For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Hello, let me join the thread with the next.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:01 am Just gauging the thread, are the discussions past week mostly in the spirit of
- Technical solutions
- Mass reduction of use of energy
- despair
?
- Denial of "good energy" shortage
I say that existing technologies, besides those fossil fuel sources, can rule the day and curb/reverse Global warming if everyone joins in, and I mean America too!Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:21 pmI disagree. Seeking to attribute blame offers no path to a sustainable future. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 3:54 amIn this case, to accept the "is" is a cop-out, is lazy, is cowardly and a failure to be truly affecting positive change. To wrestle with the "ought" is ground breaking, staying fit, brave, and revolutionary deserving of a noble prize.
Blame is not the end, rather the beginning, and it's the only way to find solution.
You quoted the OP - did you not read it? There is no over population, and no inherent limit to resources if we apply the right technology.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 10:37 pmBut what you seem to be missing is that the earths resources are finite, and our population is an explosion with no apparent end in sight. We're not even bridling it. On it's course humanity is not sustainable. It's far more intelligent to place all our tech into returning to older ways, where recycling and sustainability are the number one and two money making industries. Solar is the smartest choice for power generation as there's no chance of disturbing anything on earth which may be key to life. We've been raping it for far too long. And if we screw it up much more, it may extinguish all life as we know it. Our problem is that we never really take the time to know the reasons we shouldn't, as we fear our own personal timeline might not allow for our so called success, our ultimate payoff, our names in history books. Or in other words, a bunch of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. As it all makes no difference to us when we're dead. We can't take it when we go. It's far better to take the slow road ensuring we have all our ducks in a row, so there's no room for error. Absolute certainty is the smartest choice.
There is no such thing as never ending resources, 'the cup will always eventually over flow.' (<---metaphor)
Solar is not the right technology, as it can never meet our energy needs, less yet exceed current energy demand - and so provide excess energy to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. Solar can only ever prevent some small part of GHG emissions - and to do so requires a lot of infrastructure, not just square mile after mile of solar panels, but also energy storage infrastructure. Because solar is inconstant, you need to store that energy, and even then, still require fossil fuel back up generating capacity. Solar panels use toxic metals in their manufacture, last 25 years, and then are impossible to recycle and expensive to replace.
Along with wind and hydrogen it is, and science isn't through yet, there could be new developments in solar. It is the SMARTEST choice, as when our star depletes it's hydrogen, we're going to die anyway. And it has no known side effects as it's been giving us energy from the very beginning. Your idea could be the end of us. The planet is essentially a dynamo and tapping its energy could screw with our magnetosphere and the liquid nature of our iron core, so that we'd end up like mars. It may take a long time for such a thing to happen, but the sun would probably out live such a possibility. Solar is the safest choice.
Magma energy, I believe - does have the potential to meet and exceed current energy demand from clean energy, and used to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, multiplies resources - in much the same way the invention of tractors and fertilizers allowed food production to outpace population growth, and so prove the Malthusian prophecy wrong. Limits to growth is the same false prophecy. It's not necessarily so. As a matter of physical fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and there's a virtually limitless source of energy in the molten interior of the earth. It seems technologically feasible to tap into that energy on a very large scale. Thus I submit, that's what we 'ought' to do; put aside the blame game, and apply the right technologies.
Nuclear is even better and safe with liquid salt cooled reactors. One's been running for many years without any accidents whatsoever. Nuclear by far is the best yielding technology.
Otherwise, seeking to attribute blame, the fact that America consumes a lot of energy per person, for example, while China has a very large population, immediately stalls any progress. They can't even agree on the basis on which 'responsibility' should be attributed, but if you want to keep working on a Gordian knot that hasn't been untangled in 25 previous COPS, keep at it. Meanwhile - I think we can do an end run around all those huge, diametrically opposed, stalemated forces, by developing magma energy as a global good, specifically to address the climate and ecological crisis - and thus, make environmental gains without attributing blame, and without undermining economic prosperity. Attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side does not imply a long series of costly, politically painful impositions upon society. Solar does, and that's why for you, it's about blame!