cranewings wrote: Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;) In France, during the late 1200's a movement began that said that maybe there is no such thing as demonic possesion. That maybe, there is somthing wrong with his mind. A papal decree made a few years later essentially said that if you believed this, you were a heretic and were to be excommunicated. It would be another 400 years before the idea of mental illness would begin to gather steam. In the intervening time the Church would go on to conduct heinous crimes against humanity.
The biggest threat to humanity: a religious leader getting a hold of a nuclear weapon or other weapon of mass destruction.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: LazarX wrote: In the decades we've had it, we still don't have a plan on how to deal with long-lived nuclear wastes which remain toxic for far longer than our civilisation has lasted to date. And whatever the risk factors we have from fossil fuel, the worst that a coal plant explosion might do, won't leave a large area uninhabitable for a thousand years or more. So saying that the risk factors are equivalent, is a study of selective ignorance. Your analysis assumes that (a) coal is infinite in supply; and (b) anthropogenic climate change is a myth. If either of those assumptions are underturned, your conclusion shifts back towards nuclear energy very quickly.
Of course, an even better solution is to reduce the human population (and therefore fuel needs and pollution quotient) by about 90%, but I assume you're not advocating that. I'm not ignoring the problems of coal, CO2 piling up in the atmosphere, nor the finitude of fossil fuels. But that doesn't make the very real issues, environmental and economic, of nuclear power go away.
LazarX wrote: I'm not ignoring the problems of coal, CO2 piling up in the atmosphere, nor the finitude of fossil fuels. But that doesn't make the very real issues, environmental and economic, of nuclear power go away. Sorry, emphasis embold-ed by myself.
Um...what, pray-tell, are these issues of nuclear power?
Also, I do understand that this is definitely a tangential,
topic and would be more than happy to spawn a new thread upon it. *Bows*
Much cheers to you and yours.
, wrote: LazarX wrote: I'm not ignoring the problems of coal, CO2 piling up in the atmosphere, nor the finitude of fossil fuels. But that doesn't make the very real issues, environmental and economic, of nuclear power go away. Sorry, emphasis embold-ed by myself.
Um...what, pray-tell, are these issues of nuclear power?
Also, I do understand that this is definitely a tangential,
** spoiler omitted **
topic and would be more than happy to spawn a new thread upon it. *Bows*
Much cheers to you and yours. Nuclear waste: Thousands of years at least of toxic & radioactive death.
Accidents: Fukishima, Chernobyl
OTOH, there are some advanced designs that could mitigate both of these problems. Designs that fail into a shut-down state and that use more of the fuel cycle and thus produce much less waste. By definition, radioactive waste still has energy that should be able to be used to generate more power.
thejeff wrote: Nuclear waste: Thousands of years at least of toxic & radioactive death. One possible answer: 'Syn-roc' (Unsure of spelling). A method to literally ossify the material inside something that is nigh impregnable and invulnerable to erosion/spillage. Plus makes the material pretty much impossible to use for anything else, such as turning into a 'Dirty bomb' or re-processing.
Although, that being said, re-processing also is a form of waste management. Recycling of other worn out things is encouraged, why not the recycling of nuclear waste?
thejeff wrote: Accidents: Fukishima, Chernobyl Fukishima was natural disaster upon a scale previously unseen in living memory/history, which is why the tragedy took such a toll on human life. The many and varied systems the Japanese had in place mitigated the losses, but their efforts were simply over whelmed by the scale of the force of nature.
The interesting fact that Fukishima did not immediately breach etc is a testament to the design of a facility that was roughly 30 years old when it was put under such duress.
Chernobyl was a deliberate, human instigated event. Hence, not an 'accident' but a culpable, man made atrocity. The system did not fail through neglect, nor poor design but was mae to fail upon one person's orders.
thejeff wrote: OTOH, there are some advanced designs that could mitigate both of these problems. Designs that fail into a shut-down state and that use more of the fuel cycle and thus produce much less waste. By definition, radioactive waste still has energy that should be able to be used to generate more power. Indeed, there are such. :)
I feel, if there are more posts along this line, we should spawn another thread. We should, perhaps, be taking our different ball-game to a different paddock. *Bows*
LazarX wrote: I'm not ignoring the problems of coal, CO2 piling up in the atmosphere, nor the finitude of fossil fuels. Maybe you're not ignoring them in your thinking; however, you quite pointedly ignored all of them in your "analysis" -- making the whole thing more than a bit one-sided.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: LazarX wrote: I'm not ignoring the problems of coal, CO2 piling up in the atmosphere, nor the finitude of fossil fuels. Maybe you're not ignoring them in your thinking; however, you quite pointedly ignored all of them in your "analysis" -- making the whole thing more than a bit one-sided. That wasn't the question and you should know that. It was a rebuttal to the statement that the risks of nuclear and coal power are the same and they're not. They are of a different nature. The problem is that there is no solution that supports the current model of unrestricted growth. We need a sustainable paradigm for this planet much of which involves eliminating wasteful structures like suburbs.
cranewings wrote: Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;) This made me laugh. Thanks.
LazarX wrote: ... The problem is that there is no solution that supports the current model of unrestricted growth. We need a sustainable paradigm for this planet much of which involves eliminating wasteful structures like suburbs. H^3
bugleyman wrote: cranewings wrote: Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along. Now thanks to their crappy genetic engineering and fossil fertilizers, we can feed billions of people: so people breed until they get hungry again. Now the world is still subject to hungry people and starvation, but we are WAY over the population limit we can have without fossil fuel fertilizers, and WHEN those become too difficult to come by, their is going to be a massive famine the likes of which have never been seen - that is if there are any people left when they use the nuclear weapons to get at the last of the oil. We are already past peak Uranium, wind and geothermal are complete, so unless the guys at the Hadron Collide start pulling energy straight out of the either, all science did was stack up more people to kill later.
Thanks for that.
The potential of solar is practically limitless. As scarcity drives up the price of fossil fuels, the economic incentives for developing that potential will grow. Granted, it will be a painful transition, but the doomsday scenario you're predicting will never happen -- at least not because of fossil-fuel scarcity.
P.S. Say hi to Malthus for me. :) Hey, leave Malthus alone.
I know it is popular to beat on him, cause of the whole agricultural and industrial revolution thing, but his ideas are not entirely without merit.
The potential of sol as a power source is vast, but not limitless. It is limited in both life span and output. Those limits will probably never be something humanity needs to worry about, but they do exist.
So...do we, perhaps, need a separate thread for debating this power thing? Jus' askin'....
, wrote: So...do we, perhaps, need a separate thread for debating this power thing? Jus' askin'.... Yes, but I and probably everyone else are too lazy to make one...
Ragnarok Aeon wrote: , wrote: So...do we, perhaps, need a separate thread for debating this power thing? Jus' askin'.... Yes, but I and probably everyone else are too lazy to make one... Nah, not lazy. I just prefer threads that work like real discussions. You know, shift, change evolve as those involved latch on to different facets of the discussion.
Ofcause, if you have something interesting or really stupid to say with regards to atheism being a religion or not, I am sure that might move the discussion back that way.
Zombieneighbours wrote: Nah, not lazy. I just prefer threads that work like real discussions. You know, shift, change evolve as those involved latch on to different facets of the discussion.
Of cause, if you have something interesting or really stupid to say with regards to atheism being a religion or not, I am sure that might move the discussion back that way.
No...I have nothing to add either way other than my point of view is as an Agnostic/Atheist/Secular Humanist.
I have no care, nor need for any god(s) within my current world view. Something that I've been happy with for many decades now.
It is also always interesting/educational to watch those of another country as they air their thoughts/reasoning. *Bows*
Much cheers to you and yours.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
P.S. Say hi to Malthus for me. :)
Hey, leave Malthus alone.
My understanding is that if there hadn't been a real push towards birth control and various Green Revolution-type stuff, Malthus's dire predictions would have come true.
Of course, that might be the whole point of saying "hi" to him. But, even though we might be able to transfer to non-fossil fuel, some have argued that it's too late anyway.
I don't really care, because I purposefully chose not to reproduce.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote:
P.S. Say hi to Malthus for me. :)
Hey, leave Malthus alone.
My understanding is that if there hadn't been a real push towards birth control and various Green Revolution-type stuff, Malthus's dire predictions would have come true.
Would have? What makes you think that we've done anything but put him off for awhile?
LazarX wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote:
P.S. Say hi to Malthus for me. :)
Hey, leave Malthus alone.
My understanding is that if there hadn't been a real push towards birth control and various Green Revolution-type stuff, Malthus's dire predictions would have come true.
Would have? What makes you think that we've done anything but put him off for awhile? At some level Malthus is tautologically right. Infinite growth in finite space with finite resources is not possible.
OTOH, it's pretty clear that birth control, education and empowerment of women drops the birth rate enough that the population will stabilize. It's already happened in most of the developed world. If we can spread that to the rest of the world and develop an economic system that doesn't rely on continual growth, things would work out.
The question is, where will the population stabilize? And how badly will we have screwed the planet over by then?
The answers, unfortunately, look like: Too high and much too badly.
According to this
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about/question-where-does-census-b ureau-say-we.html
population growth does stabilize.
Its one of the main reasons why I'm for tight immigration restrictions.
Without stopping population growth, 'green' politics is a liberal game.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Hey, leave Malthus alone.
I know it is popular to beat on him, cause of the whole agricultural and industrial revolution thing, but his ideas are not entirely without merit.
The potential of sol as a power source is vast, but not limitless. It is limited in both life span and output. Those limits will probably never be something humanity needs to worry about, but they do exist.
Hence my use of the word practically. ;-)
Solar power is also influenced by the cost of production of solar cells. Unless there's been some recent improvements that I'm not aware of, solar cell production is very anti-environment friendly.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Solar power is also influenced by the cost of production of solar cells. Unless there's been some recent improvements that I'm not aware of, solar cell production is very anti-environment friendly. Just to point out, but there are other ways to generate electricity from the sun without using photovoltaic's. The 'Concentrate sunlight onto pipes to heat oil, generate steam, drive turbines.' Have many varied forms. Also, the issue of retaining working heat between day cycles, has a few different methods as well. *Bows*
, wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Solar power is also influenced by the cost of production of solar cells. Unless there's been some recent improvements that I'm not aware of, solar cell production is very anti-environment friendly. Just to point out, but there are other ways to generate electricity from the sun without using photovoltaic's. The 'Concentrate sunlight onto pipes to heat oil, generate steam, drive turbines.' Have many varied forms. Also, the issue of retaining working heat between day cycles, has a few different methods as well. *Bows* Every outdoor farm in the world is solar powered :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Solar power aside...isn't there some crazy relationship between matter and energy that science might someday exploit?
But seriously, doom has always been just around the corner. The specifics change, but the doom part keeps not happening. Don't underestimate human ingenuity.
bugleyman wrote: Solar power aside...isn't there some crazy relationship between matter and energy that science might someday exploit?
But seriously, doom has always been just around the corner. The specifics change, but the doom part keeps not happening. Don't underestimate human ingenuity.
Except you know, when it does. Civilization have gone down in environmental disasters before.
It hasn't happened on a global scale yet, because we haven't had the power to screw up the whole earth at once until quite recently.
Maybe we'll find a way out of this one. But we don't seem to be trying too hard.
Drill, baby, drill!
I am employed at a location where thirty years of our country's nuclear weapons manufacturing waste products have been stored, and we are getting rid of this waste, well I mean we are moving the waste to a new location which is a thousand miles away from where I am now, so, yeah, that's out of sight out of mind for me.
But on another note. Nuclear power plants do not generate the kind of waste you need to be concerned about (the dangerous waste is actually the spent fuel rods, which are dangerous, but easily managed, kind of). Hazardous Mixed Waste (google Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment) is generated in the manufacturing of components for weapons and reactors, and this waste is more problematic, but also, we are sort of getting a handle on it.
But on yet another note. Commercial reactor design is entering a new phase, designs are being reviewed that could, if succeessful, reduce the hazards associated with reactor accidents significantly.Also a googleable topic.
bugleyman wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote:
Hey, leave Malthus alone.
I know it is popular to beat on him, cause of the whole agricultural and industrial revolution thing, but his ideas are not entirely without merit.
The potential of sol as a power source is vast, but not limitless. It is limited in both life span and output. Those limits will probably never be something humanity needs to worry about, but they do exist.
Hence my use of the word practically. ;-) Touché.
thejeff wrote: Except you know, when it does. Civilization have gone down in environmental disasters before.
It hasn't happened on a global scale yet, because we haven't had the power to screw up the whole earth at once until quite recently.
Maybe we'll find a way out of this one. But we don't seem to be trying too hard.
Drill, baby, drill!
Given the context is explicitly our behavior: Can you actually name a society that has been destroyed by a man-made environmental disaster? I'm not saying you can't, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Zombieneighbours wrote: Touché. In hindsight that probably came across more snarky than I intended -- my apologies.
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: Except you know, when it does. Civilization have gone down in environmental disasters before.
It hasn't happened on a global scale yet, because we haven't had the power to screw up the whole earth at once until quite recently.
Maybe we'll find a way out of this one. But we don't seem to be trying too hard.
Drill, baby, drill!
Given the context is explicitly our behavior: Can you actually name a society that has been destroyed by a man-made environmental disaster? I'm not saying you can't, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Easter Island is the classic example.
For civilizations that have failed due to man-contributed environmental disasters, look into some of the theories put forth regarding the collapse of the civilization surrounding Angkor Wat, Cambodia.
Hitdice wrote: Every outdoor farm in the world is solar powered :) Very true, but unless they've really gone to town with the GE stuff...people won't be plugging their cars into tomatoes to get from point A to Point B. ;)
Nor will people be powering their home appliances with artichokes. ;)
As, yet another aside, the growing of 'bio-fuels' tends to run into the problem of supplanting food crops. So, while bio-fuels are useful...too much of them means our cars will run well and we all starve. Not to be see to be kicking the whole 'convert as much waste bio-matter into fuel' type thing either.
bugleyman wrote: Solar power aside...isn't there some crazy relationship between matter and energy that science might someday exploit? You may be thinking of 'Zero point energy'. Something that Star Gate latched onto in its fictional setting. The 'Zasimir effect' (Casimir?)? Hold two plates a bare fraction of space apart and an amount of force is some how generated. I think is the current example of such? But yes, supposed an amazing amount of potential energy in 'Nothing'...*Bows*
thejeff wrote: Easter Island is the classic example. ...which I should have remembered. The cynic in me would point out that they largely had their religion to thank for that, but it is still a valid example.
While I continue to believe fossil fuel dependency isn't going to doom mankind, I concede that you have a point...we are dumb enough to do ourselves in.
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: Easter Island is the classic example. ...which I should have remembered. The cynic in me would point out that they largely had their religion to thank for that, but it is still a valid example.
While I continue to believe fossil fuel dependency isn't going to doom mankind, I concede that you have a point...we are dumb enough to do ourselves in. The problem with climate change is that by the time the effects become undeniable, it's too late. You've got decades more trouble already locked in, even if you could turn on a dime.
bugleyman wrote: Solar power aside...isn't there some crazy relationship between matter and energy that science might someday exploit? You may be thinking of 'Zero point energy'. Something that Star Gate latched onto in its fictional setting. The 'Zasimir effect' (Casimir?)? Hold two plates a bare fraction of space apart and an amount of force is some how generated. I think is the current example of such? But yes, supposed an amazing amount of potential energy in 'Nothing'...*Bows*
:) I think it's more likely he is talking about that new-fangled partial matter-energy covers ion known as nuclear fission. (also possibly fusion and/or antimatter)
bugleyman wrote:
Given the context is explicitly our behavior: Can you actually name a society that has been destroyed by a man-made environmental disaster? I'm not saying you can't, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Mound builder culture may have collapsed because the population got too high, it was overfarmed, and then got hit with a drought.
Its a viable theory for what happened to Olmecs: rainforest soil sucks for long term agriculture unless you're VERY careful with it.
If you're living on the edge it only takes a small push to send you right over. You need too leave a little room for things to get worse.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
, wrote: Hitdice wrote: Every outdoor farm in the world is solar powered :) Very true, but unless they've really gone to town with the GE stuff...people won't be plugging their cars into tomatoes to get from point A to Point B. ;)
Nor will people be powering their home appliances with artichokes. ;)
As, yet another aside, the growing of 'bio-fuels' tends to run into the problem of supplanting food crops. So, while bio-fuels are useful...too much of them means our cars will run well and we all starve. Not to be see to be kicking the whole 'convert as much waste bio-matter into fuel' type thing either.
bugleyman wrote: Solar power aside...isn't there some crazy relationship between matter and energy that science might someday exploit? You may be thinking of 'Zero point energy'. Something that Star Gate latched onto in its fictional setting. The 'Zasimir effect' (Casimir?)? Hold two plates a bare fraction of space apart and an amount of force is some how generated. I think is the current example of such? But yes, supposed an amazing amount of potential energy in 'Nothing'...*Bows*
No insult, but it would be, like, much easier read your posts in regular color and size :)
I was just saying that the Sun is about as close to a 100% percent reliability rate as we're likely to find in this generation is all.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: Except you know, when it does. Civilization have gone down in environmental disasters before.
It hasn't happened on a global scale yet, because we haven't had the power to screw up the whole earth at once until quite recently.
Maybe we'll find a way out of this one. But we don't seem to be trying too hard.
Drill, baby, drill!
Given the context is explicitly our behavior: Can you actually name a society that has been destroyed by a man-made environmental disaster? I'm not saying you can't, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Easter Island is the classic example. The collapse of the Mayan Empire and the disappearance of the Anasanzi Indians are both also believed to be the result of major collapses in the food and environmental chain.
The Sahara Desert is believed to be entirely the result of Human actions in overgrazing the territory.
The Irish Potato famine would have resulted in the death of a country's population if it were not for the great waves of outgoing immigration. The fault there was in the reliance on one specific plant type for the country's breadbasket. Simmilar concerns have been raised about the vulnerability of our agribuisness bread basket as well as the fact that the United States bee population has been on a severe decline.
Hitdice wrote: No insult, but it would be, like, much easier read your posts in regular color and size :)
I was just saying that the Sun is about as close to a 100% percent reliability rate as we're likely to find in this generation is all.
The sun is just a gravity contained ball of fusion. It too will run out of fuel in the known future.
Also, the mount of energy the Earth manages to catch is a bare fraction of its out put.
Also, here's to a 'normal' from of post. :P
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
, wrote: Hitdice wrote: No insult, but it would be, like, much easier read your posts in regular color and size :)
I was just saying that the Sun is about as close to a 100% percent reliability rate as we're likely to find in this generation is all.
The sun is just a gravity contained ball of fusion. It too will run out of fuel in the known future.
Also, the mount of energy the Earth manages to catch is a bare fraction of its out put. Which is why we need to build a Dyson Sphere!
Started a new thread where we can shift the discussion about Energy => Here
thejeff wrote: , wrote: Hitdice wrote: No insult, but it would be, like, much easier read your posts in regular color and size :)
I was just saying that the Sun is about as close to a 100% percent reliability rate as we're likely to find in this generation is all.
The sun is just a gravity contained ball of fusion. It too will run out of fuel in the known future.
Also, the mount of energy the Earth manages to catch is a bare fraction of its out put. Which is why we need to build a Dyson Sphere! Dude, a Ringworld would capture all the surface energy at a much lower production cost; you just have to watch the orbital velocity...
Hitdice wrote: thejeff wrote: , wrote: Hitdice wrote: No insult, but it would be, like, much easier read your posts in regular color and size :)
I was just saying that the Sun is about as close to a 100% percent reliability rate as we're likely to find in this generation is all.
The sun is just a gravity contained ball of fusion. It too will run out of fuel in the known future.
Also, the mount of energy the Earth manages to catch is a bare fraction of its out put. Which is why we need to build a Dyson Sphere! Dude, a Ringworld would capture all the surface energy at a much lower production cost; you just have to watch the orbital velocity... No. A ringworld just captures a narrow band. If you want all the energy, you've got to enclose the whole thing.
It's not a bad first step though.
thejeff wrote: Hitdice wrote: thejeff wrote: , wrote: Hitdice wrote: No insult, but it would be, like, much easier read your posts in regular color and size :)
I was just saying that the Sun is about as close to a 100% percent reliability rate as we're likely to find in this generation is all.
The sun is just a gravity contained ball of fusion. It too will run out of fuel in the known future.
Also, the mount of energy the Earth manages to catch is a bare fraction of its out put. Which is why we need to build a Dyson Sphere! Dude, a Ringworld would capture all the surface energy at a much lower production cost; you just have to watch the orbital velocity... No. A ringworld just captures a narrow band. If you want all the energy, you've got to enclose the whole thing.
It's not a bad first step though. That was my whole point about the orbital velocity; Look let's just build two ringworlds, cross them at an axis and fill in the empty spots, okay?
Edit: a Ringworld or Dyson Sphere would capture all the surface energy in as much as there's no day/night cycle. So long as your surface energy input is greater than your total energy output, it could be a Ringworld, a Dyson Sphere or a Flying Spaghetti Monster...
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
No. A ringworld just captures a narrow band. If you want all the energy, you've got to enclose the whole thing.
It's not a bad first step though.
You don't need all the energy. And after all, you'd have to spin the sphere in order to get gravity. And containing all the suns output might give you heating problems. Spinning the sphere for gravity means that you only have a narrow habitable band anyway. This however still runs into the issue of maintaining a stable atmosphere.
Dyson Spheres rely on magical anti-gravity generators all over the place, and the failure of one produces a tornado that sucks up all your atmosphere into space.
Ringworld, on the other hand aside form a magic material to actually build the unit with just relies on simple classical physics.
Just to show some of the ramifications of actually becoming an Atheist, mostly in the US:
Social Suicide
I have to say, I've never seen an atheist shun someone for becoming religious (unless you count the over the top holier-than-thou born again types, who really push people away themselves).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
GentleGiant wrote: Just to show some of the ramifications of actually becoming an Atheist, mostly in the US:
Social Suicide
I have to say, I've never seen an atheist shun someone for becoming religious (unless you count the over the top holier-than-thou born again types, who really push people away themselves).
Unless it's the Internet, in which case admitting you're religious gets you "irrational" and "irredeemably stupid."
I'd imagine that a group of atheists wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious.
If the friendship didn't break up over the almost-natural derision I'd expect from the non-believers, then it would break up over the eventual attempts of the believer to convert the rest of them to faith.
Ultimately, it's all the same.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Andrew Turner wrote: I'd imagine that a group of atheists (or at least irreligious) wouldn't likely remain friends for very long with a member of their circle who became demonstrably religious. In my experience, we don't hang out in homogeneous "circles" or whatever. When I hang out with a group of friends, it's likely to contain a mix of atheists, agnostics, mildly religious, and devout. Had one friend who was a young earth creationist and used to challenge me about evolution all the time -- that didn't matter, we were still friends, both still spent time with our other friends as well. Religion (or lack thereof) is only a barrier if you let it be.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
