infrastructure that the government builds doesn't return any profit, so companies don't want it.
What do you suggest? revolution?
What do you suggest? revolution?
My view of human civilization is one whereby people eventually have mutual ownership of the government, infrastructure, and energy resources, and do what is in the benefit of humanity as a whole, within a moral framework which protects human life first and foremost.
Sooo... Communism?
I am 100% for increased implementation of solar power. I think the best option would be to take a huge square chunk out of the desert and cover it entirely with solar panels. The centralized nature allows for more efficient maintenance and proximity to major population centers (Las Vegas and Los Angeles). There you go, simple, and no need for a strange highway/solar mutant hybrid.
I'm all for nuclear as soon as they figure out a way to dispose of waste more effectively. Since radioactive matter generates heat, why not use it as a secondary source of energy? Make a huge wilderness facility and keep all the radioactive stuff way underground.
I am 100% for increased implementation of solar power. I think the best option would be to take a huge square chunk out of the desert and cover it entirely with solar panels. The centralized nature allows for more efficient maintenance and proximity to major population centers (Las Vegas and Los Angeles). There you go, simple, and no need for a strange highway/solar mutant hybrid.
I'm all for nuclear as soon as they figure out a way to dispose of waste more effectively. Since radioactive matter generates heat, why not use it as a secondary source of energy? Make a huge wilderness facility and keep all the radioactive stuff way underground.
Which is precisely the problem. The role of the government is to ensure order and to ensure that the best interest of its people are served, NOT the best interest of a handful of aristocrats.
The best interest of the people is that they always have the best product or service for the lowest possible price.
The best interest of a capitalist company, on the other hand, is that they sell the least expensive product for the greatest possible price that they can convince the consumer its worth it, whether or not that is in the people's best interest. Competition doesn't "really" drive up value or drive down costs, because monopoly and ologopoly always come into play.
Which is precisely the problem. The role of the government is to ensure order and to ensure that the best interest of its people are served, NOT the best interest of a handful of aristocrats.
The best interest of the people is that they always have the best product or service for the lowest possible price.
The best interest of a capitalist company, on the other hand, is that they sell the least expensive product for the greatest possible price that they can convince the consumer its worth it, whether or not that is in the people's best interest. Competition doesn't "really" drive up value or drive down costs, because monopoly and ologopoly always come into play.
What do you suggest? revolution?
Uh, only in the same sense as the "industrial revolution". Not talking about anything violent or militaristic in any way. Many people in this nation don't even realize they technically have the right to petition and vote for just these sort of projects right now, either because they don't give it any thought, or because the propaganda engine of the elitists doesn't want them to know its doable.
Captitalism has repeatedly been shown not to work. Which is why we have unions and monopoly laws in this country, and even they are woefully inadequate. If not for the existing unions and monopoly laws, you would literally be the property of your employer right now. IN the 1800s and even early 1900s, oil, steel, and coal industries murderered their own workers to keep wages down, and this would still be going on right now if not for the socialist aspects of our government. Even as it is, companies have found a way to minimize any commitment to their employees through the usage of temp agencies whereby human beings are simply used as a comodity and discarded when no longer needed. So the irony is that American capitalism has abused people an many of the same ways as any of the worst tyrants ever did.
When you use the propaganda word "communism"(for that is what that word has become in America,) you then lump me together with Stalin and other tyrants, of which I hope you realize I have nothing in common with any of them.
====
By the way, I am also wanting to make very large solar farms both on land and sea, not just on roads. But if you have electric vehicles, then it woudl seem the most obvious place to put the power plants is to start with the interstate highways, as they pass between all the largest cities. My ultimate goal as it regards solar power would be for the maximum area of the planet to eventually be covered in solar panels to within limits of not destroying ecology.
This means eventually coverning entire continents and entire oceans (limited by ecology and space for shipping lanes,) with solar collectors on platforms anchored to the continental shelf, and floating cities over the deeper portions of the ocean, as well as deep water systems for extracting power from the mid-ocean ridges and methane-hydrate vents. Oil WILL be depleted within a few decades, and there needs to be other systems in place. Expense in terms of dollars is nearly irrelevant when we are talking about the total collapse of modern human civilization without these infrastructure being in place.
So I'm thinking a lot bigger and long term than just a few highways or deserts covered in solar collection devices, but we must start somewhere and soon, and I don't think Entergy or your other favorite capitalist energy corporation should control the world.
You don't understand politics. Energy companies don't want competition from the government, so they pay politicians to fight legislation that they find threatening. The infrastructure that the government builds doesn't return any profit, so companies don't want it.
QUOTE
Your view of human civilization is simply an absurd view whereby people and governments are expected to forever settle for being controlled by a handful of elitists who own everything, and do everything for their own personal selfish gain. The existing capitalist model in America is actually no better than despotism.
What do you suggest? revolution?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your view of human civilization is simply an absurd view whereby people and governments are expected to forever settle for being controlled by a handful of elitists who own everything, and do everything for their own personal selfish gain. The existing capitalist model in America is actually no better than despotism. |
What do you suggest? revolution?
My view of human civilization is one whereby people eventually have mutual ownership of the government, infrastructure, and energy resources, and do what is in the benefit of humanity as a whole, within a moral framework which protects human life first and foremost.
Sooo... Communism?
I am 100% for increased implementation of solar power. I think the best option would be to take a huge square chunk out of the desert and cover it entirely with solar panels. The centralized nature allows for more efficient maintenance and proximity to major population centers (Las Vegas and Los Angeles). There you go, simple, and no need for a strange highway/solar mutant hybrid.
I'm all for nuclear as soon as they figure out a way to dispose of waste more effectively. Since radioactive matter generates heat, why not use it as a secondary source of energy? Make a huge wilderness facility and keep all the radioactive stuff way underground.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 28 2009, 02:56 PM)
I am 100% for increased implementation of solar power. I think the best option would be to take a huge square chunk out of the desert and cover it entirely with solar panels. The centralized nature allows for more efficient maintenance and proximity to major population centers (Las Vegas and Los Angeles). There you go, simple, and no need for a strange highway/solar mutant hybrid.
I'm all for nuclear as soon as they figure out a way to dispose of waste more effectively. Since radioactive matter generates heat, why not use it as a secondary source of energy? Make a huge wilderness facility and keep all the radioactive stuff way underground.
QUOTE
You don't understand politics. Energy companies don't want competition from the government, so they pay politicians to fight legislation that they find threatening. The infrastructure that the government builds doesn't return any profit, so companies don't want it.
Which is precisely the problem. The role of the government is to ensure order and to ensure that the best interest of its people are served, NOT the best interest of a handful of aristocrats.
The best interest of the people is that they always have the best product or service for the lowest possible price.
The best interest of a capitalist company, on the other hand, is that they sell the least expensive product for the greatest possible price that they can convince the consumer its worth it, whether or not that is in the people's best interest. Competition doesn't "really" drive up value or drive down costs, because monopoly and ologopoly always come into play.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't understand politics. Energy companies don't want competition from the government, so they pay politicians to fight legislation that they find threatening. The infrastructure that the government builds doesn't return any profit, so companies don't want it. |
Which is precisely the problem. The role of the government is to ensure order and to ensure that the best interest of its people are served, NOT the best interest of a handful of aristocrats.
The best interest of the people is that they always have the best product or service for the lowest possible price.
The best interest of a capitalist company, on the other hand, is that they sell the least expensive product for the greatest possible price that they can convince the consumer its worth it, whether or not that is in the people's best interest. Competition doesn't "really" drive up value or drive down costs, because monopoly and ologopoly always come into play.
What do you suggest? revolution?
Uh, only in the same sense as the "industrial revolution". Not talking about anything violent or militaristic in any way. Many people in this nation don't even realize they technically have the right to petition and vote for just these sort of projects right now, either because they don't give it any thought, or because the propaganda engine of the elitists doesn't want them to know its doable.
QUOTE
Sooo... Communism?
Captitalism has repeatedly been shown not to work. Which is why we have unions and monopoly laws in this country, and even they are woefully inadequate. If not for the existing unions and monopoly laws, you would literally be the property of your employer right now. IN the 1800s and even early 1900s, oil, steel, and coal industries murderered their own workers to keep wages down, and this would still be going on right now if not for the socialist aspects of our government. Even as it is, companies have found a way to minimize any commitment to their employees through the usage of temp agencies whereby human beings are simply used as a comodity and discarded when no longer needed. So the irony is that American capitalism has abused people an many of the same ways as any of the worst tyrants ever did.
When you use the propaganda word "communism"(for that is what that word has become in America,) you then lump me together with Stalin and other tyrants, of which I hope you realize I have nothing in common with any of them.
====
By the way, I am also wanting to make very large solar farms both on land and sea, not just on roads. But if you have electric vehicles, then it woudl seem the most obvious place to put the power plants is to start with the interstate highways, as they pass between all the largest cities. My ultimate goal as it regards solar power would be for the maximum area of the planet to eventually be covered in solar panels to within limits of not destroying ecology.
This means eventually coverning entire continents and entire oceans (limited by ecology and space for shipping lanes,) with solar collectors on platforms anchored to the continental shelf, and floating cities over the deeper portions of the ocean, as well as deep water systems for extracting power from the mid-ocean ridges and methane-hydrate vents. Oil WILL be depleted within a few decades, and there needs to be other systems in place. Expense in terms of dollars is nearly irrelevant when we are talking about the total collapse of modern human civilization without these infrastructure being in place.
So I'm thinking a lot bigger and long term than just a few highways or deserts covered in solar collection devices, but we must start somewhere and soon, and I don't think Entergy or your other favorite capitalist energy corporation should control the world.
Clip from the wikipedia article on "Watt".
Terawatt
The terawatt is equal to one trillion watts. The total power used by humans worldwide (about 15 TW) is commonly measured in these units. The most powerful lasers from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s produced power in terawatts, but only for nanoseconds. The average stroke of lightning peaks at 1 terawatt, but these strokes only last for 30 microseconds.
[edit] Petawatt
The petawatt is equal to one quadrillion watts and can be produced by the current generation of lasers for time-scales of the order of femtoseconds (10-15 s). Based on the average of 1.366 kW/m2 of total solar irradiance[4] the total energy flow of sunlight striking Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 PW (cf. Sunlight#Solar constant). If all this power were absorbed this would be equivalent to the Earth gaining mass at a rate of 1.94 kg/s.
That is, if this article is correct, the earth recieves about 12,000 times as much energy from the sun as humanity uses.
Terawatt
The terawatt is equal to one trillion watts. The total power used by humans worldwide (about 15 TW) is commonly measured in these units. The most powerful lasers from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s produced power in terawatts, but only for nanoseconds. The average stroke of lightning peaks at 1 terawatt, but these strokes only last for 30 microseconds.
[edit] Petawatt
The petawatt is equal to one quadrillion watts and can be produced by the current generation of lasers for time-scales of the order of femtoseconds (10-15 s). Based on the average of 1.366 kW/m2 of total solar irradiance[4] the total energy flow of sunlight striking Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 PW (cf. Sunlight#Solar constant). If all this power were absorbed this would be equivalent to the Earth gaining mass at a rate of 1.94 kg/s.
That is, if this article is correct, the earth recieves about 12,000 times as much energy from the sun as humanity uses.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 12:05 AM)
Clip from the wikipedia article on "Watt".
Terawatt
The terawatt is equal to one trillion watts. The total power used by humans worldwide (about 15 TW) is commonly measured in these units. The most powerful lasers from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s produced power in terawatts, but only for nanoseconds. The average stroke of lightning peaks at 1 terawatt, but these strokes only last for 30 microseconds.
[edit] Petawatt
The petawatt is equal to one quadrillion watts and can be produced by the current generation of lasers for time-scales of the order of femtoseconds (10-15 s). Based on the average of 1.366 kW/m2 of total solar irradiance[4] the total energy flow of sunlight striking Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 PW (cf. Sunlight#Solar constant). If all this power were absorbed this would be equivalent to the Earth gaining mass at a rate of 1.94 kg/s.
That is, if this article is correct, the earth recieves about 12,000 times as much energy from the sun as humanity uses.
Terawatt
The terawatt is equal to one trillion watts. The total power used by humans worldwide (about 15 TW) is commonly measured in these units. The most powerful lasers from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s produced power in terawatts, but only for nanoseconds. The average stroke of lightning peaks at 1 terawatt, but these strokes only last for 30 microseconds.
[edit] Petawatt
The petawatt is equal to one quadrillion watts and can be produced by the current generation of lasers for time-scales of the order of femtoseconds (10-15 s). Based on the average of 1.366 kW/m2 of total solar irradiance[4] the total energy flow of sunlight striking Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 PW (cf. Sunlight#Solar constant). If all this power were absorbed this would be equivalent to the Earth gaining mass at a rate of 1.94 kg/s.
That is, if this article is correct, the earth recieves about 12,000 times as much energy from the sun as humanity uses.
Using the above figures, and an atmospheric surface area of 531 million sq km, the land exposure needed for current energy consumption would be about 46000 sq km. The US uses about 22% of total consumption, so about 10000 sq km would be needed in this country. There are at least 100 million commercial and residential units combined in the US, so 100 sq m per unit would be needed for required production. With a 25% solar efficiency, we could generate 1/4 of our total energy needs from rooftops alone.
QUOTE
This means eventually coverning entire continents and entire oceans (limited by ecology and space for shipping lanes,) with solar collectors on platforms anchored to the continental shelf, and floating cities over the deeper portions of the ocean, as well as deep water systems for extracting power from the mid-ocean ridges and methane-hydrate vents. Oil WILL be depleted within a few decades, and there needs to be other systems in place. Expense in terms of dollars is nearly irrelevant when we are talking about the total collapse of modern human civilization without these infrastructure being in place.
If you covered San Bernardino County, where I live, with solar panels, it's 50000 sq km would be enough to power the entire nation. Not that I would advocate such a concentration of solar technology, but it does show how excessive your energy plans would be. What kind of society do envision that would necessitate such a massive energy infrastructure? And how would you ever hope to put it in place without adversely affecting an already overstressed ecosystem?
In response to the OP, it would seems that there are still vast quantities of oil reserves left. Anyone here that think the 'Peak Oil' conspiracy's of late are just internal scams set to deliberately inflate the price of oil?
QUOTE (dakfe09+Aug 29 2009, 09:17 AM)
In response to the OP, it would seems that there are still vast quantities of oil reserves left. Anyone here that think the 'Peak Oil' conspiracy's of late are just internal scams set to deliberately inflate the price of oil?
Eventually there will be large populations of people living in highly advanced mega-structures on this planet. The human impulse to reproduce is both God-ordained and unavoidable. The energy needs and resources needed to feed, clothe, and shelter such populations and give them a living standard higher than our own are available on the earth, they simply need to be developed.
Moreover, if the energy is there and renewable, then we may as well use it in whatever beneficial means available. This means powering robotics, desalinization plants (the word "drought" need never scare any city planner anywhere ever again,) and on and on. Ecology is actually preserved because you use solar power to do desalinization. this means you don't need to drain existing fresh water basins, which means we can reverse the man-made desertification taking place in California's dry lake beds.
Most food will be grown in climate controlled greenhouses as the norm. Already, there are several large scale agricultural endeavours in the U.S. to produce crops in climate controlled greenhouses on a mega scale. Climate controlled greenhousing allows crops to be grown in locations that they cannot be grown in "open air", and allows even better production in places they are already grown by keeping conditions ideal and minimizing pests, etc.
One company I saw on a program recently has already purchased approximately one million acres of land, and is planning to eventually convert all of it to climate controlled greenhouses and the solar power plants needed to run the mechanical systems. There are highly mechanized watering and monitoring systems, humidifiers and de-humidifiers, and etc to control the exact temerature and humidity of the entire environment(much like my space colony concepts).
According to the information I saw, they are able to grow crops as much as 15 times more productive per acre than the same crop grown in open air farms. This has already been proven by the exploratory operations, and now they are planning on scaling up the project to include all of their assets. This sort of engineering requires a relatively large initial investment, but they calculated that all of the initial costs would pay for themselves in ten years.
Since the solar power is there and renewable, we may as well tap and use as much of it as we can to increase standard of living for all humans on earth. Global food shortages are inexcusable in this age. Imagine obtaining an extra growing season in the winter through the useage of climate control, the additional power to heat and light these facilities coming from solar power harvested on the off-shore platforms, etc. Thus, one can obtain additional growing season by taking the energy dispersed over larger area and concentrating it into the greenhouses.
In the future, humans will live in highly self maintaining mega-structures. There will be both macro-scopic and micro-scopic robotic cleaning and repair mechanisms desgined into the structure from the start. Outbreak of disease in these structures will be virtually impossible due to nano-scale cleaning and disinfecting machinery.
More and more manufacturing will be done by automated processes in factories with a more abitious approach to forward planning and engineering. Human engineers will program and maintain robots when they can't maintain themselves.
There will be automated transport systems and driving systems. No more semi-truck drivers, as automated vehicles using GPS, laser, infra-red, and video guidance will transport people, goods, and raw materials to where they are needed in an accident-free transportation network.
Cotton and wool will no longer be used for clothing, as nano-scale engineering will allow the production of synthetics from common dirt, the same way the plant's biochemistry works, but in a more efficient manner. In a plant, most of the material is "waste" in the form of "useless" stalks and leaves, but with nano-engineering clothing fibers could be constructed scores of times more efficiently from the same soil.
Mega-scale transport ships will run on a combination of direct solar power and hydrogen fuel cells(storing power from solar.) The floating collection facilities in the oceans will allow a transport of twice the size, because it can coast into the facility and "re-charge" its hydrogen fuel cell in mid-ocean.
The energy to power all of this and many, many more things will come from the sun.
Eventually there will be large populations of people living in highly advanced mega-structures on this planet. The human impulse to reproduce is both God-ordained and unavoidable. The energy needs and resources needed to feed, clothe, and shelter such populations and give them a living standard higher than our own are available on the earth, they simply need to be developed.
Moreover, if the energy is there and renewable, then we may as well use it in whatever beneficial means available. This means powering robotics, desalinization plants (the word "drought" need never scare any city planner anywhere ever again,) and on and on. Ecology is actually preserved because you use solar power to do desalinization. this means you don't need to drain existing fresh water basins, which means we can reverse the man-made desertification taking place in California's dry lake beds.
Most food will be grown in climate controlled greenhouses as the norm. Already, there are several large scale agricultural endeavours in the U.S. to produce crops in climate controlled greenhouses on a mega scale. Climate controlled greenhousing allows crops to be grown in locations that they cannot be grown in "open air", and allows even better production in places they are already grown by keeping conditions ideal and minimizing pests, etc.
One company I saw on a program recently has already purchased approximately one million acres of land, and is planning to eventually convert all of it to climate controlled greenhouses and the solar power plants needed to run the mechanical systems. There are highly mechanized watering and monitoring systems, humidifiers and de-humidifiers, and etc to control the exact temerature and humidity of the entire environment(much like my space colony concepts).
According to the information I saw, they are able to grow crops as much as 15 times more productive per acre than the same crop grown in open air farms. This has already been proven by the exploratory operations, and now they are planning on scaling up the project to include all of their assets. This sort of engineering requires a relatively large initial investment, but they calculated that all of the initial costs would pay for themselves in ten years.
Since the solar power is there and renewable, we may as well tap and use as much of it as we can to increase standard of living for all humans on earth. Global food shortages are inexcusable in this age. Imagine obtaining an extra growing season in the winter through the useage of climate control, the additional power to heat and light these facilities coming from solar power harvested on the off-shore platforms, etc. Thus, one can obtain additional growing season by taking the energy dispersed over larger area and concentrating it into the greenhouses.
In the future, humans will live in highly self maintaining mega-structures. There will be both macro-scopic and micro-scopic robotic cleaning and repair mechanisms desgined into the structure from the start. Outbreak of disease in these structures will be virtually impossible due to nano-scale cleaning and disinfecting machinery.
More and more manufacturing will be done by automated processes in factories with a more abitious approach to forward planning and engineering. Human engineers will program and maintain robots when they can't maintain themselves.
There will be automated transport systems and driving systems. No more semi-truck drivers, as automated vehicles using GPS, laser, infra-red, and video guidance will transport people, goods, and raw materials to where they are needed in an accident-free transportation network.
Cotton and wool will no longer be used for clothing, as nano-scale engineering will allow the production of synthetics from common dirt, the same way the plant's biochemistry works, but in a more efficient manner. In a plant, most of the material is "waste" in the form of "useless" stalks and leaves, but with nano-engineering clothing fibers could be constructed scores of times more efficiently from the same soil.
Mega-scale transport ships will run on a combination of direct solar power and hydrogen fuel cells(storing power from solar.) The floating collection facilities in the oceans will allow a transport of twice the size, because it can coast into the facility and "re-charge" its hydrogen fuel cell in mid-ocean.
The energy to power all of this and many, many more things will come from the sun.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 03:38 PM)
Eventually there will be large populations of people living in highly advanced mega-structures on this planet. The human impulse to reproduce is both God-ordained and unavoidable. The energy needs and resources needed to feed, clothe, and shelter such populations and give them a living standard higher than our own are available on the earth, they simply need to be developed.
What god ordained a planet choked full of humanity? The human population only needs to be large enough to facilitate the evolution of a superior follow on species that will eventually replace Homo sapiens as the dominant organism. A population of a billion people is more than enough to get the job done. Over time, the humans that do remain on Earth will continue to do more with less, and populations can contract to a level that allows the other species on the planet to thrive.
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 29 2009, 11:57 AM)
What god ordained a planet choked full of humanity? The human population only needs to be large enough to facilitate the evolution of a superior follow on species that will eventually replace Homo sapiens as the dominant organism. A population of a billion people is more than enough to get the job done. Over time, the humans that do remain on Earth will continue to do more with less, and populations can contract to a level that allows the other species on the planet to thrive.
1) Check the Bible, Genesis chapters 1, 2, and 9, I believe.
2) In other words, you plan to murder people and/or force them not to have children in order to bring about population decrease of nearly an entire order of magnitude...
The inhumanity of people like you and flyingbuttressman is absolutely astounding. What you have here described results in something virtually identical to the ideology of the Nazi party and their "Arian" race, and I certainly hope you never get your way.
3) Our planet is not "choked" full of humanity, at least not if we banned certain existing practices, such as "consumerism".
Example:
If people 2000 years ago knew how much we waste containers and even things like this computer, I think they'd have a heart attack just at the thought of it. Disposable bottles should be banned, and replaced with re-fillable containers for water, juices, and sodas. A huge portion of landfill space is composed of plastic water and soda bottles. This is not a problem of human population levels, but it is a problem of capitalism and consumerism. In a more collective-driven civilization, such mega-scale wasting of resources would never be allowed, but since capitalism is driven by the power and greed of the individual, as well as percieved convenience (convenience to self, not convenience to future generations), "dollars" are all that matter. Again, this world wide catasrophic waste of resources isn't caused by "overpopulation," but is instead caused by a complete lack of regard for collective consequences, particularly to future generations.
With a sufficient infrastructure, nobody would ever need to buy bottled water, juice, or soda in a disposable container, because refillable containers would be more than adequate. Recycling of any "disposables" that continue to be used should become not just a suggestion, but a government mandate, everywhere.
4) Your reasoning is also faulty even in an evolutionist world view. It would stand to reason that if we believed ourselves to be evolving into a more superior species then in order to increase the odds of creating the "most superior" species, we would actually want to have the most possible offspring, and on the most possible number of planets and star systems.
5) Population decrease causes a decrease in genetic diversity and is necessarily Eugenic in nature. You may as well be a Nazi once you take the insane leap down that road, as who will make the decision of who is and is not allowed to reproduce? Such population control would only be enforced by a totalitarian state which would eventually force or forbid marriages according to Eugenic principles, and eventually even ban sexual reproduction entirely. I want nothing to do with any such Nazi humanity.
1) Check the Bible, Genesis chapters 1, 2, and 9, I believe.
2) In other words, you plan to murder people and/or force them not to have children in order to bring about population decrease of nearly an entire order of magnitude...
The inhumanity of people like you and flyingbuttressman is absolutely astounding. What you have here described results in something virtually identical to the ideology of the Nazi party and their "Arian" race, and I certainly hope you never get your way.
3) Our planet is not "choked" full of humanity, at least not if we banned certain existing practices, such as "consumerism".
Example:
If people 2000 years ago knew how much we waste containers and even things like this computer, I think they'd have a heart attack just at the thought of it. Disposable bottles should be banned, and replaced with re-fillable containers for water, juices, and sodas. A huge portion of landfill space is composed of plastic water and soda bottles. This is not a problem of human population levels, but it is a problem of capitalism and consumerism. In a more collective-driven civilization, such mega-scale wasting of resources would never be allowed, but since capitalism is driven by the power and greed of the individual, as well as percieved convenience (convenience to self, not convenience to future generations), "dollars" are all that matter. Again, this world wide catasrophic waste of resources isn't caused by "overpopulation," but is instead caused by a complete lack of regard for collective consequences, particularly to future generations.
With a sufficient infrastructure, nobody would ever need to buy bottled water, juice, or soda in a disposable container, because refillable containers would be more than adequate. Recycling of any "disposables" that continue to be used should become not just a suggestion, but a government mandate, everywhere.
4) Your reasoning is also faulty even in an evolutionist world view. It would stand to reason that if we believed ourselves to be evolving into a more superior species then in order to increase the odds of creating the "most superior" species, we would actually want to have the most possible offspring, and on the most possible number of planets and star systems.
5) Population decrease causes a decrease in genetic diversity and is necessarily Eugenic in nature. You may as well be a Nazi once you take the insane leap down that road, as who will make the decision of who is and is not allowed to reproduce? Such population control would only be enforced by a totalitarian state which would eventually force or forbid marriages according to Eugenic principles, and eventually even ban sexual reproduction entirely. I want nothing to do with any such Nazi humanity.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 02:03 PM)
In other words, you plan to murder people and/or force them not to have children in order to bring about population decrease of nearly an entire order of magnitude...
Population decrease is an ongoing phenomenon in developed countries. The populations of Britain and Japan are both shrinking. The population of the US would be shrinking if not for immigration. This has little to do with abortion, instead it has more to do with the choice of many couples to have fewer children.
Godwin's law. Also, f*ck you. You have so little understanding of the world around you that it is truly shocking.
Godwin's law. Also, f*ck you. You have so little understanding of the world around you that it is truly shocking.
Our planet is not "choked" full of humanity, at least not if we banned certain existing practices, such as "consumerism".
Does the phrase "6 BILLION PEOPLE" mean anything to you? Ban Consumerism? Really? Look in a mirror.
You don't understand evolution and you never will.
You don't understand evolution and you never will.
Population decrease causes a decrease in genetic diversity and is necessarily Eugenic in nature. You may as well be a Nazi once you take the insane leap down that road, as who will make the decision of who is and is not allowed to reproduce? Such population control would only be enforced by a totalitarian state which would eventually force or forbid marriages according to Eugenic principles, and eventually even ban sexual reproduction entirely. I want nothing to do with any such Nazi humanity.
Population decline can happen by itself for a number of reasons. No-one would ever suggest active population reduction. China tried that, it didn't work. Populations reach a stable level when the standard of living increases.
You are a f*cking idiot.
Population decrease is an ongoing phenomenon in developed countries. The populations of Britain and Japan are both shrinking. The population of the US would be shrinking if not for immigration. This has little to do with abortion, instead it has more to do with the choice of many couples to have fewer children.
QUOTE
The inhumanity of people like you and flyingbuttressman is absolutely astounding. What you have here described results in something virtually identical to the ideology of the Nazi party and their "Arian" race, and I certainly hope you never get your way.
Godwin's law. Also, f*ck you. You have so little understanding of the world around you that it is truly shocking.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The inhumanity of people like you and flyingbuttressman is absolutely astounding. What you have here described results in something virtually identical to the ideology of the Nazi party and their "Arian" race, and I certainly hope you never get your way. |
Godwin's law. Also, f*ck you. You have so little understanding of the world around you that it is truly shocking.
Our planet is not "choked" full of humanity, at least not if we banned certain existing practices, such as "consumerism".
Does the phrase "6 BILLION PEOPLE" mean anything to you? Ban Consumerism? Really? Look in a mirror.
QUOTE
Your reasoning is also faulty even in an evolutionist world view. It would stand to reason that if we believed ourselves to be evolving into a more superior species then in order to increase the odds of creating the "most superior" species, we would actually want to have the most possible offspring, and on the most possible number of planets and star systems.
You don't understand evolution and you never will.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your reasoning is also faulty even in an evolutionist world view. It would stand to reason that if we believed ourselves to be evolving into a more superior species then in order to increase the odds of creating the "most superior" species, we would actually want to have the most possible offspring, and on the most possible number of planets and star systems. |
You don't understand evolution and you never will.
Population decrease causes a decrease in genetic diversity and is necessarily Eugenic in nature. You may as well be a Nazi once you take the insane leap down that road, as who will make the decision of who is and is not allowed to reproduce? Such population control would only be enforced by a totalitarian state which would eventually force or forbid marriages according to Eugenic principles, and eventually even ban sexual reproduction entirely. I want nothing to do with any such Nazi humanity.
Population decline can happen by itself for a number of reasons. No-one would ever suggest active population reduction. China tried that, it didn't work. Populations reach a stable level when the standard of living increases.
You are a f*cking idiot.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 29 2009, 01:20 PM)
Population decrease is an ongoing phenomenon in developed countries. The populations of Britain and Japan are both shrinking. The population of the US would be shrinking if not for immigration. This has little to do with abortion, instead it has more to do with the choice of many couples to have fewer children.
Godwin's law. Also, f*ck you. You have so little understanding of the world around you that it is truly shocking.
What is the deal with you anyway? You seem incapable of discussing anything with anyone without resorting to the most obscene and violent outbursts.
Actually, I believe it is closer to about 6.7 billion. In any case, population level is about 33 per square mile, if my numbers are right.
Actually, I believe it is closer to about 6.7 billion. In any case, population level is about 33 per square mile, if my numbers are right.
Ban Consumerism? Really? Look in a mirror.
First of all, you don't know much of anything about me and my "consumerism" habits. Secondly, I waste far, far less than nearly anyone I know of, so much so that most of my family considers me "tight" with money, and most people consider them to be tight with money.
You are clearly wrong and ridiculous. Among the basic assumptions evolutionists make is that it is more beneficial for a species to reproduce more often and in a wider area to maximize its chance of survival. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't understand biology.
If you have twice as many children, then there is twice the chance some of them survive.
If you have twice as many planets, then there is twice the chance humans survive.
If you have twice as many stars, then there is twice the chance of surviving, etc.
You are clearly wrong and ridiculous. Among the basic assumptions evolutionists make is that it is more beneficial for a species to reproduce more often and in a wider area to maximize its chance of survival. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't understand biology.
If you have twice as many children, then there is twice the chance some of them survive.
If you have twice as many planets, then there is twice the chance humans survive.
If you have twice as many stars, then there is twice the chance of surviving, etc.
Population decline can happen by itself for a number of reasons. No-one would ever suggest active population reduction. China tried that, it didn't work. Populations reach a stable level when the standard of living increases.
"Stable level" and "decline" are two entirely different things. That guy was advocating reducing world population to one billion, which is practically impossible through any means other than genocide or nuclear war.
I have an I.Q. of at least 140-145, and in general, do a lot more reading of one sort or another than almost anyone I know, except one of my uncles.
Godwin's law. Also, f*ck you. You have so little understanding of the world around you that it is truly shocking.
What is the deal with you anyway? You seem incapable of discussing anything with anyone without resorting to the most obscene and violent outbursts.
QUOTE
Does the phrase "6 BILLION PEOPLE" mean anything to you?
Actually, I believe it is closer to about 6.7 billion. In any case, population level is about 33 per square mile, if my numbers are right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does the phrase "6 BILLION PEOPLE" mean anything to you? |
Actually, I believe it is closer to about 6.7 billion. In any case, population level is about 33 per square mile, if my numbers are right.
Ban Consumerism? Really? Look in a mirror.
First of all, you don't know much of anything about me and my "consumerism" habits. Secondly, I waste far, far less than nearly anyone I know of, so much so that most of my family considers me "tight" with money, and most people consider them to be tight with money.
QUOTE
You don't understand evolution and you never will.
You are clearly wrong and ridiculous. Among the basic assumptions evolutionists make is that it is more beneficial for a species to reproduce more often and in a wider area to maximize its chance of survival. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't understand biology.
If you have twice as many children, then there is twice the chance some of them survive.
If you have twice as many planets, then there is twice the chance humans survive.
If you have twice as many stars, then there is twice the chance of surviving, etc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't understand evolution and you never will. |
You are clearly wrong and ridiculous. Among the basic assumptions evolutionists make is that it is more beneficial for a species to reproduce more often and in a wider area to maximize its chance of survival. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't understand biology.
If you have twice as many children, then there is twice the chance some of them survive.
If you have twice as many planets, then there is twice the chance humans survive.
If you have twice as many stars, then there is twice the chance of surviving, etc.
Population decline can happen by itself for a number of reasons. No-one would ever suggest active population reduction. China tried that, it didn't work. Populations reach a stable level when the standard of living increases.
"Stable level" and "decline" are two entirely different things. That guy was advocating reducing world population to one billion, which is practically impossible through any means other than genocide or nuclear war.
QUOTE
You are a f*cking idiot.
I have an I.Q. of at least 140-145, and in general, do a lot more reading of one sort or another than almost anyone I know, except one of my uncles.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 04:19 PM)
What is the deal with you anyway? You seem incapable of discussing anything with anyone without resorting to the most obscene and violent outbursts.
I seem to remember you comparing people to Nazis.
Who cares?
Who cares?
You are clearly wrong and ridiculous. Among the basic assumptions evolutionists make is that it is more beneficial for a species to reproduce more often and in a wider area to maximize its chance of survival. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't understand biology.
I called you stupid because you think that species can evolve toward a "superior" form. There is no "superior" form of a species. There is no direction or intention in evolution. I know that Capricus hinted at it first, but he's wrong too.
You obviously can't tell the difference between forceful reduction and natural reduction. Given the quite possible future reduction in available resources, population reduction is a possibility.
You obviously can't tell the difference between forceful reduction and natural reduction. Given the quite possible future reduction in available resources, population reduction is a possibility.
I have an I.Q. of at least 140-145, and in general, do a lot more reading of one sort or another than almost anyone I know.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA
I seem to remember you comparing people to Nazis.
QUOTE
First of all, you don't know much of anything about me and my "consumerism" habits. Secondly, I waste far, far less than nearly anyone I know of, so much so that most of my family considers me "tight" with money, and most people consider them to be tight with money.
Who cares?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First of all, you don't know much of anything about me and my "consumerism" habits. Secondly, I waste far, far less than nearly anyone I know of, so much so that most of my family considers me "tight" with money, and most people consider them to be tight with money. |
Who cares?
You are clearly wrong and ridiculous. Among the basic assumptions evolutionists make is that it is more beneficial for a species to reproduce more often and in a wider area to maximize its chance of survival. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't understand biology.
I called you stupid because you think that species can evolve toward a "superior" form. There is no "superior" form of a species. There is no direction or intention in evolution. I know that Capricus hinted at it first, but he's wrong too.
QUOTE
"Stable level" and "decline" are two entirely different things. That guy was advocating reducing world population to one billion, which is practically impossible through any means other than genocide or nuclear war.
You obviously can't tell the difference between forceful reduction and natural reduction. Given the quite possible future reduction in available resources, population reduction is a possibility.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Stable level" and "decline" are two entirely different things. That guy was advocating reducing world population to one billion, which is practically impossible through any means other than genocide or nuclear war. |
You obviously can't tell the difference between forceful reduction and natural reduction. Given the quite possible future reduction in available resources, population reduction is a possibility.
I have an I.Q. of at least 140-145, and in general, do a lot more reading of one sort or another than almost anyone I know.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 06:03 PM)
1) Check the Bible, Genesis chapters 1, 2, and 9, I believe.
Just how literally do you take these fairy tales, do you really take the creation myth to be fact? When this god instructed its creation to fill the Earth, was there also instructions to fill the oceans with cities, to construct mega-structures, and to produce mega populations that occupy the planet at the expense of its other creations? If you were tasked with filling a church on a Sunday morning, would you bring just enough to fill the seats, or would you try to maximize space and stack people to the ceiling? The point is, for a church and the planet to properly function, the populations of both must be regulated.
QUOTE
2) In other words, you plan to murder people and/or force them not to have children in order to bring about population decrease of nearly an entire order of magnitude...
I would not encourage the murder of anyone. I would encourage people that for the evolutionary good of our civilization and planet, we should reduce our population through attrition and efficient methods of birth control. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) In other words, you plan to murder people and/or force them not to have children in order to bring about population decrease of nearly an entire order of magnitude... |
I would not encourage the murder of anyone. I would encourage people that for the evolutionary good of our civilization and planet, we should reduce our population through attrition and efficient methods of birth control.
The inhumanity of people like you and flyingbuttressman is absolutely astounding. What you have here described results in something virtually identical to the ideology of the Nazi party and their "Arian" race, and I certainly hope you never get your way.
The inhumanity of people like you and flyingbuttressman is absolutely astounding. What you have here described results in something virtually identical to the ideology of the Nazi party and their "Arian" race, and I certainly hope you never get your way.
When your freedom to breed equates to freedom to spoil the planet and retard evolutionary progress, then your action become an offense in a civilized world. You think your fairy tale instructions give you a superior definition of humanity? Why would the wisdom of ancients with a lesser understanding of our human condition, be more valuable than the teachings of our contemporaries?
The Nazis tried to emulate the superstitious and repressive attitudes of ancient civilizations, and attempted to attain their goals through the use of modern technology. They, like you, saw a future that was guided by their twisted mystic view of the world.
The Nazis tried to emulate the superstitious and repressive attitudes of ancient civilizations, and attempted to attain their goals through the use of modern technology. They, like you, saw a future that was guided by their twisted mystic view of the world.
QUOTE
3) Our planet is not "choked" full of humanity, at least not if we banned certain existing practices, such as "consumerism".
Excess population is a product of consumerism. Economies depend on expanding populations to market more goods. Large populations increase competition for labor and drive down labor costs. To sustain this trend, markets are flooded with more and more nonessential goods that consumers are conditioned to desire. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) Our planet is not "choked" full of humanity, at least not if we banned certain existing practices, such as "consumerism". |
Excess population is a product of consumerism. Economies depend on expanding populations to market more goods. Large populations increase competition for labor and drive down labor costs. To sustain this trend, markets are flooded with more and more nonessential goods that consumers are conditioned to desire.
Example:
If people 2000 years ago knew how much we waste containers and even things like this computer, I think they'd have a heart attack just at the thought of it. Disposable bottles should be banned, and replaced with re-fillable containers for water, juices, and sodas. A huge portion of landfill space is composed of plastic water and soda bottles. This is not a problem of human population levels, but it is a problem of capitalism and consumerism. In a more collective-driven civilization, such mega-scale wasting of resources would never be allowed, but since capitalism is driven by the power and greed of the individual, as well as perceived convenience (convenience to self, not convenience to future generations), "dollars" are all that matter. Again, this world wide catasrophic waste of resources isn't caused by "overpopulation," but is instead caused by a complete lack of regard for collective consequences, particularly to future generations.
With a sufficient infrastructure, nobody would ever need to buy bottled water, juice, or soda in a disposable container, because refillable containers would be more than adequate. Recycling of any "disposables" that continue to be used should become not just a suggestion, but a government mandate, everywhere.
Example:
If people 2000 years ago knew how much we waste containers and even things like this computer, I think they'd have a heart attack just at the thought of it. Disposable bottles should be banned, and replaced with re-fillable containers for water, juices, and sodas. A huge portion of landfill space is composed of plastic water and soda bottles. This is not a problem of human population levels, but it is a problem of capitalism and consumerism. In a more collective-driven civilization, such mega-scale wasting of resources would never be allowed, but since capitalism is driven by the power and greed of the individual, as well as perceived convenience (convenience to self, not convenience to future generations), "dollars" are all that matter. Again, this world wide catasrophic waste of resources isn't caused by "overpopulation," but is instead caused by a complete lack of regard for collective consequences, particularly to future generations.
With a sufficient infrastructure, nobody would ever need to buy bottled water, juice, or soda in a disposable container, because refillable containers would be more than adequate. Recycling of any "disposables" that continue to be used should become not just a suggestion, but a government mandate, everywhere.
Replace maga-systems and mega-populations, with systems to service reasonable, stable populations, and I would support your social engineering proposals.
QUOTE
4) Your reasoning is also faulty even in an evolutionist world view. It would stand to reason that if we believed ourselves to be evolving into a more superior species then in order to increase the odds of creating the "most superior" species, we would actually want to have the most possible offspring, and on the most possible number of planets and star systems.
Because of our present and projected technological state, evolution is no longer dependent on traditional pressures. Human technology is becoming nature's fast track to evolutionary change. We will be able make changes in decades, that occurred naturally over billions of years.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) Your reasoning is also faulty even in an evolutionist world view. It would stand to reason that if we believed ourselves to be evolving into a more superior species then in order to increase the odds of creating the "most superior" species, we would actually want to have the most possible offspring, and on the most possible number of planets and star systems. |
Because of our present and projected technological state, evolution is no longer dependent on traditional pressures. Human technology is becoming nature's fast track to evolutionary change. We will be able make changes in decades, that occurred naturally over billions of years.
5) Population decrease causes a decrease in genetic diversity and is necessarily Eugenic in nature. You may as well be a Nazi once you take the insane leap down that road, as who will make the decision of who is and is not allowed to reproduce? Such population control would only be enforced by a totalitarian state which would eventually force or forbid marriages according to Eugenic principles, and eventually even ban sexual reproduction entirely. I want nothing to do with any such Nazi humanity.
5) Population decrease causes a decrease in genetic diversity and is necessarily Eugenic in nature. You may as well be a Nazi once you take the insane leap down that road, as who will make the decision of who is and is not allowed to reproduce? Such population control would only be enforced by a totalitarian state which would eventually force or forbid marriages according to Eugenic principles, and eventually even ban sexual reproduction entirely. I want nothing to do with any such Nazi humanity.
I guess the same totalitarian state that will mandate how we consume products and energy. I could care less how, and with whom people procreate, as long as they don't do it excessively. When people are able to improve their form and function through technology, I'm sure they will. When people are able to create superior organisms, they'll do that too. For those that don't want to change, they'll eventually be looked upon as chimps in the forest by the dominant organisms of the day.
Gee, I hate to interfere with a perfectly good pissing contest by introducing real facts, but the company I work for is actively developing large-scale (100MW) solar farms both as "peaker plants" (for load-leveling when people crank up their A/C units) and full-time power plants, where the solar heat is stored for 24-hour use.
The first plant will probably go in Spain, which has a government that sees the need and actually acts on principle. Other potential solar farms are being considered for the SW US, in Nevada and/or New Mexico. Australia is practically begging for someone to produce a 25MW solar power plant for their gold mines in the Outback, but we can't scale ours down that low without a complete redesign.
Companies and governments *are* busy developing solar farms, it just isn't as easy as it looks so it takes more time than one would think to build them.
The first plant will probably go in Spain, which has a government that sees the need and actually acts on principle. Other potential solar farms are being considered for the SW US, in Nevada and/or New Mexico. Australia is practically begging for someone to produce a 25MW solar power plant for their gold mines in the Outback, but we can't scale ours down that low without a complete redesign.
Companies and governments *are* busy developing solar farms, it just isn't as easy as it looks so it takes more time than one would think to build them.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 30 2009, 01:53 PM)
http://www.solar-reserve.com/ ?
Yes, I am quite familliar with this and several other types of solar towers.
*sigh* if only the U.S. government had invested the entirety of the "stimulus package" money directly into constructing solar power plants, instead of bailing out failed capitalist institutions, they could have constructed nearly 1000 of those solar towers...
I saw a model for one proposal in Australia which is a very large scale collector which is designed like in inverted funnel. Solar energy hits the surface at ground level, heating the air. This air's natural tendancy is to move up towards the center, where it passes up through turbines, producing electricity. The vaccuum left behind this air is quickly filled from the outer edges by new air from the surrounding area. However, I'm not convinced this model is better than conventional solar panels or a salt tower.
Yes, I am quite familliar with this and several other types of solar towers.
*sigh* if only the U.S. government had invested the entirety of the "stimulus package" money directly into constructing solar power plants, instead of bailing out failed capitalist institutions, they could have constructed nearly 1000 of those solar towers...
I saw a model for one proposal in Australia which is a very large scale collector which is designed like in inverted funnel. Solar energy hits the surface at ground level, heating the air. This air's natural tendancy is to move up towards the center, where it passes up through turbines, producing electricity. The vaccuum left behind this air is quickly filled from the outer edges by new air from the surrounding area. However, I'm not convinced this model is better than conventional solar panels or a salt tower.
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 29 2009, 09:00 AM)
Using the above figures, and an atmospheric surface area of 531 million sq km, the land exposure needed for current energy consumption would be about 46000 sq km. The US uses about 22% of total consumption, so about 10000 sq km would be needed in this country. There are at least 100 million commercial and residential units combined in the US, so 100 sq m per unit would be needed for required production. With a 25% solar efficiency, we could generate 1/4 of our total energy needs from rooftops alone.
If you covered San Bernardino County, where I live, with solar panels, it's 50000 sq km would be enough to power the entire nation. Not that I would advocate such a concentration of solar technology, but it does show how excessive your energy plans would be. What kind of society do envision that would necessitate such a massive energy infrastructure? And how would you ever hope to put it in place without adversely affecting an already overstressed ecosystem?
As I stated earlier, solar energy exists in the same quantity whether or not we use it. Therefore, we may as well use it.
Excess energy can be stored long-term for future use in chemical form, such as hydrogen fuel cells.
If you covered San Bernardino County, where I live, with solar panels, it's 50000 sq km would be enough to power the entire nation. Not that I would advocate such a concentration of solar technology, but it does show how excessive your energy plans would be. What kind of society do envision that would necessitate such a massive energy infrastructure? And how would you ever hope to put it in place without adversely affecting an already overstressed ecosystem?
As I stated earlier, solar energy exists in the same quantity whether or not we use it. Therefore, we may as well use it.
Excess energy can be stored long-term for future use in chemical form, such as hydrogen fuel cells.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 30 2009, 10:12 PM)
As I stated earlier, solar energy exists in the same quantity whether or not we use it. Therefore, we may as well use it.
Excess energy can be stored long-term for future use in chemical form, such as hydrogen fuel cells.
Excess energy can be stored long-term for future use in chemical form, such as hydrogen fuel cells.
Improvement in technological efficiency leads to reduction in power consumption and size, hopefully the same can be expected in human population trends.
Solar radiation may available at no expense, but the materials, labor and real estate are not, there's no sense wasting resources to collect more than we need.
Solar radiation may available at no expense, but the materials, labor and real estate are not, there's no sense wasting resources to collect more than we need.
Mamma mia, I didn't imagine they
http://www.solar-reserve.com/
used potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate!
If the project stops or is dismantled, at least we can have fun with the salt!
http://www.solar-reserve.com/
used potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate!
If the project stops or is dismantled, at least we can have fun with the salt!
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 31 2009, 09:09 AM)
Improvement in technological efficiency leads to reduction in power consumption and size, hopefully the same can be expected in human population trends.
Solar radiation may available at no expense, but the materials, labor and real estate are not, there's no sense wasting resources to collect more than we need.
Future uses and needs may exceed expectations, particularly in emergency situations.
For example, it would be nice to have a large reserve of energy in a clean form for use in powering a laser defense system or plasma shield in emergencies to protect against asteroids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU
Imagine this scaled up for incinerating asteroids, causing net thrust via vapor/ejecta on impact, changing their course. You could, of course, have them on the Moon and Mars as well.
Solar radiation may available at no expense, but the materials, labor and real estate are not, there's no sense wasting resources to collect more than we need.
Future uses and needs may exceed expectations, particularly in emergency situations.
For example, it would be nice to have a large reserve of energy in a clean form for use in powering a laser defense system or plasma shield in emergencies to protect against asteroids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU
Imagine this scaled up for incinerating asteroids, causing net thrust via vapor/ejecta on impact, changing their course. You could, of course, have them on the Moon and Mars as well.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 09:08 AM)
Future uses and needs may exceed expectations, particularly in emergency situations.
No-one would be stupid enough to base emergency military systems on the public power grid.
I'll give you lasers, but a plasma shield? Since when does that have any basis in reality?
No-one would be stupid enough to base emergency military systems on the public power grid.
QUOTE
For example, it would be nice to have a large reserve of energy in a clean form for use in powering a laser defense system or plasma shield in emergencies to protect against asteroids.
I'll give you lasers, but a plasma shield? Since when does that have any basis in reality?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 2 2009, 08:16 AM)
No-one would be stupid enough to base emergency military systems on the public power grid.
I'll give you lasers, but a plasma shield? Since when does that have any basis in reality?
The U.S. government is currently researching plasma weapons and plasma shields based on alternating layers of cold and hot plasmas.
Last paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_pencil
I'll give you lasers, but a plasma shield? Since when does that have any basis in reality?
The U.S. government is currently researching plasma weapons and plasma shields based on alternating layers of cold and hot plasmas.
Last paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_pencil
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 09:40 AM)
The U.S. government is currently researching plasma weapons and plasma shields based on alternating layers of cold and hot plasmas.
Plasma window technology has nothing to do with the application you suggested. It has a maximum resistance force of nine atmospheres. How do you think that would fare against a rock with the kinetic force of several hundred atomic bombs?
(edit)
What I said was impossible is a "plasma shield." What you posted does not fit the definition of "shield."
QUOTE
For example, it would be nice to have a large reserve of energy in a clean form for use in powering a laser defense system or plasma shield in emergencies to protect against asteroids.
Plasma window technology has nothing to do with the application you suggested. It has a maximum resistance force of nine atmospheres. How do you think that would fare against a rock with the kinetic force of several hundred atomic bombs?
(edit)
What I said was impossible is a "plasma shield." What you posted does not fit the definition of "shield."
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 01:08 PM)
Future uses and needs may exceed expectations, particularly in emergency situations.
For example, it would be nice to have a large reserve of energy in a clean form for use in powering a laser defense system or plasma shield in emergencies to protect against asteroids.
For example, it would be nice to have a large reserve of energy in a clean form for use in powering a laser defense system or plasma shield in emergencies to protect against asteroids.
Over the last 6000 years, the only extinction level event has been the Great Flood. If an asteroid were to threaten the Earth, wouldn't it likely just be another example of a vengeful god exacting punishment on it's flawed creation? Shouldn't we just bend over and take it like a good bitch.
QUOTE
Imagine this scaled up for incinerating asteroids, causing net thrust via vapor/ejecta on impact, changing their course. You could, of course, have them on the Moon and Mars as well.
If this country had its priorities straight as far space policy goes, then we'd withhold resources from manned spaceflight, and apply them to asteroid detection and avoidance. Early detection takes away the emergency nature of the equation, and allows for redirection solutions that involve minimal energy consumption.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 2 2009, 09:14 AM)
Over the last 6000 years, the only extinction level event has been the Great Flood. If an asteroid were to threaten the Earth, wouldn't it likely just be another example of a vengeful god exacting punishment on it's flawed creation? Shouldn't we just bend over and take it like a good bitch.
If this country had its priorities straight as far space policy goes, then we'd withhold resources from manned spaceflight, and apply them to asteroid detection and avoidance. Early detection takes away the emergency nature of the equation, and allows for redirection solutions that involve minimal energy consumption.
Ever notice bees and ants don't just live in one place? They spread out and create other colonies as new queens are born and mature. In this way new resources are made available to the species and they are less vulnerable to catasrophe.
If this country had its priorities straight, alcohol and tobacco would be banned, actors and football players wouldn't make more money than doctors and engineers, and 55% would not be considered a "passing grade" on a high school semester report card in any course, especially mathematics.
If this country had its priorities straight as far space policy goes, then we'd withhold resources from manned spaceflight, and apply them to asteroid detection and avoidance. Early detection takes away the emergency nature of the equation, and allows for redirection solutions that involve minimal energy consumption.
Ever notice bees and ants don't just live in one place? They spread out and create other colonies as new queens are born and mature. In this way new resources are made available to the species and they are less vulnerable to catasrophe.
If this country had its priorities straight, alcohol and tobacco would be banned, actors and football players wouldn't make more money than doctors and engineers, and 55% would not be considered a "passing grade" on a high school semester report card in any course, especially mathematics.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 11:15 AM)
Ever notice bees and ants don't just live in one place? They spread out and create other colonies as new queens are born and mature. In this way new resources are made available to the species and they are less vulnerable to catasrophe.
I thought that your magical god was enough to protect us from catastrophe.
I like my alcohol, keep your teetotaling hands off of it. Why does the government have the right to tell anyone what to do? Last time I checked, that's FASCISM.
How did you pass science class (especially biology)? That's the real mystery. Your knowledge of geology, physics, biology and chemistry are extremely lacking. Maybe you shouldn't have graduated.
I thought that your magical god was enough to protect us from catastrophe.
QUOTE
If this country had its priorities straight, alcohol and tobacco would be banned, actors and football players wouldn't make more money than doctors and engineers, and 55% would not be considered a "passing grade" on a high school semester report card in any course, especially mathematics.
I like my alcohol, keep your teetotaling hands off of it. Why does the government have the right to tell anyone what to do? Last time I checked, that's FASCISM.
How did you pass science class (especially biology)? That's the real mystery. Your knowledge of geology, physics, biology and chemistry are extremely lacking. Maybe you shouldn't have graduated.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 2 2009, 10:21 AM)
I thought that your magical god was enough to protect us from catastrophe.
How did you pass science class (especially biology)? That's the real mystery. Your knowledge of geology, physics, biology and chemistry are extremely lacking. Maybe you shouldn't have graduated.
Idiot.
I tended to get perfect or near-perfect scores in my science classes, thanks.
"Knowledge" and "conclusions" are two very different things.
Just because I disagree with a theory or reach different conclusions doesn't mean I don't understand it. Maybe if you had been thought to think for yourself, instead of being taught what to think...
You make ridiculous assumptions and conclusions in various branches of science for which you have no basis, which has lead us to theoretical tail chasing in the form of String Theory and M-Theory, etc.
Congratulations idiot, kill some more brain cells and liver cells, and, while you're at it, risk endangering other people.
So, government shouldn't tell people what they can do eh? So lets legalize murder and rape then, idiot. Let's legalize robbery and child prostitution while we are at it, fool.
Of course (at least I hope,) you will now say, "No, no, don't do that...." But then, you actually do believe in concrete moral standards, and government should tell people what to do. Your argument is refuted.
The problem with you liberal morons is you have absolutely no moral conscience whatsoever, "Everyone just do whatever the hell you feel like, regardless of the consequences short-term or long-term. As long as it isn't rape or murder, it's perfectly acceptable by me..." And of course, its only "murder" if its been outside the womb for at least a couple years...
How did you pass science class (especially biology)? That's the real mystery. Your knowledge of geology, physics, biology and chemistry are extremely lacking. Maybe you shouldn't have graduated.
Idiot.
I tended to get perfect or near-perfect scores in my science classes, thanks.
"Knowledge" and "conclusions" are two very different things.
Just because I disagree with a theory or reach different conclusions doesn't mean I don't understand it. Maybe if you had been thought to think for yourself, instead of being taught what to think...
You make ridiculous assumptions and conclusions in various branches of science for which you have no basis, which has lead us to theoretical tail chasing in the form of String Theory and M-Theory, etc.
QUOTE
I like my alcohol, keep your teetotaling hands off of it. Why does the government have the right to tell anyone what to do? Last time I checked, that's FASCISM.
Congratulations idiot, kill some more brain cells and liver cells, and, while you're at it, risk endangering other people.
So, government shouldn't tell people what they can do eh? So lets legalize murder and rape then, idiot. Let's legalize robbery and child prostitution while we are at it, fool.
Of course (at least I hope,) you will now say, "No, no, don't do that...." But then, you actually do believe in concrete moral standards, and government should tell people what to do. Your argument is refuted.
The problem with you liberal morons is you have absolutely no moral conscience whatsoever, "Everyone just do whatever the hell you feel like, regardless of the consequences short-term or long-term. As long as it isn't rape or murder, it's perfectly acceptable by me..." And of course, its only "murder" if its been outside the womb for at least a couple years...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 12:48 PM)
"Knowledge" and "conclusions" are two very different things.
If you actually had knowledge of evolution, you would be aware of the mountain of evidence for, and the complete and utter lack of evidence against, but you have chosen instead to ignore the facts and listen to those who have a contempt for scientific process and would rather believe in myth than fact. There is no case for creationism, intelligent design, or all that other BS. The evidences presented by those who argue for those ideas consist mostly of flawed logical proofs and blatant and intentional misunderstandings of evidence. Seriously, if you have any arguments or evidence for your view on evolution/creation, I challenge you to post them and see how fast they get debunked.
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!! I was a creationist until I realized that I could not reconcile creationism with scientific facts. The biblical account of creation is a myth, why can't you accept that?
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!! I was a creationist until I realized that I could not reconcile creationism with scientific facts. The biblical account of creation is a myth, why can't you accept that?
You make ridiculous assumptions and conclusions in various branches of science for which you have no basis, which has lead us to theoretical tail chasing in the form of String Theory and M-Theory, etc.
Maybe if you understood a sixth of what those theories are, then maybe I would listen to you. Theoretical physicists aren't sitting around making sh*t up. They have a solid basis for their theories.
So you are comparing a cyclical system which will always yield the same state no matter how long it is run with a system which clearly changes over time.
You've made statments touting your accomplishements in your science courses. I find that I disbelieve those statements, based on your posts here.
Yes.. that's because we designed them. No such event with biological organism who evolved.
Yes.. that's because we designed them. No such event with biological organism who evolved.
You said you are a computer programmer, well make a random character generation program, and then attempt to compile its output. See how often you end up with something that doesn't crash your compiler, let alone something that actually runs and is complex as the DNA of a microbe.
If you actually had knowledge of evolution, you would be aware of the mountain of evidence for, and the complete and utter lack of evidence against, but you have chosen instead to ignore the facts and listen to those who have a contempt for scientific process and would rather believe in myth than fact. There is no case for creationism, intelligent design, or all that other BS. The evidences presented by those who argue for those ideas consist mostly of flawed logical proofs and blatant and intentional misunderstandings of evidence. Seriously, if you have any arguments or evidence for your view on evolution/creation, I challenge you to post them and see how fast they get debunked.
QUOTE
Just because I disagree with a theory or reach different conclusions doesn't mean I don't understand it. Maybe if you had been thought to think for yourself, instead of being taught what to think...
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!! I was a creationist until I realized that I could not reconcile creationism with scientific facts. The biblical account of creation is a myth, why can't you accept that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just because I disagree with a theory or reach different conclusions doesn't mean I don't understand it. Maybe if you had been thought to think for yourself, instead of being taught what to think... |
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!! I was a creationist until I realized that I could not reconcile creationism with scientific facts. The biblical account of creation is a myth, why can't you accept that?
You make ridiculous assumptions and conclusions in various branches of science for which you have no basis, which has lead us to theoretical tail chasing in the form of String Theory and M-Theory, etc.
Maybe if you understood a sixth of what those theories are, then maybe I would listen to you. Theoretical physicists aren't sitting around making sh*t up. They have a solid basis for their theories.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 2 2009, 11:59 AM)
If you actually had knowledge of evolution, you would be aware of the mountain of evidence for, and the complete and utter lack of evidence against, but you have chosen instead to ignore the facts and listen to those who have a contempt for scientific process and would rather believe in myth than fact. There is no case for creationism, intelligent design, or all that other BS. The evidences presented by those who argue for those ideas consist mostly of flawed logical proofs and blatant and intentional misunderstandings of evidence. Seriously, if you have any arguments or evidence for your view on evolution/creation, I challenge you to post them and see how fast they get debunked.
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!! I was a creationist until I realized that I could not reconcile creationism with scientific facts. The biblical account of creation is a myth, why can't you accept that?
Maybe if you understood a sixth of what those theories are, then maybe I would listen to you. Theoretical physicists aren't sitting around making sh*t up. They have a solid basis for their theories.
Anybody can make up any number of un-detectable arbitrary variables in an attempt to make a physical law or formula, but it doesn't necessarily make it correct.
For example:
Once again, the Big Bang theory is based on the fallacy that a system can be ran backwards indefinitely to some origin that defines itse beginning. It cannot. One can run a wrist watch backwards forever, but we know the watch is not 15 billions of years old, regardless of what year is depicted by it's hands. Using the logic of a cosmologist, a wrist watch(representing the universe,) has an infinite age, yet we know it was made by a watch maker recently. It is a fallacy to apply a physical law to an indefinite past or an unknowable situation, not to mention the fact that it directly contradicts quantum theory anyway, since continuous time and motion supposedly do not exist in quantum theory.
Creation vs Evolution
Well, you do not even listen to arguments based on information and design, even when they make far more sense than anything evolutionists have ever claimed. Its quite simple, neither this computer nor this internet forum simply came into being randomly over time. They were specifically designed through much effort with special attention given to form and function.
You said you are a computer programmer, well make a random character generation program, and then attempt to compile its output. See how often you end up with something that doesn't crash your compiler, let alone something that actually runs and is complex as the DNA of a microbe.
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!! I was a creationist until I realized that I could not reconcile creationism with scientific facts. The biblical account of creation is a myth, why can't you accept that?
Maybe if you understood a sixth of what those theories are, then maybe I would listen to you. Theoretical physicists aren't sitting around making sh*t up. They have a solid basis for their theories.
Anybody can make up any number of un-detectable arbitrary variables in an attempt to make a physical law or formula, but it doesn't necessarily make it correct.
For example:
Once again, the Big Bang theory is based on the fallacy that a system can be ran backwards indefinitely to some origin that defines itse beginning. It cannot. One can run a wrist watch backwards forever, but we know the watch is not 15 billions of years old, regardless of what year is depicted by it's hands. Using the logic of a cosmologist, a wrist watch(representing the universe,) has an infinite age, yet we know it was made by a watch maker recently. It is a fallacy to apply a physical law to an indefinite past or an unknowable situation, not to mention the fact that it directly contradicts quantum theory anyway, since continuous time and motion supposedly do not exist in quantum theory.
Creation vs Evolution
Well, you do not even listen to arguments based on information and design, even when they make far more sense than anything evolutionists have ever claimed. Its quite simple, neither this computer nor this internet forum simply came into being randomly over time. They were specifically designed through much effort with special attention given to form and function.
You said you are a computer programmer, well make a random character generation program, and then attempt to compile its output. See how often you end up with something that doesn't crash your compiler, let alone something that actually runs and is complex as the DNA of a microbe.
QUOTE
One can run a wrist watch backwards forever, but we know the watch is not 15 billions of years old, regardless of what year is depicted by it's hands
So you are comparing a cyclical system which will always yield the same state no matter how long it is run with a system which clearly changes over time.
You've made statments touting your accomplishements in your science courses. I find that I disbelieve those statements, based on your posts here.
QUOTE
Its quite simple, neither this computer nor this internet forum simply came into being randomly over time. They were specifically designed through much effort with special attention given to form and function.
Yes.. that's because we designed them. No such event with biological organism who evolved.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Its quite simple, neither this computer nor this internet forum simply came into being randomly over time. They were specifically designed through much effort with special attention given to form and function. |
Yes.. that's because we designed them. No such event with biological organism who evolved.
You said you are a computer programmer, well make a random character generation program, and then attempt to compile its output. See how often you end up with something that doesn't crash your compiler, let alone something that actually runs and is complex as the DNA of a microbe.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 01:30 PM)
Anybody can make up any number of un-detectable arbitrary variables in an attempt to make a physical law or formula, but it doesn't necessarily make it correct.
They aren't arbitrary.
If you see a balloon expanding, would it be logical to assume that it was once deflated? Look up Cosmic Background Radiation.
If you see a balloon expanding, would it be logical to assume that it was once deflated? Look up Cosmic Background Radiation.
Well, you do not even listen to arguments based on information and design, even when they make far more sense than anything evolutionists have ever claimed. Its quite simple, neither this computer nor this internet forum simply came into being randomly over time. They were specifically designed through much effort with special attention given to form and function.
That's a very weak argument. Every time specific examples are brought forth by creationists, it takes only a little effort to show that yes, that system shows signs of evolving. Take the eye, which is a very common example. The eye looks very complex, but a simple analysis reveals that the intermediate stages provide an increasing scale of usefulness to the organism.
Here is a very good explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw
This has been done, and the program successfully modeled evolutionary trends.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/dembski-weasels.html
Yes.. that's because we designed them. No such event with biological organism who evolved.
Yawn.... too easy...
Cellular Automata
That is not at all what I described, nor is it what "evolution" describes genetically.
What you have there is an artificial environment which is following a set of algorithms made by a person, and then carefully manipulated rules to give a desired outcome(by design, of course).
Specifically it's an answer to your question.
Specifically it's an answer to your question.
You said you are a computer programmer, well make a random character generation program, and then attempt to compile its output. See how often you end up with something that doesn't crash your compiler, let alone something that actually runs and is complex as the DNA of a microbe.
If you don't want an answer or are not prepared to accept the answer, don't ask the question. Trying to change the subject after the fact is also unlikely to fool anyone.
How else would you see a computer program actually existing?
The fact remains that you can computer model evolution and it works just fine.
Specifically it's an answer to your question.
If you don't want an answer or are not prepared to accept the answer, don't ask the question. Trying to change the subject after the fact is also unlikely to fool anyone.
How else would you see a computer program actually existing?
The fact remains that you can computer model evolution and it works just fine.
problem there.
Atheists like to split hairs when they speak of "evolution", "Abiogenesis", and of course "cosmic origins" whereby they do not wish to have the whole issue addressed as a whole, but instead only look at one theory at a time, even when those theories are nonsense both individually and taken together.
You want to claim everything came into existence without a creator, HOWEVER, you want to CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
You want to claim highly organized systems spontaneously form without a creator, yet you CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
See a problem?
You say, "Such and such can happen without intelligent design."
Yet you then resort to design in an attempt to support your non-design theory.
It's really quite laughable(yet sad too,) that one can be so willfully blind and disregard that obvious flaw in logic.
Which of these is more likely?
This forum was created by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Similarly, which is more likely?
Life is caused by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Of course it's the last option in both cases, as you well know.
They aren't arbitrary.
QUOTE
Once again, the Big Bang theory is based on the fallacy that a system can be ran backwards indefinitely to some origin that defines itse beginning. It cannot. One can run a wrist watch backwards forever, but we know the watch is not 15 billions of years old, regardless of what year is depicted by it's hands. Using the logic of a cosmologist, a wrist watch(representing the universe,) has an infinite age, yet we know it was made by a watch maker recently. It is a fallacy to apply a physical law to an indefinite past or an unknowable situation, not to mention the fact that it directly contradicts quantum theory anyway, since continuous time and motion supposedly do not exist in quantum theory.
If you see a balloon expanding, would it be logical to assume that it was once deflated? Look up Cosmic Background Radiation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again, the Big Bang theory is based on the fallacy that a system can be ran backwards indefinitely to some origin that defines itse beginning. It cannot. One can run a wrist watch backwards forever, but we know the watch is not 15 billions of years old, regardless of what year is depicted by it's hands. Using the logic of a cosmologist, a wrist watch(representing the universe,) has an infinite age, yet we know it was made by a watch maker recently. It is a fallacy to apply a physical law to an indefinite past or an unknowable situation, not to mention the fact that it directly contradicts quantum theory anyway, since continuous time and motion supposedly do not exist in quantum theory. |
If you see a balloon expanding, would it be logical to assume that it was once deflated? Look up Cosmic Background Radiation.
Well, you do not even listen to arguments based on information and design, even when they make far more sense than anything evolutionists have ever claimed. Its quite simple, neither this computer nor this internet forum simply came into being randomly over time. They were specifically designed through much effort with special attention given to form and function.
That's a very weak argument. Every time specific examples are brought forth by creationists, it takes only a little effort to show that yes, that system shows signs of evolving. Take the eye, which is a very common example. The eye looks very complex, but a simple analysis reveals that the intermediate stages provide an increasing scale of usefulness to the organism.
Here is a very good explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw
QUOTE
You said you are a computer programmer, well make a random character generation program, and then attempt to compile its output. See how often you end up with something that doesn't crash your compiler, let alone something that actually runs and is complex as the DNA of a microbe.
This has been done, and the program successfully modeled evolutionary trends.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/dembski-weasels.html
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 2 2009, 12:42 PM)
Yes.. that's because we designed them. No such event with biological organism who evolved.
Yawn.... too easy...
Cellular Automata
That is not at all what I described, nor is it what "evolution" describes genetically.
What you have there is an artificial environment which is following a set of algorithms made by a person, and then carefully manipulated rules to give a desired outcome(by design, of course).
QUOTE
That is not at all what I described, nor is it what "evolution" describes genetically.
Specifically it's an answer to your question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is not at all what I described, nor is it what "evolution" describes genetically. |
Specifically it's an answer to your question.
You said you are a computer programmer, well make a random character generation program, and then attempt to compile its output. See how often you end up with something that doesn't crash your compiler, let alone something that actually runs and is complex as the DNA of a microbe.
If you don't want an answer or are not prepared to accept the answer, don't ask the question. Trying to change the subject after the fact is also unlikely to fool anyone.
QUOTE
What you have there is an artificial environment which is following a set of algorithms made by a person, and then carefully manipulated rules to give a desired outcome(by design, of course).
How else would you see a computer program actually existing?
The fact remains that you can computer model evolution and it works just fine.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 2 2009, 03:12 PM)
Specifically it's an answer to your question.
If you don't want an answer or are not prepared to accept the answer, don't ask the question. Trying to change the subject after the fact is also unlikely to fool anyone.
How else would you see a computer program actually existing?
The fact remains that you can computer model evolution and it works just fine.
problem there.
Atheists like to split hairs when they speak of "evolution", "Abiogenesis", and of course "cosmic origins" whereby they do not wish to have the whole issue addressed as a whole, but instead only look at one theory at a time, even when those theories are nonsense both individually and taken together.
You want to claim everything came into existence without a creator, HOWEVER, you want to CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
You want to claim highly organized systems spontaneously form without a creator, yet you CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
See a problem?
You say, "Such and such can happen without intelligent design."
Yet you then resort to design in an attempt to support your non-design theory.
It's really quite laughable(yet sad too,) that one can be so willfully blind and disregard that obvious flaw in logic.
Which of these is more likely?
This forum was created by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Similarly, which is more likely?
Life is caused by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Of course it's the last option in both cases, as you well know.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 11 2009, 09:57 PM)
Atheists like to split hairs when they speak of "evolution", "Abiogenesis", and of course "cosmic origins" whereby they do not wish to have the whole issue addressed as a whole, but instead only look at one theory at a time, even when those theories are nonsense both individually and taken together.
They are separate, unrelated theories. The only things they have in common are idiots like you who reject them based on religious preferences.
Idiot wordplay. A 5-year-old should know better.
Idiot wordplay. A 5-year-old should know better.
You say, "Such and such can happen without intelligent design."
Yet you then resort to design in an attempt to support your non-design theory.
Truly idiotic.
Like your imaginary undead god?
Like your imaginary undead god?
Which of these is more likely?
This forum was created by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Similarly, which is more likely?
Life is caused by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Do forums reproduce? Do forums have DNA? Only a pinhead would make that comparison. Use your brain for once in your life.
How do you explain the fact that we share 94% of our DNA with the Chimpanzee?
Did god get bored of writing DNA and decided to recycle?
You know what would be proof of god? Find an animal that does not have DNA. That would be proof of creation.
Find any yet?
They are separate, unrelated theories. The only things they have in common are idiots like you who reject them based on religious preferences.
QUOTE
You want to claim everything came into existence without a creator, HOWEVER, you want to CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
You want to claim highly organized systems spontaneously form without a creator, yet you CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
You want to claim highly organized systems spontaneously form without a creator, yet you CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
Idiot wordplay. A 5-year-old should know better.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want to claim everything came into existence without a creator, HOWEVER, you want to CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this. You want to claim highly organized systems spontaneously form without a creator, yet you CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this. |
Idiot wordplay. A 5-year-old should know better.
You say, "Such and such can happen without intelligent design."
Yet you then resort to design in an attempt to support your non-design theory.
Truly idiotic.
QUOTE
It's really quite laughable(yet sad too,) that one can be so willfully blind and disregard that obvious flaw in logic.
Like your imaginary undead god?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's really quite laughable(yet sad too,) that one can be so willfully blind and disregard that obvious flaw in logic. |
Like your imaginary undead god?
Which of these is more likely?
This forum was created by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Similarly, which is more likely?
Life is caused by:
random accident
necessity
random accident plus necessity
intelligent design
Do forums reproduce? Do forums have DNA? Only a pinhead would make that comparison. Use your brain for once in your life.
How do you explain the fact that we share 94% of our DNA with the Chimpanzee?
Did god get bored of writing DNA and decided to recycle?
You know what would be proof of god? Find an animal that does not have DNA. That would be proof of creation.
Find any yet?
Well... I have to pretty well agree with flyingbuttressman on pretty well everything in that prior post except for one thing.
First...
This bit...
is a remarkably obtuse and silly argument.
I can CREATE a table. That doesn't prove that God exists. The fact that Quantum thinks that his argument is logical is a bit laughable.
You have to realize that using the word CREATE is simply a human invention. As far as the non sentient Universe is concerned, all you have done is rearrange some atoms. It takes a sentient creature to give that rearrangement a specific value.
However, I disagree with this...
is a remarkably obtuse and silly argument.
I can CREATE a table. That doesn't prove that God exists. The fact that Quantum thinks that his argument is logical is a bit laughable.
You have to realize that using the word CREATE is simply a human invention. As far as the non sentient Universe is concerned, all you have done is rearrange some atoms. It takes a sentient creature to give that rearrangement a specific value.
However, I disagree with this...
You know what would be proof of god? Find an animal that does not have DNA. That would be proof of creation.
That would not be proof of God.. it would simply be proof that we don't know everything about biology.
Just because we don't have all the answers does not mean that we should make them up however. Theists love to point out the flaws in Evolution theory or that Evolution does not explain absolutely everything, without understanding that just because we don't know everything, it does not prove that God exists.
It just proves that there is still work for scientists to do.
However, I disagree with this...
QUOTE
You know what would be proof of god? Find an animal that does not have DNA. That would be proof of creation.
I think Mr Buttressman was suggesting, instead of DNA - wires and batteries are present ...... may well explain Quantum_Concussions viewpoint (thinks like a spectrum ZX in power failure mode).
Example:
Solar paneled highways.
First...
This bit...
QUOTE
You want to claim highly organized systems spontaneously form without a creator, yet you CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this.
is a remarkably obtuse and silly argument.
I can CREATE a table. That doesn't prove that God exists. The fact that Quantum thinks that his argument is logical is a bit laughable.
You have to realize that using the word CREATE is simply a human invention. As far as the non sentient Universe is concerned, all you have done is rearrange some atoms. It takes a sentient creature to give that rearrangement a specific value.
However, I disagree with this...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want to claim highly organized systems spontaneously form without a creator, yet you CREATE a model in an attempt to prove this. |
is a remarkably obtuse and silly argument.
I can CREATE a table. That doesn't prove that God exists. The fact that Quantum thinks that his argument is logical is a bit laughable.
You have to realize that using the word CREATE is simply a human invention. As far as the non sentient Universe is concerned, all you have done is rearrange some atoms. It takes a sentient creature to give that rearrangement a specific value.
However, I disagree with this...
You know what would be proof of god? Find an animal that does not have DNA. That would be proof of creation.
That would not be proof of God.. it would simply be proof that we don't know everything about biology.
Just because we don't have all the answers does not mean that we should make them up however. Theists love to point out the flaws in Evolution theory or that Evolution does not explain absolutely everything, without understanding that just because we don't know everything, it does not prove that God exists.
It just proves that there is still work for scientists to do.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 12 2009, 03:59 AM)
However, I disagree with this...
QUOTE
You know what would be proof of god? Find an animal that does not have DNA. That would be proof of creation.
I think Mr Buttressman was suggesting, instead of DNA - wires and batteries are present ...... may well explain Quantum_Concussions viewpoint (thinks like a spectrum ZX in power failure mode).
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2009, 06:38 PM)
Example:
Solar paneled highways.
QUOTE (occidental+Sep 12 2009, 05:45 AM)
So close.
Whoever said that competition doesn't have any effect on anything should re-examine the current technological dichotomy emerging in the solar sector. There is one company that has developed a way of printing large amounts of (flexible) solar cells using regular printer technology (I forget which kind of printer). This sounds unbelievable but check the MIT source where this is reported.
These mass-printable solar cells have a disadvantage versus the more cumbersome glass-metal cells, they produce less watts/m2. They say that they are getting better, which puts pressure on the glass-metal manufacturers to develop more efficient panels to stay ahead of the cheap, flexible ones.
Could these flexible solar cells be strung together and stretched across highways, which would also provide shade for drivers? Why not? They could be suspended on cables between existing street lights and utility poles.
The argument about whether government or private industry should undertake such a project is moot. The government already works together with private industry on projects like this all the time. All the government would do is to take bids from contractors to install the panels and then offer a user-fee for the use of the poles. Private (toll) roads could do this even more easily, since their decision-makers are not bound by re-election concerns.
The question is why you would want to create enormous sources of solar power instead of letting the industry evolve in a decentralized way with individuals and businesses reducing their own dependence on the grid by designing their own installations?
The infrastructure needed to transport power around is a giant part of the environmental waste of the power industry. One good thing about solar is that a significant portion of a building's energy needs can be supplied on site, which means less wires and poles between generators and appliances.
Still, there's nothing wrong with doing a cost-benefit analysis of a project to cover highways with solar cells for energy and shade.
These mass-printable solar cells have a disadvantage versus the more cumbersome glass-metal cells, they produce less watts/m2. They say that they are getting better, which puts pressure on the glass-metal manufacturers to develop more efficient panels to stay ahead of the cheap, flexible ones.
Could these flexible solar cells be strung together and stretched across highways, which would also provide shade for drivers? Why not? They could be suspended on cables between existing street lights and utility poles.
The argument about whether government or private industry should undertake such a project is moot. The government already works together with private industry on projects like this all the time. All the government would do is to take bids from contractors to install the panels and then offer a user-fee for the use of the poles. Private (toll) roads could do this even more easily, since their decision-makers are not bound by re-election concerns.
The question is why you would want to create enormous sources of solar power instead of letting the industry evolve in a decentralized way with individuals and businesses reducing their own dependence on the grid by designing their own installations?
The infrastructure needed to transport power around is a giant part of the environmental waste of the power industry. One good thing about solar is that a significant portion of a building's energy needs can be supplied on site, which means less wires and poles between generators and appliances.
Still, there's nothing wrong with doing a cost-benefit analysis of a project to cover highways with solar cells for energy and shade.
There was a Twilight Zone episode where some astronauts spent 30 years in a cramped capsule traveling to the nearest star system, only to find out when they got there that in the time they'd been traveling, an improved means of star travel had been invented and perfected, and their trip was now a routine commercial flight that only took hours.
We're a bit at that stage in solar energy. There are a number of viable approaches available today for making solar power, but there are also a number of even better approaches in the lab that would make someone committing millions of dollars for the old technology look foolish once the new technology comes on-line.
A lot of people are sitting, waiting for the next generation of solar power to come along. You can criticize them if you want, but recognize that there are also commercial contractors who will panel your roof today with modern solar cells.
Let's say the payback period is five years with today's technology. The next generation of solar cells may be available in two years and have a two-year payback period.
Which would you invest your money in?
We're a bit at that stage in solar energy. There are a number of viable approaches available today for making solar power, but there are also a number of even better approaches in the lab that would make someone committing millions of dollars for the old technology look foolish once the new technology comes on-line.
A lot of people are sitting, waiting for the next generation of solar power to come along. You can criticize them if you want, but recognize that there are also commercial contractors who will panel your roof today with modern solar cells.
Let's say the payback period is five years with today's technology. The next generation of solar cells may be available in two years and have a two-year payback period.
Which would you invest your money in?
I read an article about someone who invested in a USD100,000 solar system that covers almost his entire roof. He was very happy with it because with the cap on solar tax credit lifted, he only ended up paying USD70,000 instead of the full 100. Now he says his electric bill is a fraction of what it was.
My question is how someone can invest 70,000USD in a solar system and still be drawing power from the grid! This guy must have an ice skating rink on the sunny side of his yard so he can get a sun tan while practicing his lutz jumps.
Conservation and pro-efficiency cultural change are the commercial space-flight of energy advancement.
My question is how someone can invest 70,000USD in a solar system and still be drawing power from the grid! This guy must have an ice skating rink on the sunny side of his yard so he can get a sun tan while practicing his lutz jumps.
Conservation and pro-efficiency cultural change are the commercial space-flight of energy advancement.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 19 2009, 07:33 PM)
My question is how someone can invest 70,000USD in a solar system and still be drawing power from the grid!
There's this thing, maybe you heard of it, it's called NIGHT. It happens when the sun isn't in the sky. Unless the guy has a giant battery in his basement, he's going to need grid power at night. Usually, when you produce excess energy, the power company will either pay you or deduct your contribution from your bill. Unfortunately, even a $100,000 solar setup isn't going to produce more than double your daytime consumption.
There's this thing, maybe you heard of it, it's called NIGHT. It happens when the sun isn't in the sky. Unless the guy has a giant battery in his basement, he's going to need grid power at night. Usually, when you produce excess energy, the power company will either pay you or deduct your contribution from your bill. Unfortunately, even a $100,000 solar setup isn't going to produce more than double your daytime consumption.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 12:18 AM)
There's this thing, maybe you heard of it, it's called NIGHT. It happens when the sun isn't in the sky. Unless the guy has a giant battery in his basement, he's going to need grid power at night. Usually, when you produce excess energy, the power company will either pay you or deduct your contribution from your bill. Unfortunately, even a $100,000 solar setup isn't going to produce more than double your daytime consumption.
I am familiar with nighttime. It is the point in the Earth's rotation where everyone and everything not securely anchored to the ground is supposed to fly into space as a result of centrifugal force caused by the Earth speeding through space around the Sun - according to the flat Earth society website, anyway.
I am familiar with nighttime. It is the point in the Earth's rotation where everyone and everything not securely anchored to the ground is supposed to fly into space as a result of centrifugal force caused by the Earth speeding through space around the Sun - according to the flat Earth society website, anyway.
If he'd put that $100k in the bank @ 4% interest, he'd have his electric bill paid by the interest and still have the $100k. Businesses have the same decision, plus a legal obligation to their stockholders to invest their money wisely.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 19 2009, 11:05 PM)
If he'd put that $100k in the bank @ 4% interest, he'd have his electric bill paid by the interest and still have the $100k. Businesses have the same decision, plus a legal obligation to their stockholders to invest their money wisely.
lol, true.
Until green technology becomes economically attractive, it's not going to gain any traction.
Unfortunately, the planet is fucked. Time to sell your beach house!
lol, true.
Until green technology becomes economically attractive, it's not going to gain any traction.
Unfortunately, the planet is fucked. Time to sell your beach house!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 03:11 AM)
lol, true.
Until green technology becomes economically attractive, it's not going to gain any traction.
Unfortunately, the planet is fucked. Time to sell your beach house!
That is so true To the Mountains!
Until green technology becomes economically attractive, it's not going to gain any traction.
Unfortunately, the planet is fucked. Time to sell your beach house!
That is so true
To the Mountains!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 20 2009, 03:05 AM)
If he'd put that $100k in the bank @ 4% interest, he'd have his electric bill paid by the interest and still have the $100k. Businesses have the same decision, plus a legal obligation to their stockholders to invest their money wisely.
What bank pays 4% interest on a savings account? I thought interest was around %2. I don't think this person could pay his electric bill for less than $200/month if he can't run the meter backward with a roof-full of solar panels. The best panels I've seen are 75W from 4ft x 2ft. So if he had 2 30ft rows of such panels, that would be a 2250W system. Assuming, say, 40 hours of full sun per week, that would produce @360kw per month. At $0.15/kwh this would be $54/month.
Actually, this is less electricity than I expected from a 8ft x 30ft array. I wonder if my estimates or math is off. Probably my estimate for the size of his setup is low, since the 75W panels I'm calculating with cost $500 each, which would make the price of an 8x30 array $15,000, not $100,000, although they are going to cost more installed, including the cost of power inverter and whatever else is needed to make the power usable.
Still, I think what is happening to make solar technology profitable is that middlemen companies are emerging that profit from the gap between the retail price to the consumer and the wholesale cost of the panels and labor. The green movement is then used as a marketing tool to get consumers willing to pay more for a technology because it saves the environment.
It's a rip-off for consumers but a profit-dream for businesses. But the, I think business usually works like that, no?
What bank pays 4% interest on a savings account? I thought interest was around %2. I don't think this person could pay his electric bill for less than $200/month if he can't run the meter backward with a roof-full of solar panels. The best panels I've seen are 75W from 4ft x 2ft. So if he had 2 30ft rows of such panels, that would be a 2250W system. Assuming, say, 40 hours of full sun per week, that would produce @360kw per month. At $0.15/kwh this would be $54/month.
Actually, this is less electricity than I expected from a 8ft x 30ft array. I wonder if my estimates or math is off. Probably my estimate for the size of his setup is low, since the 75W panels I'm calculating with cost $500 each, which would make the price of an 8x30 array $15,000, not $100,000, although they are going to cost more installed, including the cost of power inverter and whatever else is needed to make the power usable.
Still, I think what is happening to make solar technology profitable is that middlemen companies are emerging that profit from the gap between the retail price to the consumer and the wholesale cost of the panels and labor. The green movement is then used as a marketing tool to get consumers willing to pay more for a technology because it saves the environment.
It's a rip-off for consumers but a profit-dream for businesses. But the, I think business usually works like that, no?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 03:11 AM)
Unfortunately, the planet is fucked. Time to sell your beach house!
I wonder if people will be able to keep their property rights to the sea bottom? Maybe they can build underwater vacation houses, and anchor boats above them. Maybe it will be the beginning of a life like in the movie, Water World.
I wonder if people will be able to keep their property rights to the sea bottom? Maybe they can build underwater vacation houses, and anchor boats above them. Maybe it will be the beginning of a life like in the movie, Water World.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 09:24 AM)
I wonder if people will be able to keep their property rights to the sea bottom? Maybe they can build underwater vacation houses, and anchor boats above them. Maybe it will be the beginning of a life like in the movie, Water World.
I really hope you're joking. Only an idiot could think that "Waterworld" is a ) a good movie or b ) science-based in any way, shape or form.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), "Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas, Table 6.3" (pdf), Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
I really hope you're joking. Only an idiot could think that "Waterworld" is a ) a good movie or b ) science-based in any way, shape or form.
QUOTE
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report predicted that by 2100, global warming will lead to a sea level rise of 19 to 58 cm.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), "Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas, Table 6.3" (pdf), Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 02:35 PM)
I really hope you're joking. Only an idiot could think that "Waterworld" is a ) a good movie or b ) science-based in any way, shape or form.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), "Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas, Table 6.3" (pdf), Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
I was only referring to the aspect of the movie that people live for extended periods of time (i.e. their whole lives) on the water. I guess the film wouldn't be scientific in that water covers ALL the land on Earth instead of just sea level rising some.
Someone should draw a map of what the coastlines would look like if all the ice on Earth would melt. That would be interesting, along with knowing the absolute maximum level sea-level could rise.
Actually, come to think of it, Earth will probably eventually be completely underwater as a result of erosion of land into the oceans. The exception would be areas where new land is forming due to volcanic eruptions and places where people pump water off the land to live below sea level (i.e. Netherlands)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), "Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas, Table 6.3" (pdf), Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
I was only referring to the aspect of the movie that people live for extended periods of time (i.e. their whole lives) on the water. I guess the film wouldn't be scientific in that water covers ALL the land on Earth instead of just sea level rising some.
Someone should draw a map of what the coastlines would look like if all the ice on Earth would melt. That would be interesting, along with knowing the absolute maximum level sea-level could rise.
Actually, come to think of it, Earth will probably eventually be completely underwater as a result of erosion of land into the oceans. The exception would be areas where new land is forming due to volcanic eruptions and places where people pump water off the land to live below sea level (i.e. Netherlands)
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 02:18 PM)
Actually, come to think of it, Earth will probably eventually be completely underwater as a result of erosion of land into the oceans. The exception would be areas where new land is forming due to volcanic eruptions and places where people pump water off the land to live below sea level (i.e. Netherlands)
Again, your lacking of thought is shocking. Eventually? How long is eventually? It's been 4 billion years, and the Earth isn't in any more danger of being covered by water now than it was 2 billion years ago, or 1 billion years ago, or 65 million years ago.
Again, your lacking of thought is shocking. Eventually? How long is eventually? It's been 4 billion years, and the Earth isn't in any more danger of being covered by water now than it was 2 billion years ago, or 1 billion years ago, or 65 million years ago.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 19 2009, 06:33 PM)
I read an article about someone who invested in a USD100,000 solar system that covers almost his entire roof. He was very happy with it because with the cap on solar tax credit lifted, he only ended up paying USD70,000 instead of the full 100. Now he says his electric bill is a fraction of what it was.
My question is how someone can invest 70,000USD in a solar system and still be drawing power from the grid! This guy must have an ice skating rink on the sunny side of his yard so he can get a sun tan while practicing his lutz jumps.
Conservation and pro-efficiency cultural change are the commercial space-flight of energy advancement.
As long as people define a "strong economy" as the mad consumption of resources, there will never be real progress in our civilization.
In spite of all of our technology, we are in the midst of a dark age of waste and decay.
The mere thought of "consumers" spending conservatively frightens our government and the aristocrats who own it. They simply cannot fathom a world where people aren't spending thousands of dollars they don't have on goods and services nobody really needs.
People buy the latest PC or the latest version of the Ipod, in general, not because they need it's new features, but because they are compulsive and brainwashed to buy the latest gadget, and economists call this "good" even though the reality is its a complete waste of resources of the civilization...
My question is how someone can invest 70,000USD in a solar system and still be drawing power from the grid! This guy must have an ice skating rink on the sunny side of his yard so he can get a sun tan while practicing his lutz jumps.
Conservation and pro-efficiency cultural change are the commercial space-flight of energy advancement.
As long as people define a "strong economy" as the mad consumption of resources, there will never be real progress in our civilization.
In spite of all of our technology, we are in the midst of a dark age of waste and decay.
The mere thought of "consumers" spending conservatively frightens our government and the aristocrats who own it. They simply cannot fathom a world where people aren't spending thousands of dollars they don't have on goods and services nobody really needs.
People buy the latest PC or the latest version of the Ipod, in general, not because they need it's new features, but because they are compulsive and brainwashed to buy the latest gadget, and economists call this "good" even though the reality is its a complete waste of resources of the civilization...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 20 2009, 08:51 PM)
As long as people define a "strong economy" as the mad consumption of resources, there will never be real progress in our civilization.
In spite of all of our technology, we are in the midst of a dark age of waste and decay.
The mere thought of "consumers" spending conservatively frightens our government and the aristocrats who own it. They simply cannot fathom a world where people aren't spending thousands of dollars they don't have on goods and services nobody really needs.
People buy the latest PC or the latest version of the Ipod, in general, not because they need it's new features, but because they are compulsive and brainwashed to buy the latest gadget, and economists call this "good" even though the reality is its a complete waste of resources of the civilization...
Wow, you're the only person I know of who recognizes this other than myself! Everyone else seems to be obsessed with fiscal stimulus. It's not fiscal stimulus that's needed, it's using resources in an efficient way to prevent waste and make sure everyone has access to what they need, not consume as much as they can to drive the profit/tax machines.
People accuse you of communism if you talk like this, but capitalism was predicted to achieve this effect using private property and saving, instead of collective submission and a total work ethic, as in communism.
But lets avoid having a political-economic discussion. I do that too much already in other places.
In spite of all of our technology, we are in the midst of a dark age of waste and decay.
The mere thought of "consumers" spending conservatively frightens our government and the aristocrats who own it. They simply cannot fathom a world where people aren't spending thousands of dollars they don't have on goods and services nobody really needs.
People buy the latest PC or the latest version of the Ipod, in general, not because they need it's new features, but because they are compulsive and brainwashed to buy the latest gadget, and economists call this "good" even though the reality is its a complete waste of resources of the civilization...
Wow, you're the only person I know of who recognizes this other than myself! Everyone else seems to be obsessed with fiscal stimulus. It's not fiscal stimulus that's needed, it's using resources in an efficient way to prevent waste and make sure everyone has access to what they need, not consume as much as they can to drive the profit/tax machines.
People accuse you of communism if you talk like this, but capitalism was predicted to achieve this effect using private property and saving, instead of collective submission and a total work ethic, as in communism.
But lets avoid having a political-economic discussion. I do that too much already in other places.
Congratulations! You're both fascist retards! Throw a party!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 05:00 PM)
Congratulations! You're both fascist retards! Throw a party!
Do you even know what Fascism is?
No, I'm not a Fascist.
I'm a realist.
Do you even know what Fascism is?
No, I'm not a Fascist.
I'm a realist.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 05:00 PM)
Congratulations! You're both fascist retards! Throw a party!
flyingbuttressman:
The irony is, you and several people on here who have similar views, are the ones with the most similarities to real Fascists.
You guys claim to want to reduce world population dramaticly to save and preserve resources and ecology on the earth, and yet, hypocritically, you promote hyper-capitalist consumption of resources just for the hell of it.
flyingbuttressman:
The irony is, you and several people on here who have similar views, are the ones with the most similarities to real Fascists.
You guys claim to want to reduce world population dramaticly to save and preserve resources and ecology on the earth, and yet, hypocritically, you promote hyper-capitalist consumption of resources just for the hell of it.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 20 2009, 06:48 PM)
Do you even know what Fascism is?
No, I'm not a Fascist.
You want an economic and social dictatorship. That's fascism.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
NOTHING that you have proposed on this forum is realistic. idiot.
No, I'm not a Fascist.
You want an economic and social dictatorship. That's fascism.
QUOTE
I'm a realist.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
NOTHING that you have proposed on this forum is realistic. idiot.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 20 2009, 11:07 PM)
flyingbuttressman:
The irony is, you and several people on here who have similar views, are the ones with the most similarities to real Fascists.
You guys claim to want to reduce world population dramaticly to save and preserve resources and ecology on the earth, and yet, hypocritically, you promote hyper-capitalist consumption of resources just for the hell of it.
It's not just for the hell of it. They are into the decadence. They just think the way to get it is to limit the number of people with access to their lifestyle and region.
Fascism is an omnipresent factor in human nature. It's just sometimes it takes over the political will of individuals, and sometimes they resist it and make more rational decisions.
The irony is, you and several people on here who have similar views, are the ones with the most similarities to real Fascists.
You guys claim to want to reduce world population dramaticly to save and preserve resources and ecology on the earth, and yet, hypocritically, you promote hyper-capitalist consumption of resources just for the hell of it.
It's not just for the hell of it. They are into the decadence. They just think the way to get it is to limit the number of people with access to their lifestyle and region.
Fascism is an omnipresent factor in human nature. It's just sometimes it takes over the political will of individuals, and sometimes they resist it and make more rational decisions.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 20 2009, 07:07 PM)
You guys claim to want to reduce world population dramaticly to save and preserve resources and ecology on the earth, and yet, hypocritically, you promote hyper-capitalist consumption of resources just for the hell of it.
Not only do you have a blatant disregard for facts, but now you deliberately misquote people on this very forum? You must be getting desperate.
Not only do you have a blatant disregard for facts, but now you deliberately misquote people on this very forum? You must be getting desperate.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 01:02 AM)
Not only do you have a blatant disregard for facts, but now you deliberately misquote people on this very forum? You must be getting desperate.
That's true. I have not heard people on this forum talking like they are into hyper-consumption.
If anything the people on this forum tend to be more interested in intellectualizing about science, not exactly what I would call high-decadence materialism.
That post was a good description of the drive to hyper-consume, but let's not turn it into a FASCIST game of outing people as hyper-consumption capitalists or conservation capitalists or communists, socialists, or anything else.
This is a nice science forum where people don't have to hate each other for their politics. It would be a shame to ruin that, wouldn't it?
That's true. I have not heard people on this forum talking like they are into hyper-consumption.
If anything the people on this forum tend to be more interested in intellectualizing about science, not exactly what I would call high-decadence materialism.
That post was a good description of the drive to hyper-consume, but let's not turn it into a FASCIST game of outing people as hyper-consumption capitalists or conservation capitalists or communists, socialists, or anything else.
This is a nice science forum where people don't have to hate each other for their politics. It would be a shame to ruin that, wouldn't it?
light in the tunnel,
Thank you for that reasonable comment.
As far as economics go, my opinion is that any successful, stable economic system requires a balance of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't say that over consumption is a problem, except for those who cannot afford their lifestyle. A strong capitalist economy drives innovation and fosters talent. A strong socialist economy ensures equality and equal access to the necessities of life.
Thank you for that reasonable comment.
As far as economics go, my opinion is that any successful, stable economic system requires a balance of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't say that over consumption is a problem, except for those who cannot afford their lifestyle. A strong capitalist economy drives innovation and fosters talent. A strong socialist economy ensures equality and equal access to the necessities of life.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 01:38 AM)
Thank you for that reasonable comment.
As far as economics go, my opinion is that any successful, stable economic system requires a balance of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't say that over consumption is a problem, except for those who cannot afford their lifestyle. A strong capitalist economy drives innovation and fosters talent. A strong socialist economy ensures equality and equal access to the necessities of life.
You're welcome. Thank you for your sincere expression of gratitude.
Now, as for capitalism versus socialism, the two are inseparable in practice. No economic activity is purely rational and totally devoid of emotional influences. In fact, rationality itself has its own supporting emotions that come with it. However, rational capitalist activity is like energy and emotional social concerns are like gravity; and socialism has been building up like matter collecting into a smaller volume, for a long time. Capitalist rationality (energy) has made some strong attempts to loosen the gravitational constraint of social economic considerations, but I believe that social concerns (even among those who would be considered the most die-hard capitalists) have overshadowed rationality in decision-making, and are currently both dominant and invisibly so for the most part because of their perceived normalcy.
So while socialism should balance capitalism, it is currently out of balance in my opinion. What's worse is that it seems like socialism is going to get so strong to "supernova" into an explosive amount of capitalist energy and economic rationality, causing a stampede that tramples violently over social concerns, as people desperately try to secure their economic interests out of those very social concerns.
The "gravity" of social concerns, governance, interest, etc. in economic life can be "loosened" by stimulating more normal everyday rational decision-making in consumption and social-economic activities. Doing this would prevent the supernova that is likely to occur when the overwhelming amount of social-emotional gravity ignites rational individual will at a level of intensity proportional to it. Then the competition to gain economic security against all the other hyper-individualists trying to do the same, and fearing getting trapped in social-emotional control, is itself going to spur an emotional backlash reaction.
In truth all these events have probably happened repeatedly in the past, but it just seems to be eminent at this moment in time, from my exposure to the news anyway, that the two political poles are polarizing in a risky way.
I think if more people would think in terms of balancing the opposing forces, like Buttress, this polarization could be averted and the potential "supernova" of hyper economic activity as capitalism and socialism compete for total domination of the other one.
This sounds mad doesn't it? I might have gone too far with the physics metaphors, but they work in a way, don't they?
As far as economics go, my opinion is that any successful, stable economic system requires a balance of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't say that over consumption is a problem, except for those who cannot afford their lifestyle. A strong capitalist economy drives innovation and fosters talent. A strong socialist economy ensures equality and equal access to the necessities of life.
You're welcome. Thank you for your sincere expression of gratitude.
Now, as for capitalism versus socialism, the two are inseparable in practice. No economic activity is purely rational and totally devoid of emotional influences. In fact, rationality itself has its own supporting emotions that come with it. However, rational capitalist activity is like energy and emotional social concerns are like gravity; and socialism has been building up like matter collecting into a smaller volume, for a long time. Capitalist rationality (energy) has made some strong attempts to loosen the gravitational constraint of social economic considerations, but I believe that social concerns (even among those who would be considered the most die-hard capitalists) have overshadowed rationality in decision-making, and are currently both dominant and invisibly so for the most part because of their perceived normalcy.
So while socialism should balance capitalism, it is currently out of balance in my opinion. What's worse is that it seems like socialism is going to get so strong to "supernova" into an explosive amount of capitalist energy and economic rationality, causing a stampede that tramples violently over social concerns, as people desperately try to secure their economic interests out of those very social concerns.
The "gravity" of social concerns, governance, interest, etc. in economic life can be "loosened" by stimulating more normal everyday rational decision-making in consumption and social-economic activities. Doing this would prevent the supernova that is likely to occur when the overwhelming amount of social-emotional gravity ignites rational individual will at a level of intensity proportional to it. Then the competition to gain economic security against all the other hyper-individualists trying to do the same, and fearing getting trapped in social-emotional control, is itself going to spur an emotional backlash reaction.
In truth all these events have probably happened repeatedly in the past, but it just seems to be eminent at this moment in time, from my exposure to the news anyway, that the two political poles are polarizing in a risky way.
I think if more people would think in terms of balancing the opposing forces, like Buttress, this polarization could be averted and the potential "supernova" of hyper economic activity as capitalism and socialism compete for total domination of the other one.
This sounds mad doesn't it? I might have gone too far with the physics metaphors, but they work in a way, don't they?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.