Hi. Wow...

[homegrown]

Hey Bill,

I wish I were very intelligent. Experience suggests that I'm a bit above averagely intelligent - but I am very well read. I spend my days trying to prevent the extinction of my species. I know how - but it's proved very difficult to put the idea across, and so I got the webcam. That so, still, I'm not sure a Skype style forum would work. I just watched a programme on BBC1 called 'The Big Questions.' It's an audience participation philosophical discussion - that invariably descends into a shouting match. It'd be fun, but I suspect much the same would result.

Another problem, Bill from Ohio - is that the internet here in the UK is slow and expensive. You have to pay a standing charge for a phone line - not fibre optic to your house, but fibre optic to a box in the street and the same 60 year old copper wire to your house! Plus ISP standing charge, and in addition they meter the amount of data you use, then charge you again above a certain limit. (Which is why some people are groaning about you putting HD quality videos on the page. My videos are low resolution and captured at 15 frames a second, so they only use 1MB per minuet.) In addition to both local and national phone call charges, frankly, communication here is something of a luxury. It's an example of the crippling of technology by an ideological imperative to profit. Yet I understand it's much better in the US. Is it?


Sphere of Balance,

Sorry, it was 'The Voice of Time' who misunderstood the term 'survival ethic,' not you! And, furthermore...

homegrown wrote:
but the massive heat energy of the earth's molten core is a freely available resource that could supply the whole world with an effectively limitless supply of clean energy.

The Voice of Time wrote:
I would be interested to know just how the sun is "an effectively limitless supply of clean energy", when, in truth, the means by which we harvest the sun's energy, are absolutely limited.

The Voice of Time,

I agree that the current means by which we harvest the sun's energy is limiting. I don't know about space based solar panels, and microwaving energy down to earth, but usually, it's a very diffuse (spread out) source of energy, as is wind and wave power. There's plenty of it - but it's what they call 'low grade energy.' However, what I said was that the EARTH'S MOLTEN CORE is an effectively limitless supply of clean energy, not THE SUN.

The earth's molten core is the nearest large source of 'high grade energy.' The thickness of the crust relative to deep drilling is not the issue. Thousands of miles long, the 'Pacific Ring of Fire' abounds with volcanic fissures, magma chambers, fumeroles and ghysers spewing vastly more energy into the sky everyday than the world uses in a year. It's not beyond the wit of man to capture that heat energy - to produce steam, to turn a turbine, to produce electricity. When electric current is passed through water it breaks the atomic bonds between the H and 2 O's. That H is hydrogen, which when burnt - i.e. oxidized, turns back into water vapour. Hydrogen can be coolled/compressed into liquified gas - which contains 2.5 times the calorific value of pertoleum per Kg. Shipped and piped around the world - it can be burnt in gas fired power stations, by the internal combustion engine, and for industrial and domestic uses.

Where you say - ''I wouldn't think there are many places on the Earth where it's as useful as on Iceland to exploit geothermal energy'' you'd be factually incorrect, but more importantly...you're missing the point of looking beyond ideological illusions to a scientifically valid understanding of reality. Iceland isn't somehwere else - it's here, on Earth, a single planetary environment occupied by humankind, a single species with a common interest in survival. If you would continue in the course of such ideologcal illusions then this whole discussion is moot. The energy companies will never find it economically rational to apply alternatives to fossil fuels, for even as fossil fuels run short - they only increase in value.

Anyhow, how are the acoustics on the new video? Any better?

regards all,

hg.

[The Voice of Time]

we're dealing with infinity here. You do agree that it's gonna get very dark if we put a limitless amount of solar panels in the sky, don't you? If it was LIMITED, I'd be all for it.

[The Voice of Time]

The Voice of Time,

I agree that the current means by which we harvest the sun's energy is limiting. I don't know about space based solar panels, and microwaving energy down to earth, but usually, it's a very diffuse (spread out) source of energy, as is wind and wave power. There's plenty of it - but it's what they call 'low grade energy.' However, what I said was that the EARTH'S MOLTEN CORE is an effectively limitless supply of clean energy, not THE SUN.

Same point -> the means by which we harvest it is limited, including raw resources, space itself and effort-per-unit-of-time.

The earth's molten core is the nearest large source of 'high grade energy.' The thickness of the crust relative to deep drilling is not the issue. Thousands of miles long, the 'Pacific Ring of Fire' abounds with volcanic fissures, magma chambers, fumeroles and ghysers spewing vastly more energy into the sky everyday than the world uses in a year. It's not beyond the wit of man to capture that heat energy - to produce steam, to turn a turbine, to produce electricity. When electric current is passed through water it breaks the atomic bonds between the H and 2 O's. That H is hydrogen, which when burnt - i.e. oxidized, turns back into water vapour. Hydrogen can be coolled/compressed into liquified gas - which contains 2.5 times the calorific value of pertoleum per Kg. Shipped and piped around the world - it can be burnt in gas fired power stations, by the internal combustion engine, and for industrial and domestic uses.

Yeah yeah, I know all that, or at least I know about Hydrogen fuel. I also know that one of the reasons it's not used today is that it's very dangerous because of its high flammability and inefficient for its costs of production for fuel use. A modestly lengthy quote from wikipedia:

Hydrogen has been called one of the least efficient and most expensive possible replacements for gasoline (petrol) in terms of reducing greenhouse gases; other technologies may be less expensive and more quickly implemented.[50][51] A comprehensive study of hydrogen in transportation applications has found that "there are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward".[4] Although Ford Motor Company and French Renault-Nissan cancelled their hydrogen car R&D efforts in 2008 and 2009, respectively,[52][53] they signed a 2009 letter of intent with the other manufacturers and Now GMBH in September 2009 supporting the commercial introduction of FCVs by 2015.[54]
An accounting of the energy utilized during a thermodynamic process, known as an energy balance, can be applied to automotive fuels. With today's technology, the manufacture of hydrogen via steam reforming can be accomplished with a thermal efficiency of 75 to 80 percent. Additional energy will be required to liquefy or compress the hydrogen, and to transport it to the filling station via truck or pipeline. The energy that must be utilized per kilogram to produce, transport and deliver hydrogen (i.e., its well-to-tank energy use) is approximately 50 megajoules using technology available in 2004. Subtracting this energy from the enthalpy of one kilogram of hydrogen, which is 141 megajoules, and dividing by the enthalpy, yields a thermal energy efficiency of roughly 60%.[55] Gasoline, by comparison, requires less energy input, per gallon, at the refinery, and comparatively little energy is required to transport it and store it owing to its high energy density per gallon at ambient temperatures. Well-to-tank, the supply chain for gasoline is roughly 80% efficient (Wang, 2002). The most efficient distribution however is electrical, which is typically 95% efficient. Electric vehicles are typically 3 to 4 times as efficient as hydrogen powered vehicles.

Where you say - ''I wouldn't think there are many places on the Earth where it's as useful as on Iceland to exploit geothermal energy'' you'd be factually incorrect

I'm ignoring your ideological rambling (which of course is so extremely ironic because in the rambling you are accusing me of the crime you commit yourself). If you want to be scientific, you'll have to tell me why, through solid facts, that the sentence of mine is factually incorrect. The geology of Iceland is not unique, but I didn't say that either, I said "not many", and I'd like for you to show me then, if you know I'm incorrect, how there are many places on this planet which are equally or more useful than Iceland. (though actually when I said "useful" I meant more than just the prospects of natural resources, but what other things I meant like access to expertise, funding and the likes, I don't think you'd be interested in, so take up the challenge you face with just the natural resource and showing how it there are many like it in the world)

The energy companies will never find it economically rational to apply alternatives to fossil fuels, for even as fossil fuels run short - they only increase in value.

I think you miss a major point in business: do what you do best, and stick to that. Which means, those who produce oil, they should keep doing their best, while those who make green energy, should keep doing that to their best ability. You don't see Shell producing or mass-installing solar panels because that's not their expertise. On the other hand, it might become an interest of investment to them would other people who specialize in solar panels succeed in creating efficient use of resources to make a good solid product. But they wouldn't personally do it themselves, only try to acquire a share in the company as to hold strategic sources of profit. Said in another way: people stick to what makes money (and before you criticize this: if people make money the wrong way, it's the governments job to regulate so that people aren't exploited to their disadvantage by other people).

[homegrown]

On No Reply.

First I should say that I know that I'm right. I appreciate that there's a counter-intuitive quality to the idea I'm putting forward, and that understanding it requires a certain self-sacrifice. It's not easy to look beyond ones-self - but I admit I am one of seven billion human beings on Earth, and am not diminished by it. I don't parse that reality with ideological illusions - divide the world by the illusions of national sovereignty, religious identity and socio-economic class status - and assume that the chosen few who are just like me are all that's good and right, existing now - in the ever present moment. But I understand the inclination to view the world through the lens of one's identity; and know therefore how disconcerting it must be to have an unfiltered view of reality presented as a truth you have a moral obligation to accept.

The problem is I've undermined belief in religion by explaining that it must have occurred in the course of the evolutionary development of humankind from ignorance into knowledge over time. I've shown that nation-states and money are just made up; and how they pervert the calculus of reason. I've explained the relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and causal reality, and shown that acting on the basis of these primitive ideological concepts will render humankind extinct. That doesn't leave a lot to believe in, or to hope for. I can't just give in and join you doomed monkeys in your route march upon the abyss. I have to keep trying; not least because what I describe is something worth believing in and hoping for.

It's quite ironic, that when I try to describe exactly what it is worth believing in; beyond the avoidance of unimaginable suffering and the continued existence of our species, I find I have faith in a reciprocal relationship, that condemned by the judgment of causality for falsity; because acting upon truth is the means to survive, that in acceptance of truth there's a reason for our species to continue to exist, somewhere to go, something to be, to do or to know. I'm aware of how big space is - and that propelling any mass to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy. 186,000 miles per second, and even so it would take four years to reach the nearest star, then seven years, then eleven years. There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and hundreds of billions of galaxies. In face of such immensity it's tempting to admit the absolute insignificance of humankind as a basis to accept falling into a pit of our own excavation, but for the fact that we are able to know and thereby encompass such awe-inspiring immensity.

Maybe it's just that I believe in the human being. I mean, look at me. I'm the epitome of average - yet I'm going to change the world, save my species from extinction. Human beings are extraordinary. There's no doubt in my mind that humankind can solve the energy crisis and climate change, support a large population and protect the environment, and live well and long into the future. But then, you ideological doom monkeys are not really human yet. Describing yourselves in terms of religious, political and economic ideologies false to reality you exist in denial of reality. You're like we were before the 'Creative Explosion' 35,000 years ago - waiting upon the conceptual evolution I've suffered through alone.

'If human evolution were an epic, the upper paleolithic would be the chapter where the hero comes of age. Suddenly, after millenia of progress so slow it hardly seems like progress at all, human culture seems to take off in what the writer John Phiffer has called a 'creative explosion.' At a German site called Vogelherd, someone picked up a piece of ivory 32,000 years ago and carved an exquisite horse in miniture - mouth, flared nostrils and swollen belly all breathlessley realistic. Before Vogelherd, there were no representational horses...'

'The Neanderthal Enigma' (James Shreeve.)

The hero may have come of age, but 35,000 years later, is intellectually - still a child. You believe things that aren't true to the exclusion of things that are. In face of the energy crisis and climate change - it's time to grow up, look reality in the eye and do what's necessary to secure the future. If you'd rather continue in the course of obvious falsity to your doom than try to survive - I'm sorry but I can't help but pity and slightly despise you. I try to disguise it, but maybe you're picking up on my contempt - and returning the sentiment. What I loathe though, is not the human being beneath the ideological monkey mask, not you as such - it's the mistake of drawing your identities and purposes from ideological falsities that condemn you to extinction. How can I love, or work with, or befriend you - who are wrong, willfully ignorant and consequently doomed? I want to belong to a species with a future. By putting childish ideological ideas aside; accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common, applying technology for the right reasons - humankind can not only survive, but live well and long into the future.

I know I'm right, and tacitly you know I'm not wrong or you'd be only too keen to point out my mistake. Yet, still - you don't support me, communicate it, shout the revelation from the rooftops: 'We have the answer. Humankind will live in peace and prosperity forevermore. Hurrah!' I've been trying for eight years to get through to you - and haven't even been invited to write an article on the subject for the PhilosophyNow magazine. The only original thought on a significant issue on this entire forum - and you can't handle it. As philosophers - you suck!

hg.

[homegrown]

The Voice of Time

Thermodynamic inefficiency only matters in the context of scarcity. There's no scarcity of heat in the earth's molten core - no limit to the amount of hydrogen that can be produced from that source. Again, a hidden ideological basis of analysis perverts the calculus of reason. (...just rambling - you'll want to ignore that!)

hg.

[The Voice of Time]

I know I'm right

That was really all you said in that long ranting text, the rest was a mix of active insult, something resembling raging and stories from evolution.

I know you're wrong, homegrown, because you don't care shit about human needs, all you seemingly want is your own mental image projected onto the world, and you want everybody to be and do as you tell them is right without asking their opinions on the matter and working tightly with them on issues.

I also know that yes, it is no secret we have answers to a lot of things, and we are already working on making those things work in our world. As for your self-presumed deep insight into human nature concerning ideology, religion and the likes, I'm not sure you even know what those words mean. For instance: what is your answer to abortions? And do you think so that your opinion on the matter should be enforced on all human beings to honour your supreme understanding?

[The Voice of Time]

As philosophers - you suck!

Because I don't agree with you? What is your opinion on what a good philosopher is? I've spent a very large part of my 20 years of life developing philosophical systems and figuring out solutions to real-world problems not to mention trying to develop comprehensive civil society social-engineering solutions and last, but not least, developing sciences on human needs and abilities and the workings of the universe and how to engineer successful ideas.

I may have lost an important point, but what category of a person do I belong to if not a philosopher?

[homegrown]

The Voice of Time,

If you're twenty years old then the category of person you most belong to is 'child.' Before you were born, I set out on a philosophical journey that led to these conclusions. Seeking to dismiss my writing as rambling only demonstrates your immaturity. You may not understand how one concept relates to another, or you may disagree - but a philosopher would know that what I've written makes sense from my point of view, and seek to understand the logic of that perspective. The child doesn't understand this because they are profoundly egocentric. Your instinct is to dismiss anything that doesn't immediately make sense to you because you are insecure in your identity and opinions - and all too often find yourself blown around like a leaf on the wind by new ideas. What you want most is certainty - but my advice is to let go of what you think you know and surf the wind - enjoy the terrible experience of revelations that change your whole perspective. Such experiences are gifts - and to spurn them by pretending to know your own mind at 20 years old is damaging. You close your mind at such an age - you'll never become a philosopher!

hg.

Try wrap your head around this. In evolution - either the organism is correct to reality else rendered extinct. If humankind doesn't accept that acting on the basis of valid knowledge is necessary, we will suffer and die out. And we should - because we are wrong. Were there a God in Heaven, I could not in good conscience plead that we should be excused from the cause and effect dynamics of evolution, that by countless extinctions have moulded us from a mountain of disregarded designs. All that's necessary to cosmic justice is that the information is available, and I cannot say it more clearly than this: accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, and on the basis of what's true - do what's necessary to survive. If you can't understand that then there's something profoundly wrong with you - and sorry, but you've got to go.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Awesome post.



.

[The Voice of Time]

The Voice of Time,

If you're twenty years old then the category of person you most belong to is 'child.' Before you were born, I set out on a philosophical journey that led to these conclusions. Seeking to dismiss my writing as rambling only demonstrates your immaturity.

I'm not quite sure "age" can ever been a valid argument for somebody else being wrong. That's quite abusive of you to indicate.

[homegrown]

It's not a moral failing - it's just a stage of development, necessary to serious philosophical opinions and dialogue, that can only be the product of age and experience. It's that looking beyond yourself/putting yourself in someone elses shoes that's really difficult at a young age because you are asserting your opinions/identity as a defence against your own insecurities. But really - you're more aware than I was at your age.

[SpheresOfBalance]

but the massive heat energy of the earth's molten core is a freely available resource that could supply the whole world with an effectively limitless supply of clean energy.

I would be interested to know just how the sun is "an effectively limitless supply of clean energy",
Because from a human perspective it is the longest lived energy source, as with it's end, so comes ours. So it is limitless with respect to humans, in fact we owe our very existence to our star, which has caused and been around since "life" on the planet began, Id say that's pretty limitless. And clean as during energy production there are no generated pollutants.

when, in truth, the means by which we harvest the sun's energy, are absolutely limited.
You mean only with respect to what's currently employed, (due to personal interests of money) which is not to say, that with common place usage, does not come additional/more efficient means, quite the contrary, I'm sure.

We don't have unlimited amounts of supply of the resources used to make a solar panel, for instance,
The most wasteful technology is 80% recyclable, while the least is 95% recyclable. How does one recycle crude oil? Oh that's right, you can't, as it's definitely non sustainable.

and the solar panel takes up space,
Space that's largely unused, how does one really use their roof after all, except to shed water, which cleans off the dust, so as to maintain efficiency.

and then it takes up workload to make and maintain.
What doesn't require workload and maintenance? Oil production facilities? The Internal Combustion Engine? Are you lazy? Something for nothing?

That, to me, is quickly three different categories of resources which are absolutely limited, the last one limited in the sense of a finite number of specialists and personnel who can be allocated to do it, and a finite number of people who can be supported doing it for all their needs in turn.
Once, there was one gas station! But everybody jumped on board, now how many are there?

The sun may not die, but our planet could easily be a hell to live on should we become obsessed with covering it in solar panels
The square footage of ones roof is usually sufficient to meet the homes energy needs. What, do you live in some sort of Eiffel Tower, that comes to a point?

or other solar-harvesting technology, simply because it takes up space and is very inefficient
See above, oh misinformed one.

and may because of that cost us by the way our efforts spent doing it will be reserved for it and will have to be withdrawn from other things we might find necessary to have.
There you go again, with that self-centered, me, me, me attitude. All things worthwhile, requires a little work my friend.

[The Voice of Time]

You may not understand how one concept relates to another, or you may disagree - but a philosopher would know that what I've written makes sense from my point of view, and seek to understand the logic of that perspective.

This all sounds a lot like men used to treat women in the old days... what was the term for that again? ... patronizing behaviour... I think you should be the last person to patronize me.

[The Voice of Time]

It's not a moral failing - it's just a stage of development, necessary to serious philosophical opinions and dialogue, that can only be the product of age and experience. It's that looking beyond yourself/putting yourself in someone elses shoes that's really difficult at a young age because you are asserting your opinions/identity as a defence against your own insecurities. But really - you're more aware than I was at your age.

I think honestly that in my head I'm older than you. So sorry that you're gonna get grey hair sooner than me. But it doesn't make you smarter.

[The Voice of Time]

and all too often find yourself blown around like a leaf on the wind by new ideas.

That does not sound like anything I know of myself. Who exactly are you speaking of here? You can't equate me with yourself if that's where you're speaking in analogy from.