[Flaser]

...and I do.

Truth be told the thing that keeps the fusion development back is a debate wheter the first (experimental, but working) fusion power plant should be build in the USA or Japan.

[Unknown Target]

No, I believe it's France or Japan.

[übermetroid]

I think it should be on the moon.

[Flaser]

Originally posted by übermetroid
I think it should be on the moon.

...with you as the janitor.

--->stupid suggestions
<---stupid reactions

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
So...the hole in the ozone layer is a wacko theory? The accelerrated melting of ice caps, the scientific readings that there is less and less ozone around our planet, the disruption of seasons What disruption?  Spring still happens in March and Fall comes in Late September/Early October around here, just like it always has. and certain species lifestyles, the increase in global temperature - that's all crackpot theory?

I am not convinced that we are the cause of any of that.

To assume that any of that is directly caused by mankind is to be guilty of such enormous hubris that it beggar's description.

There are cycles on this world so grand that we cannot contemplate their length.

You enviromentalist whackos assume that their is some great equilibrium and that without people the Earth would be a paradise.  I hate to break it to you, but Nature is a violent and untamed thing.  You would be hard pressed to pick a time in all of history that there wasn't some kind of cataclysm going on somewhere on this mudball.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Unknown Target

So...the hole in the ozone layer is a wacko theory?

Let's be fair - the hole in the Ozone layer wasn't caused by humans, only exacerbated by our activities. It was discovered 2 years before CFCs were commercially used, and sits directly above a bunch of Antarctic volcanoes that naturally pump out CFCs. That said:

Originally posted by Liberator
To assume that any of that is directly caused by mankind is to be guilty of such enormous hubris that it beggar's description.

And to assume that we have no case to answer is both a foolish and negligent attitude to take. The data proves that much.

Originally posted by Liberator You enviromentalist whackos assume that their is some great equilibrium and that without people the Earth would be a paradise.  I hate to break it to you, but Nature is a violent and untamed thing.  You would be hard pressed to pick a time in all of history that there wasn't some kind of cataclysm going on somewhere on this mudball.

There is an equilibrium. There has to be for the ecology to have evolved to fit the organic and inorganic conditions that it's forced to deal with. But you don't believe in evolution so you're obviously never going to be able to comprehend the problems.

Oh, and I point to the Late Middle Jurassic as a paradisical time in the Earths History. It was post triassic desertification, pre cretaceous chilling and environmental degredation. The earth was largely tropical, there were no major mass extinctions, and the Earth had had long enough to recover from the minor mass extinction in the Late Early Jurassic.

Originally posted by Liberator

What disruption? Spring still happens in March and Fall comes in Late September/Early October around here, just like it always has.

This is... actually pretty worrying, from my POV (That of a student of Environmental Biology). It's this attitude that has led to the problem. You're, what, 24 or something? So you've got two decades of poorly recalled data to compare. Go back. Look at the long term data on rainfall, average temperature (If you want a specific example, go back and look at the sharp fall off of Rainfall in South Western Western Australia that has occurred over the last 50 or so years, vastly altering what is, as far as anyone can tell, a long term 60 or so year long rainfall cycle that just happens to closely coincide with severe clearing of Eucalypt forests to make space for agriculture. That's just one example - there are plenty of others - The Aswan dam if you want a better known example, the incredible shrinkage of the Amazon Rainforest if you want a more dramatic one.

[Liberator]

That incredible Amazon shrinkage is due to idiot farmers just moving on instead of fertilizing their land.

And who's to say the last 60 years of rainfall in SW Austrailia weren't an aberation.

All I'm saying is a lot of stuff about the Climatic Ecology of our world that is based on too little data and touted by too many scientists trying to get on the news instead of proving that their idea is correct.  It is highly arrogant to assume that we can change the global weather.  Locally I will concede, but we can't do anything to affect climate on as gross a scale as you claim.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Liberator
That incredible Amazon shrinkage is due to idiot farmers just moving on instead of fertilizing their land.

You can't tell me that the vast deforestation isn't going to cause any climate changes. Removal of plant foliage in a dense rainfall area means that topsoil is washed away leading to infertile land. The farmers then move and deforest more.

The end result? Several thousand years ago this same behavior was done in Mesopotamia and we have deserts in a once fertile flood plain.

Originally posted by Liberator
And who's to say the last 60 years of rainfall in SW Austrailia weren't an aberation.

Dendrochronology. We can measure rainfall and conditions of a climate based on tree rings for several hundred years. Adding in fossils you can create climate records reaching tens of thousands of years.

Originally posted by Liberator
All I'm saying is a lot of stuff about the Climatic Ecology of our world that is based on too little data and touted by too many scientists trying to get on the news instead of proving that their idea is correct.  It is highly arrogant to assume that we can change the global weather.  Locally I will concede, but we can't do anything to affect climate on as gross a scale as you claim.

We have changed global weather and climates in the past. We're currently doing so.

Even subsistence agriculture has had a massive impact on the planet, the industrial revolution and technology has allowed this impact to increase exponentially.

The real damage is though in the oceans. The unchecked fishing, trowlling, etc. has depleted environments that take centuries to recover.

We do have the ability to have more eco-friendly cars, farming, etc. but expedience, ignorance, and greed prevent this from occuring.

People screaming that researchers trying to understand the ecology of the planet are "eco freaks" doesn't help. The rainforest being cut down today might have a species going extinct with enzymes that could cure cancer.

Maybe that's the type of greed that is necessary for people to see the value of maintaining the planet. Killing species you don't understand means you'll never discover their benefits.

However I will concede one point to you Liberator, on a geologic timescale humanity is a mere inconvenience, it'll simply appear as another mass extinction that seemed to have no clear reason in the fossil record for the next idiotic sentient species to arise here which has an inflated sense of self-value.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

ok just a few thoughts.....

1.  Liberator, I take great offense to you calling anyone a whacko.  I am a glutton for food and litter and excess living, but at the same time, i will not disrespect anyone who actually cares for the environment.

2.  I've tolerated your excesses in attitude and mouth because we share a common faith, and we are in the minority here at HLP.  That ends, in one thread you preach tolerance, and in the next thread you are claiming that people who think that mankind has had ANYTHING to do with our failing economy is a whacko.  It's bull****.  The real reason that you don't want to face the fact that we are destroying the earth is that you don't want to face the fact that science can explain why our ecology is failing, and your faith can't.  

3.  If you really want to say that mankind had nothing to do with our ecological failings, let me remind you that in the early 1800's, the central buffalo herd numbered at over a million, 90 years later, the buffalo was extinct.  We killed it.  Man.  Now i don't pretend to know what the ecological ramifications of that are, but they are there, and we caused them.  Now i am not giving you an opinion, i am giving you facts, please offer me something based in fact, and not in opinion.

Whether or not you do this doesn't really matter, but as far as i am concerned your religeon does not give you the right to judge anyone who worries about out ecology as a whacko, nor does it give you the right to judge kazan as an overly intellectual self centered prick.  In fact, it doesn't give you the right to judge anyone at all.  But you have, and now "lest ye be judged yourself".

I've made my mistakes, i've said things i shouldn't have, but the bottom line is simple, if you don't want to be insulted, then stop insulting.  If you want to argue points in science or politics, get educated about a great number of things.  

Now for my opinion...sorry for the post length....

wasn't it Ai No (i may be wrong) who brought up the point that the energy companies wwould do well to encourage and fund these alternative energy sources, thereby gaining patents, and still making us pay them in order for us to use them?  That's a great way of looking at it, greed exemplified through diversification.  I think i would do that exact thing if i were in charge of a huge oil company.  We get a good rep for cleaning up the environment, and still make a ton of money.

anti grav....maybe when we master sub atomic particles we can start to be as serious about antigrav as we are about fusion.

[vyper]

[q]I mean just imagine what would happen if, all of a sudden, the world economy was flooded with free energy and every last man, woman, and child on Earth had access to a American type lifestyle. [/q]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html

Read it. It's not fun.

AND WHY AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT ANTI-GRAV?!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
That incredible Amazon shrinkage is due to idiot farmers just moving on instead of fertilizing their land.

And who's to say the last 60 years of rainfall in SW Austrailia weren't an aberation.

All I'm saying is a lot of stuff about the Climatic Ecology of our world that is based on too little data and touted by too many scientists trying to get on the news instead of proving that their idea is correct.  It is highly arrogant to assume that we can change the global weather.  Locally I will concede, but we can't do anything to affect climate on as gross a scale as you claim.

As Ace pointed out, you can't just fertilize deforested rainforest and expect something to grow; the entire ecosystem of the rainforest is based upon a cycle of growth and decay, and that decay leading to more growth.  The rainfall in the rainforests helps make the soil naturally infertile.  And these irrecoverable forests also are estimated to host 2 thirds of the Earths living species - do you really think destroying massive tracts of that habitat can take place without consequence to the ecosystem?

If that land was 'recoverable', then they'd do so; it'd be cheaper for them to do so in all likelyhood if so.  But it isn't, so they move on and just destroy another plot....

It's been estimated 50,000 rainforest species are rendered extinct each year.  They once covered 14% of the Earths surface - now it's 6% - and are estimated to provide 40% of the oxygen in the atmosphere.  Some predict they will be gone completely at current rates within 40 years.

But, I guess none of this affects us, becuase the most populous complex organism on the planet can't affect it in any way atall........it's strange, how you always seem to rely on one conclusion - 'the scientists are wrong'.

Seemingly, you can cast evidence-less judgement in complete freedom and impunity; and that somehow you can safely claim to know better than a global community which checks and cross-checks each other.

Odder still, that you'd choose the assumption that requires you do least work or consideration, that affects your lifestyle and concerns the least.  The one that, strangely enough, removes any sense of responsibility or desire to affect change on your part.

[Turnsky]

back on the subject of antigrav, inversely, creating an artificial gravity in a zero-grav enviroment would revolutionise space exploration to some degree. without the large mechanical constraints of course..

[Kosh]

Originally posted by StratComm
I'm not going to dignify any of this with a response.  If there was a way to generate cheap, clean, commercially exploitable power within our technological grasp, someone would have come up with it.  However, fusion, ZPE, antigrav, all of these technologies that are being discussed, are so far out of our technological reach - provided efficient harnessing of these sources is possible at all - that the suggestion that they are being held back for any reason is ludicris at best.

Basic fusion tech is well within our current reach, but making it efficient enough to be practical is still being worked on.



I think what they mean by technology being "held back" is that the R&D for such things is not funded nearly as well as it should be.

[Nico]

I have no knowledge about antigarv stuff, etc, and it all sounds very scifi to me, but, in all honesty, I'm pretty sure that the nukes during WW2 looked quite anachronous ( sp?) compared to shermans, luggers and spitfires, so why not?

As for for the fusion power plant, it was originally betwin the USA, France and Japan. Because ( iirc ) of the anti-nuclear lobby there, USA was ruled out, Japan is probably gonna be a gonner because of the increasing number of earthquakes lately plus some economical issues that I don't know the details of, so that leave just France, which is anyway the most logical candidate if you ask me, we're the best when it comes to nuclear powerplants, I believe. We're the first user in the world, in fact, we even had experiments in more advanced forms of nuclear powerplants with the ( sadly quickly stopped ) Phoenix super-reactor. Not that I'm particularly happy with it, for a very trivial reason: that fusion prototype will cost our government a ****load, and who's gonna pay? Huh?

[Grug]

I mostly agree with aldo on the environment issue.

But it is human nature to be susceptable to believing and disbelieving something they have'nt seen or experienced personally.

The earth is not really that big. Near all astronaughts become environment friendly promoters after being in space. For the simple fact that they see and experience the size of earth. They see it as finite.
To some degree, similar feelings can be experienced after flying in a plane or being atop a tall mountain. The amount you can see from horizon to horizon. Seeing the curvature of the earth.

Its big yes, but not infinite. It has its limits, and without a doubt I believe humans have made a significantly large impact on the earths environment, and will continue to do so.

As for fusion. I think its potentially dangerous, yet potentially a solution to a lot of the worlds problems.

If the world suddenly had an infinite free, clean source of energy I don't think it would end up how you suggested Lib. It would still take several years for the plants to be constructed around the world, and at first it would only appear in developed nations.
Economically, its possible that countries that do gain it would at first gain International dollar.
Without power bills, more free money for the peasants to spend on trade, and thus more tax, thus more money for government. Needless to say inflation would probably catch up.
Fusion energy doesn't really solve the car fuel problem. Unless cars are switched to be rechargable battery powered. That however would require more years research and development. (The current ones are pretty crap) Plus more years for them to drop in price to be of normal cars.
Eventually the wealth would spread, and developing nations would get there own too.
The human race would learn to cope. There isn't much that could put us at a pause excluding the possibility of a third world war.

As for the government spending '****loads' on a potentially very advantagous project. How about the '****loads' they already waste on complete unrequired crap?

Anti-gravity. Hmm. Well I like to believe that nearly anythings possible so here's hoping.
But seriously, I'm a bit wary of strong electric fields and magnets. They say they are harmless, but I still reckon its possible to get cancer from those things, especially if you lived near one on a daily basis...

My 2 cents worth.

[Liberator]

I call "Whacko" any time I see someone making demands and not taking the lead in fulfilling them.

The Enviromentalist movement has a noble goal:  To reduce or eliminate as much as possible, the impact of industrialization on the enviroment.

However, when the leadership preaches things like fuel economy and lowered resource usage to the masses and then climbs into a Suburban to go to a steak dinner I question their motives.  When they demand that the general public do without and they themselves continue to drive Hummers and Porches, I question them.

If the Enviromentalist movement wants to be taken seriously.  They need to step up and develop some kind of plan that will detail how they intend to replace the gas burners with electrics and how they intend to generate that electricity cheaply and on a mass scale.  This plan needs to be simple enough for Joe Blow on the street to comprehend without blowing out the 5 brain cells he's got left after spending half his life in a drunken stupor.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
I call "Whacko" any time I see someone making demands and not taking the lead in fulfilling them.

The Enviromentalist movement has a noble goal:  To reduce or eliminate as much as possible, the impact of industrialization on the enviroment.

However, when the leadership preaches things like fuel economy and lowered resource usage to the masses and then climbs into a Suburban to go to a steak dinner I question their motives.  When they demand that the general public do without and they themselves continue to drive Hummers and Porches, I question them.

If the Enviromentalist movement wants to be taken seriously.  They need to step up and develop some kind of plan that will detail how they intend to replace the gas burners with electrics and how they intend to generate that electricity cheaply and on a mass scale.  This plan needs to be simple enough for Joe Blow on the street to comprehend without blowing out the 5 brain cells he's got left after spending half his life in a drunken stupor.

Have you ever considered that the reason that the leaders of nations don't take the lead is because a) they are representative of a population who mostly don't give a **** and b) many take significant campaign contributions for the fossil fuel giants?

You're using the hypocrisy of the worlds leadership as an excuse not to do anything.

there are people researching and proposing fossil fuel alternatives already; ethanol as a gasoline substitute (used in Brazil IIRC; can be distilled from sugar cane), wind/wave/water/solar power, burning of sewage (in stations designed to reduce pollution), the obvious work on electric and dual-powered cars, natural gas powered buses.... but all this needs the support of both governments and the people (who ultimately will help finance it).  Look at an average city and the number of lights left on at night, in empty offices - why does that need a presidental order to be stopped?

EDIT; Oh, and why does a plan have to be simple?  All it has to be is a plan that can work.

[Bobboau]

ethanol's bull.
thermal depolemerisation and fuel cells is were it's at.

[aldo_14]

How many fuel cells are you likely to see making it to 3rd world countries, though?

[Bobboau]

it's more how long untill I see them, wich would probly be 50 years after seeing them here, but I still hold out hope for thermal depoemerisation, fuel oil from nothing.