Nuclear Fusion

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...All green sources have emissions and consumes products. It is more a matter of things being greener or more sustainable. ..

As an aside, this brings to mind the multiple studies I've seen that attempt to point out that pine trees are bad for the environment. At one point they were one of the leading contributors to air pollution in North Carolina.

[Capt Spaulding]

Reminds me of James Brady’s (Reagan press secretary) “killer trees” quip. Caused something of a stir.

Isn’t this what makes the “Blue Ridge Mountains” blue?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Reminds me of James Brady’s (Reagan press secretary) “killer trees” quip. Caused something of a stir.

Yep, that's the same stuff. Here's a NASA explanation of it.

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Isn’t this what makes the “Blue Ridge Mountains” blue?

And yes, the isoprene released by the pine forests in the mountain range is what causes the blue appearance.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

400K gallons of radioactive water leaked from Minnesota nuclear power plant; cleanup underway

https://abc7ny.com/minnesota-water-l...tive/12970179/

Just when more nuclear fission seems like a green option the public seems to be reconsidering, these type of things happen.

ohio: "hold my beer"


https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...ed/6765040002/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

As an aside, this brings to mind the multiple studies I've seen that attempt to point out that pine trees are bad for the environment. At one point they were one of the leading contributors to air pollution in North Carolina.

I remember this too. There is nuance to everything. A beetle infestation was causing the release of 20x the level of VOCs from trees or something, and in another article they were mentioning the trees were off putting more VOCs in response to warmer weather in order to stay cool. Another mentioned these VOCs mixing with anthropomorphic pollutants to be a super smog hazard. Brings a new perspective to the adage of stepping outside (in nature) to get some fresh air.

[Capt Spaulding]

Yup. My recollection, reinforced by Dadhawk’s confirmation is that it’s a natural version of photochemical smog resulting from the isoprene emissions of the flora.

Just another example of nature trying to get rid of us. She’s a bright girl, Mother Nature.


I think it was George Carlin who once quipped that, in the long run the earth will be fine. Humans? Not so much.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

ohio: "hold my beer"


https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...ed/6765040002/

The reversal was kind of funny. Seems like an Erin Brockovich movie waiting to happen.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Yup. My recollection, reinforced by Dadhawk’s confirmation is that it’s a natural version of photochemical smog resulting from the isoprene emissions of the flora.

Just another example of nature trying to get rid of us. She’s a bright girl, Mother Nature.


I think it was George Carlin who once quipped that, in the long run the earth will be fine. Humans? Not so much.

He was being pessimistic then because in the long run the earth will be destroyed in a predictable way at a predictable time, but humans have at least a chance to outlast the sun.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

He was being pessimistic then because in the long run the earth will be destroyed in a predictable way at a predictable time, but humans have at least a chance to outlast the sun.

Damn! You ARE an optimist. I think Carlin was suggesting that by the time the solar atmosphere consumes the earth humanity will have eradicated itself billions of years earlier. The earth will survive our departure as it has cometary impacts and ice ages. At some point we may have the ability to completely destroy the planet. For now, I suspect the worst we can do is make it uninhabitable, by humans. I’d put the probability of human civilization lasting into the 23rd century in the single digits.

In “The Republic” Plato suggested that the danger inherent in democracy was that it would inevitably turn into tyranny. Not because of an external takeover but because humans would choose tyranny. A Star Wars-esque Imperial Order vs Chaotic Liberty sort of thing.

It may be that there is a point of maximum social pressure (think of “max q” in launching a spacecraft) that if we can get beyond the danger will drop off some. At present thought, as I noted earlier, I’m with George.

LOL As I was typing this, Pandora “60s Radio” was playing Barry McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction.”

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Damn! You ARE an optimist. I think Carlin was suggesting that by the time the solar atmosphere consumes the earth humanity will have eradicated itself billions of years earlier. The earth will survive our departure as it has cometary impacts and ice ages. At some point we may have the ability to completely destroy the planet. For now, I suspect the worst we can do is make it uninhabitable, by humans. I’d put the probability of human civilization lasting into the 23rd century in the single digits.

In “The Republic” Plato suggested that the danger inherent in democracy was that it would inevitably turn into tyranny. Not because of an external takeover but because humans would choose tyranny. A Star Wars-esque Imperial Order vs Chaotic Liberty sort of thing.

It may be that there is a point of maximum social pressure (think of “max q” in launching a spacecraft) that if we can get beyond the danger will drop off some. At present thought, as I noted earlier, I’m with George.

I think we are on an uncertain path that could make the planet inhospitable, but not uninhabitable. Maybe if runaway greenhouse gas made the planet extremely hot, but even then, if we expect to survive on a place like Mars then we probably could survive on Earth, permitting the atmosphere isn't blocking all sunlight or the surface isn't 500 degrees or anything atrocious.

The other possibility is that we destroy each other with nuclear weapons (unlikely), or we create AI and have to fight it (more likely). Even the earth is some dystopian wasteland of destroyed cities, and the population is practically wiped out, there will still be some people that survive in some isolated areas.

I would put the probability humans surviving into the 23rd century as 100%. We will need to figure out a lot of things, but I don't think tensions will lead to war because the world is a different place now than in the past. Global conglomerates have their roots dug deep into countries all over the planet that the rich elites see no advantage to concurring other countries. Ukraine is a good example. What we will face is global warming, AI, wealth/income inequality, robotics, monopolies, population dynamics, resource scarcity, and anything else major.

The world is moving towards green technology, and we will see if we can do enough soon enough to make a difference. AI and robotics are coming hard and coming fast; from self-driving cars to autonomous robots or even androids, the world is going to face massive unemployment and economic instability with either the few controlling almost all the wealth with their robot army to protect them and their robot army to serve them, or we will have to move to a socialist society to create a UBI in a utopia or dystopia; who knows, but if you played Monopoly then you know what happens at the end, and we just don't have good antitrust laws at all or are prepared for AI and robotics taking over, so we could see a tyrannical communist society, or we could see a more Star Trek utopian democratic socialist society; the population in many areas is inverted with the old being more than the youth, so we may see robots aiding us through this labor market shortage, and we could see the world stabilize at a lower population, or we could see economic turmoil; and of course, we could see water, food, fuel, etc scarcity, which is most likely to turn to war for resources, but I only think this will happen if something unpredictable and abrupt happens.

I think Elon will get the robots to work building factories on Mars and digging tunnels for living quarters, and maybe a colony will be up there before the 22nd century.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

you sincerely believe humans will successfully colonize mars? lmao

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

you sincerely believe humans will successfully colonize mars? lmao

If you went back in time and explained to a caveman that we landed on the moon and sent satellites past Pluto and put it in terms he could understand then I'm sure he would laugh. Technology is moving much faster, so the time gap from caveman to moon landing and from now to a Mars colony will be much shorter. If you told Carl Benz that in a hundred years we go from a horse carriage with an engine to doing a quarter mile in less than four seconds, he would think you were nuts. If you told the Wright Brothers after their first flight in 1903 that in 44 years we would build a jet plane that could go 700mph and break the speed of sound, or that before that we would send rockets to space at 25,000mph, then they would laugh. Don't be naive.

Mars will likely be a robot/android run, military/science facility with minimal human presence, while we build and terraform the planet, that will eventually grow into something that may support a larger colony, but most likely is that it will be a stepping stone for further exploration to Saturn's and Jupiter's moons, and most likely the process of getting back and forth to Mars will lead to innovations that may result in the ability for interstellar travel.

If humans never become capable of interstellar travel on a human timescale then robots/androids will do it for us, and they could seed humans onto other planets by either growing humans in artificial wombs or thawing humans who were cryogenically frozen. Imagine being frozen and waking up in a million plus years, and it felt like you just took a long nap.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think we are on an uncertain path that could make the planet inhospitable, but not uninhabitable. Maybe if runaway greenhouse gas made the planet extremely hot, but even then, if we expect to survive on a place like Mars then we probably could survive on Earth, permitting the atmosphere isn't blocking all sunlight or the surface isn't 500 degrees or anything atrocious.

The other possibility is that we destroy each other with nuclear weapons (unlikely), or we create AI and have to fight it (more likely). Even the earth is some dystopian wasteland of destroyed cities, and the population is practically wiped out, there will still be some people that survive in some isolated areas.

I would put the probability humans surviving into the 23rd century as 100%. We will need to figure out a lot of things, but I don't think tensions will lead to war because the world is a different place now than in the past. Global conglomerates have their roots dug deep into countries all over the planet that the rich elites see no advantage to concurring other countries. Ukraine is a good example. What we will face is global warming, AI, wealth/income inequality, robotics, monopolies, population dynamics, resource scarcity, and anything else major.

The world is moving towards green technology, and we will see if we can do enough soon enough to make a difference. AI and robotics are coming hard and coming fast; from self-driving cars to autonomous robots or even androids, the world is going to face massive unemployment and economic instability with either the few controlling almost all the wealth with their robot army to protect them and their robot army to serve them, or we will have to move to a socialist society to create a UBI in a utopia or dystopia; who knows, but if you played Monopoly then you know what happens at the end, and we just don't have good antitrust laws at all or are prepared for AI and robotics taking over, so we could see a tyrannical communist society, or we could see a more Star Trek utopian democratic socialist society; the population in many areas is inverted with the old being more than the youth, so we may see robots aiding us through this labor market shortage, and we could see the world stabilize at a lower population, or we could see economic turmoil; and of course, we could see water, food, fuel, etc scarcity, which is most likely to turn to war for resources, but I only think this will happen if something unpredictable and abrupt happens.

I think Elon will get the robots to work building factories on Mars and digging tunnels for living quarters, and maybe a colony will be up there before the 22nd century.

That is why I said I put the likelihood of human civilization lasting into the 23rd century in the single digits. I see a small chance that we can get through a political/economic/environmental "Max Q" to a smoother ride on the other side.

More likely is we so damage the planet's ecological systems that we make civilization (as we know it-or better) untenable. I agree that we may simply create a dystopian backdrop for a real life version of a Cormac McCarthy novel. But that doesn't fit my definition of "civilization. We might even come back from that to some extent, maybe even learn from our mistakes and "build back better." But this is, in my view, a very low probability outcome. Lots of possibilities. As I see it, many more bad than good. None of us will see where it goes, but if we collectively don't get it together it won't be pretty. Our current arc is in the wrong direction.

A couple of quibbles. First, "tyrannical communism' is an oxymoron. Marx coined the term, so I'll let him define it. None and I mean N O N E of the regimes who have called themselves that were even close. At best they were rebranded fascist dictatorships. It's laughable to watch a former/modern Soviet apparatchik crow about fighting fascism. Beyond the initial "dictatorship of the proletariat" communism by definition cannot by tyrannical because there is no government to behave tyrannically.

Second, you just had to throw Musk in. I'm pretty well done with him.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

That is why I said I put the likelihood of human civilization lasting into the 23rd century in the single digits. I see a small chance that we can get through a political/economic/environmental "Max Q" to a smoother ride on the other side.

More likely is we so damage the planet's ecological systems that we make civilization (as we know it-or better) untenable. I agree that we may simply create a dystopian backdrop for a real life version of a Cormac McCarthy novel. But that doesn't fit my definition of "civilization. We might even come back from that to some extent, maybe even learn from our mistakes and "build back better." But this is, in my view, a very low probability outcome. Lots of possibilities. As I see it, many more bad than good. None of us will see where it goes, but if we collectively don't get it together it won't be pretty. Our current arc is in the wrong direction.

A couple of quibbles. First, "tyrannical communism' is an oxymoron. Marx coined the term, so I'll let him define it. None and I mean N O N E of the regimes who have called themselves that were even close. At best they were rebranded fascist dictatorships. It's laughable to watch a former/modern Soviet apparatchik crow about fighting fascism. Beyond the initial "dictatorship of the proletariat" communism by definition cannot by tyrannical because there is no government to behave tyrannically.

Second, you just had to throw Musk in. I'm pretty well done with him.

We will see what happens, and we won't, but humans are far more likely to consider a dystopian future than a utopian one. Call it pessimism or just a recognition of our own history, or maybe it is just a product of our current trajectory, as you put it, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest we are far removed from any point in our history that we have all the tools and awareness to survive our own destruction if we want. Outside of a meteor impact in the near future, I don't see anything that couldn't be solved if we are motivated, and of course, that is the rub, that we aren't motivated; we are frogs in a slow warming pot that can't see our own demise. In the face of surmountable evidence, people get motivated quickly, but hopefully it isn't too late is your point.

It is hard to go from capitalism to a Marxist-Leninist Communist society without it appearing to be fascist, which is one of the rubs against communism. Most people consider communist societies as being totalitarian/tyrannical or authoritarian, but distinct from fascism, and they would see democratic socialism, whether truly organized as socialist or communist, as being socialist because of the democratic nature of the government, as opposed to the dictatorships associated with communism. Paper/idealized communism that Marx discussed is not what I was referring to because it is not what we have seen or possibly can see in the real world. While a totalitarian/tyrannical fascist dystopian future is possible, I don't think it is likely because of globalism, and because I don't think it is possible to retreat into our corners under fascism before trying to concur the world; fascism would likely lead to world wars that would ultimately lead to nuclear destruction, and I'm not so nihilistic or annalistic in my view of the future.

Musk, Bezos, Branson, _______ (insert rich guy of your distaste)...someone will likely lead the charge. Until traveling to Mars or mining Mars can be made into an industry for profit, I expect very wealthy individuals to be spearheading this process on their own dime, and interstellar travel is the only way we will likely survive some future astroid on a long enough timeline, so it is relevant.