Charlie Darwin <theantislamist@gmail.com>
12:04 AM (1 hour ago) to hubski
Well my reply was too confrontational I guess- but what do you expect when ignoring the blue whale in the jacuzzi?
Honestly no discussion of humanity's future is relevant without including climate change and how to ameliorate it;
nothing can be done to nullify CC because it is already too far advanced for current or anticipated technologies to
have any effect.
I read the link and some of the fusion claims but as usual, it is 'just around the corner'... or according to Michio Kaku,
at least 20 years away. Are the following points valid, or not? 1. Laboratory fusion is easy compared to industrial scale engineering
2. Construction costs are astronomical
3. ITER is already twice over budget
4. Safety- what if the magnetic containment of the plasma fails? What effect would a burst of neutrons have? Would
meltdown be possible?
"100 million C. At this temperature, the hydrogen nuclei fuse to produce helium, releasing neutrons and a huge
amount of energy. The plasma is so hot that a powerful magnetic field is needed to stop it from touching the
reactor's walls"
5. In the 50's the 'experts' ALL claimed fission reactors would produce clean, nearly free power; in fact they were
used to produce weapon grade plutonium as the political essential. Whilst fusion reactors cannot be used for such
nefarious purposes, we have reason to be suspicious of the claimed outcomes...
6. IF fusion is achieved commercially we still have the current scenario of centralised power generation, with high
distribution costs and losses.
7. With this in mind, it is likely that small decentralised thorium reactors may prove to be far cheaper, safer and
more practical. India and China are investing heavily in research. The principle was priven in the 60's but dropped
in favour of uranium fission, for the reason stated in 5.
8. AFAIK, fusion is NOT 100% clean since the linings of the containment chamber are irradiated and must be changed out As for solar and wind power, both have severe limitations, unable to produce 24/7 and subsidy dependent, for now. I'd
thought that wave/tidal was the way to go but apparently not, in spite of almost 100% availability and high energy density. So, I think the picture is not as rosy as you suggest.
First off, whether our energy economy at the end of this century is primarily fusion or thorium is a valid debate. Both are viable options but I agree with you that it will take a long time to perfect. That is why solar will be used as a bridge (or maybe it will be used permanently). The number of solar cells that can fit on a panel is doubling every year and cells that can retain and store solar for long periods of no sunlight (and also systems that can distribute energy from regions with more sunlight) are already in existence. Listen, I agree with you that climate change is the biggest problem for our civilization. That is why we must transition from our current energy economy onto a sustainable one. If we don't transition then we are in massive trouble. But we will change because that is the nature of our species. We built the foundations of our global energy infrastructure in the 18th and 19th centuries. We didn't know what the repercussions of burning fossils fuels were. We know now. There are entrenched industries that will fight the transition, but it won't matter. Once one country (my guess is Germany at the moment because they are world leaders in solar energy) transitions to a predominantly solar economy (probably the 2020s - because that is when solar will be able to produce more energy than oil for a lower coast (i.e., grid parity)) other countries will adopt the new system or fall behind (way behind). New economies and industries emerge in a natural selection type fashion. Because solar companies know that they could be making the types money that oil is currently making there is now extremely intense competition to produce the most efficient and least expensive solar grids that can power cities and vehicles. Check out Elon Musk's Solar City. By 2050 the nightmare that was the fossil fuel era will seem distant and archaic. Scientists that warn us of global warming are not wrong. They are right. However, the narratives they create for the future are functional in that they will motivate industry to change. Change will be slow (slower than we would all like) but it will come. Once it does come it will spread quickly (probably as quickly as the internet from 1995-2000). Again, if we don't then we die. But we aren't going to die. We are going to change. And we will be better for it.
I hope you are correct; my kids and theirs do, also. History shows that 'human nature' is so hard to change and we are so expert at fooling ourselves- 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' must be one of the worst aphorisms. Then there's religion, a form of insanity so infectious it beggars belief (pun intended). Islam particularly, anti-science and ossified; if that took over we are all doomed because after all, Allah knows best & we have no choice! Apology for my angry reaction- so many optimistic but unsubstantiated\ill informed opinions around that make for dangerous complacency. Yours IS well reasoned, however.
Thanks for your response. I am often attacked for having an exceptionally optimistic perspective on the future. But I do not try and describe a utopia. There are massive threats to human existence now (e.g., climate change), and there will be even bigger threats to human existence in the future (e.g., advanced A.I., 3D printed viruses, rogue nanotech, etc.). However, I believe that if you apply adaptation as an explanatory mechanism to the human species as superorganism you can theorize how these challenges and obstacles will be overcome (simply because the alternative is extinction). In nature, when an organism is confronted with significant and sudden environmental change they undergo punctuated equilibrium like change via natural selection (or if they don't they become extinct). With our species this actually happens. Except the selection pressures are on our institutions. We can also predict using Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns what technologies will exist in 2020, 2030, etc. Using both theories together we can hypothesize about what the most likely scenario state of our battle with climate change will be. For example, two very important technologies that have already been developed will be able to modify the chemical composition of the global atmosphere by 2030. Those include nanotech that can absorb CO2 and genetically modified bacteria programmed to live on large quantities of CO2. Both will allow us to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Technology evolves as biology does. Only x1million times faster. And the rate of technological change is accelerating. That is why I am not concerned about climate change. I do fear larger problems that we will face in the future. But hopefully if we start thinking about them now we will be able to put the necessary safe guards in to protect against those as well. As for your fear of Islam spreading... I would really not worry about that at all. All polls indicate that religious belief worldwide is declining. Consider the fact that by 2030 the entire world will actually be online all the time and most countries standard of living will be considerably higher. (there will also be Watson-like A.I. in every smart phone). With those technologies and situations I expect religion to collapse quite quickly. The institutions may remain for longer - but already the nature of belief in god has changed substantially over the past 100 years. In most of the developed world religion is a shell of its former self in terms of influence and authority. That will happen throughout the rest of the world as well.
Just an FYI that you've seem to have included your email address in your response. I'm not sure that was intentional.
Thanks, no it was not intended but no problem; hope I have not offended any homicidal loons :-)