MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
The Apocalypse!
Join to comment
 Group admin 
Friends, the time has come to realize that the world will end- no it won't.

This thread is actually a combination of some previous topics. As many of you probably know, December 21st, 2012, was suppose to be the end of the world. However, the only thing that happened that day was "Gangnam Style" reaching 1,000,000,000 views on YouTube (so maybe the world did end!). In all seriousness, though, nothing happened, and people that were crouching about in their bomb shelters had to come out and face the harsh reality.

Now, a little more exposition, and then we get to the questions. If you haven't seen our newest member's (Tim C) creation, the Exodus, than frankly, where have you been? It is quite excellent, and particularly appeals to me (free advertising for my ISSC ha ha!). However, as my comment on his creation, I pointed out that some of his Doomsday Scenarios were a bit off. If you want to see the creation, here is the link:http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/364433 and you can see the areas that he pointed out. So, overall, looking at what he has said (and I do recognize that he doesn't support all the topics) what is your stance on the Apocalypse? Will it be nuclear warfare, or aliens, or a large meteor and or comet, or the sun? What will be the end of all life on Earth, and will humanity survive?
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 2:13 pm
Well i believe that we will end up poisoning ourselves with all kinds of pollution (CO2, Plutonium, Uranium, various short & long wave radio emissions, and that host of other nasty stuff that all 'has no immediate impact' on our health) or through deliberate use of anything from food additives to building materials that 'we didn't know was poisonous' (i mean, romans used lead pipes for their water supply, and today we use industrial-waste-fluorides in our water and toothpaste) In the end it all adds up, and suddenly the upwards trend in the count of number of humans on earth will begin to flatten and even reverse over time. With the amount and variety of toxins present in our environment today i summise that the first signs of changes in that count will be visible in 100-150 years or so. Maybe less..
Permalink
| July 10, 2013, 11:54 am
funny to see this today, i watched the first movie i've ever watched where the world ends. I don't think it would be nuclear warfare, because we know we'd have everyone dead if we went there. (and i hope ALL warfare has stopped by then, it's 5tupid and creates more problems than it solves) Probably the sun or a meteorite, why would an alien just blow up a planet?
Permalink
| July 13, 2013, 8:40 pm
Nuclear holocaust. No aliens or anything like that. Just a red button pushing contest.
Permalink
| July 13, 2013, 8:55 pm
Well, for some reason I feel that I should weigh in here;)

First off, thank you, Achintya, for the name drop and the link to my build.

Achintya is correct. I don’t necessarily support all of the views that I mentioned in the intro of the Exodus, they were more to shed light on possibilities. I don’t think that we will pollute the planet to death, or that we will drill until the planet shakes us off. Those views have been presented by others, and I don’t believe that’s the way it will happen. What I do believe, however, is that I haven’t the foggiest what’s possible.

Let me explain:

I mentioned drilling and sending this planet’s tectonics out of control. I don’t believe that will happen, but do I know it? Does anyone know it? I can’t, with any confidence, say that they do. We’ve never dealt with any of it. We haven’t tested the Earth’s stability enough to know the answer. Many claim to know, but their claims are really just postulations. So even though I can say I don’t believe it, I can’t say that it’s impossible. The same with nuclear weapons. If every nuclear device on the planet was detonated at the same time, there would be massive destruction. Undoubtedly, sure. But how much? It’s never happened, so all we can do is take wild stabs at what the result would be. I don’t think that the Earth would be thrown off its orbit, but I can’t say for sure that it wouldn’t. As Achintya pointed out in his very well thought out comments on my MOC, the Earth’s orbit is held by the Sun. Sure, I can’t deny that. However, all the sun does is keep us from floating out into deep space, but not from being pulled in closer. Our outward momentum does that. Just how stable is that relationship in an environment that has no gravity? Have you ever seen magnetic levitation? There are cool little devices that have magnets on the top and bottom and suspend a metal object in between. What if a gnat landed on the object as it was suspended. Would you see the object move? Probably not. But what if you poked it lightly with your finger? Would you see it move then? Very likely. The rotating Earth operates in much the same way. Our momentum pulls us out toward deep space and the Sun’s gravity pulls us toward it with equal force, but we aren’t held in place by anything more concrete than that. There’s no friction in space, so we rotate on without fail. I guess what we have to know is: If all nuclear devices were detonated at the same time, would it be the equivalent of the gnat, or the finger?

Although I can argue in their favor, I can agree that these are improbable scenarios, if it is your inclination to make that argument. An impact event, though? That is a distinct possibility. We’ve never seen it happen, but we have plenty of evidence that it has happened before. The lack of dinosaurs among it. We almost saw what it would be like in Chelyabinsk, a mere five months ago. In the case of an impact, though, I think we will see that one coming and address it before it happens. The question there is: Will we actually be able to do anything about it? Or will we address it in the spirit of Dave Matthews? “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we’ll die.”

Sheesh! This subject makes me so morbid!

Okay, the bottom line is this: I believe that the Earth will end as the Sun ages to the point that it becomes too hot for life to continue and is eventually consumed. We know that if nothing else happens, that event, at least, is inevitable. My belief, or maybe my hope, is that we’ll leave long before that happens. My fear for the human race is that we will end because of an inability to agree that the end was coming, whether it be environmental threats, the sun, an impact event, or even alien invasion. If humans all die on Earth, it will be because many saw that the end was near, and those in a position to make the choices that would save us, will not believe in the possibility and therefore ignore the signs. The end arrives while we argue the possibility of it. We, as a race, have a nasty little history of doing that sort of thing.
Permalink
| July 13, 2013, 11:44 pm
Quoting Tim C
Well, for some reason I feel that I should weigh in here;)

First off, thank you, Achintya, for the name drop and the link to my build.

Achintya is correct. I don’t necessarily support all of the views that I mentioned in the intro of the Exodus, they were more to shed light on possibilities. I don’t think that we will pollute the planet to death, or that we will drill until the planet shakes us off. Those views have been presented by others, and I don’t believe that’s the way it will happen. What I do believe, however, is that I haven’t the foggiest what’s possible.

Let me explain:

I mentioned drilling and sending this planet’s tectonics out of control. I don’t believe that will happen, but do I know it? Does anyone know it? I can’t, with any confidence, say that they do. We’ve never dealt with any of it. We haven’t tested the Earth’s stability enough to know the answer. Many claim to know, but their claims are really just postulations. So even though I can say I don’t believe it, I can’t say that it’s impossible. The same with nuclear weapons. If every nuclear device on the planet was detonated at the same time, there would be massive destruction. Undoubtedly, sure. But how much? It’s never happened, so all we can do is take wild stabs at what the result would be. I don’t think that the Earth would be thrown off its orbit, but I can’t say for sure that it wouldn’t. As Achintya pointed out in his very well thought out comments on my MOC, the Earth’s orbit is held by the Sun. Sure, I can’t deny that. However, all the sun does is keep us from floating out into deep space, but not from being pulled in closer. Our outward momentum does that. Just how stable is that relationship in an environment that has no gravity? Have you ever seen magnetic levitation? There are cool little devices that have magnets on the top and bottom and suspend a metal object in between. What if a gnat landed on the object as it was suspended. Would you see the object move? Probably not. But what if you poked it lightly with your finger? Would you see it move then? Very likely. The rotating Earth operates in much the same way. Our momentum pulls us out toward deep space and the Sun’s gravity pulls us toward it with equal force, but we aren’t held in place by anything more concrete than that. There’s no friction in space, so we rotate on without fail. I guess what we have to know is: If all nuclear devices were detonated at the same time, would it be the equivalent of the gnat, or the finger?

Although I can argue in their favor, I can agree that these are improbable scenarios, if it is your inclination to make that argument. An impact event, though? That is a distinct possibility. We’ve never seen it happen, but we have plenty of evidence that it has happened before. The lack of dinosaurs among it. We almost saw what it would be like in Chelyabinsk, a mere five months ago. In the case of an impact, though, I think we will see that one coming and address it before it happens. The question there is: Will we actually be able to do anything about it? Or will we address it in the spirit of Dave Matthews? “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we’ll die.”

Sheesh! This subject makes me so morbid!

Okay, the bottom line is this: I believe that the Earth will end as the Sun ages to the point that it becomes too hot for life to continue and is eventually consumed. We know that if nothing else happens, that event, at least, is inevitable. My belief, or maybe my hope, is that we’ll leave long before that happens. My fear for the human race is that we will end because of an inability to agree that the end was coming, whether it be environmental threats, the sun, an impact event, or even alien invasion. If humans all die on Earth, it will be because many saw that the end was near, and those in a position to make the choices that would save us, will not believe in the possibility and therefore ignore the signs. The end arrives while we argue the possibility of it. We, as a race, have a nasty little history of doing that sort of thing.

^^
You don't honestly expect me an my lazy self to read this do you?
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 1:12 am
Quoting Tim C
We almost saw what it would be like in Chelyabinsk, a mere five months ago.

About that.. Chelyabinsk is also a major centre for the russian nuclear industry. That could have turned out a lot worse than even the impact, if this had happened close enough to damage the nuclear plants!
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 11:31 am
Quoting Builder Allan
Quoting Tim C
We almost saw what it would be like in Chelyabinsk, a mere five months ago.

About that.. Chelyabinsk is also a major centre for the russian nuclear industry. That could have turned out a lot worse than even the impact, if this had happened close enough to damage the nuclear plants!

Absolutely! Thanks for adding in.

Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 12:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Tim C

(This is a response to Tim C's excellent breakdown comment). I think we can all agree that the sun will end Earth, if nothing else does. The Sun is about halfway through its life; its got a good 5 billion years to go before it expands or anything crazy happens. But, at the end of its life, it will have expanded, encompassing the Earth, Mercury, Venus, and maybe even Mars. That will happen. Hopefully, in five billion years, we will have starships like the Exodus that can support life away from Earth. And who knows? We might even be able to move Earth to a safer solar system; this is, after all, a timespan of 5 Billions years. Now, a much more, closer, thread might be a meteor. Now, there was one massive meteor strike on Earth that hit the Yucatan Peninsula, which supposedly ended all dinosaurs. Earth is due for another strike. The difference, however, is that we have technology that might be able to stop a meteor. Now, firstly, yes, Nukes are always an option in this case, but it should be noted that *supposing* a nuke managed to enter inside a meteor, and it detonated, the meteor would break up into thousands of pieces, some of which may still cause damage. Nukes would be a last ditch attempt; and there is a small likelihood that they may make things WAY worse for humanity. If I were to tackle the problem, I would launch massive rockets, each with their last stage as powerful as a Saturn V, and have them try and nudge the space rock out of Earth's path. Mind you, it won't be steerable or anything, but even a small shift in its direction will have massive implications on where it eventually hits. If that doesn't work, you can try reflecting a bunch of solar light into a concentrated spot of the meteor, and attempt to vaporize it, though that might go back to the problem Nukes have. If Earth needs to evacuate, well, the thing is, I doubt any of us here on the pages would get a seat on that evacuation shuttle/spacecraft/USS Enterprise/rocket. Only people that "define" humanity would progress on board, to start life, wherever. Kinda morbid, but its what will happen in the event of a massive space rock where to hurtle to Earth.
-----
Nuclear warfare, on the other hand, I don't believe will happen. Let me breakdown the countries that have nukes, and why they wouldn't use them:
USA- The US has a long standing policy against starting any nuclear conflicts. Whats more, considering they were the first (and only!) power to use the nuke, I doubt they would consider using one as a preemptive strike.
Russia- Russia is still recovering from its old Soviet Era. Lots of construction is going, etc. I am not sure about its status of nuclear weapons; by the end of the 1980's, they were really low on supplies, so their missiles and warheads may not even be in operational status. Also, Russia does not have the military, or the economy, to stand a chance in an all out war with, say, the US.
China- China is (attempting) to be the only super power in the world (maybe even a hyper power ;-0 ) and starting a nuclear conflict would not benefit its quest for dethroning America as a major world power. They have so much money invested in countries that they might wish to nuke, they would only hurt themselves in the long run. Also, they don't have an economy, and definitely not a military, that could hold up against the US (if you want to discuss the military more in detail, put that in the war vs. war thread, and we can talk about it there) armed forces.
India- Really?
Pakistan- Pakistan is a pretty interesting country, but not for the right reasons. According to the Federation of American Scientist, Pakistan has around 100-120 warheads at its disposal. The problem isn't that that isn't a lot (it is!) its the government of Pakistan, and its role in the Afghani conflict. The tribal areas around the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan are effectively controlled by the Taliban, and its well known that many "good" politicians that could help the Pakis are simply assassinated by the islamic extremist group mentioned earlier. However, this being a terrorist organization, they would rather use, say, a dirty bomb, (a bomb that functions like a bomb but as nuclear material surrounding the explosive, making it spread out radiation upon detonation), as a "nuclear weapon" than a pure nuclear bomb, or an ICBM. Also, as the war on terror draws to a close, we can infer that damage has been done to the Taliban and its affiliates, meaning that such an attack would be their last stand. Also, considering that much of shipping into the US is highly regulated, controlled, and screened, such a device would not be easy to smuggle in. Either way, though, such an attack would most likely not end with nuclear conflict.
Britain & France- Okay, well, Blighty and the Frenchies are allies to the USA; they cooperate together economically, militarily, and even culturally (a bit). They would, and do, hold a stance similar to the US on nuclear warfare. Its important to note, however, just how much influence these two countries actually have in the world; while they are invited to the G8, and G20 conventions, and hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council, and are one of five countries that can, with just one veto, send the UN back to the drawing board over, well anything, there power is waning. Economically, they simply couldn't support such a war effort. Thats not to say they don't have a powerful economy, rather, its that their economies are simply not powerful enough for that particular type of warfare.
North Korea-*stifles a laugh*
Israel- *Its important to note: this is assuming that Israel has nukes. Its widely believed that they do, but the government of Israel has not acknowledged anything about their progress with nukes* The thing with Israel is that in its current location, literally everyone around them is a threat; and literally everyone around them has, at one point or another, tried to invade their homeland. However, that being said, once again, Israel's position in the world is not clearly defined, or as powerful, as "super power" would have. Its simply not influential enough to start such a conflict.
Iran- Once again, this is assuming that the Iranians actually have nukes, which they are currently attempting to create. The problem with Iran is what would they gain? A nuclear attack on, say, the USA would result in their destruction. They can be extremely painful in world peace talks, and just generally don't listen to anyone, but the thing is that this is all harsh talk coming from an old dictator. They simply would not have the resources to stand a chance in such a conflict.

Overall, my conclusion is this: looking at the state of this Earth and its nations, and seeing how multi-national corporations hold power in various countries worldwide, and seeing the interdependency modern Super powers have, there is little chance of nuclear warfare. However, if such an event DID happen, it would be an event that could end much of life on Earth. There are places (such as that Seed farm in glacier, can't recall the name) designed for people to continue life after a cataclysmic event, but the chances of that event happening thanks to nuclear warfare is slowly becoming none existent, if not already so.
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 12:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Quoting Tim C
We almost saw what it would be like in Chelyabinsk, a mere five months ago.

About that.. Chelyabinsk is also a major centre for the russian nuclear industry. That could have turned out a lot worse than even the impact, if this had happened close enough to damage the nuclear plants!

Possible. I wonder what effect, though, would happen if that meteor hit the plant squarely in the middle. I mean, with that much force, how much radiation would be thrown out, and how would the cores go into a melt down (they would be destroyed instantly).
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 12:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Nuclear holocaust. No aliens or anything like that. Just a red button pushing contest.

Eh. I broke that one down in my comment I posted (the long one).
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 12:31 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Eh. I broke that one down in my comment I posted (the long one).

I'm going to disagree with your breakdown.
My first issue is that I don't think Hiroshima counts for the US using nukes given the size and that current nukes are multi-megaton (hundred times stronger) weapons.
I also think that the odds of someone hitting the button is a lot higher than a meteor nailing us.
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 12:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I'm going to disagree with your breakdown.
My first issue is that I don't think Hiroshima counts for the US using nukes given the size and that current nukes are multi-megaton (hundred times stronger) weapons.
I also think that the odds of someone hitting the button is a lot higher than a meteor nailing us.

Uhm, alright. Look. Its more than just hitting a red button. Governments might be crazy, but even though we have had nukes for 70 some odd years, we haven't ended humanity. Also, even if the blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki can't compare to current warheads, the basic principle is still very much in common with modern warheads. Those blasts paved the way for nukes, and you can't ignore that they were nuclear weapons, and the effects were a sobering reminder to all countries; no matter how much you hold people at the threat of nuclear warfare, what could honestly start such a war?
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 12:40 pm
Quoting Tim C
Absolutely! Thanks for adding in.

Oh you're welcome! I'm sorry i didn't think up a lengthier response, i tend to mostly agree with you on your comment but with my hobby-interest in All Things Nuclear i just couldn't let a mention of cheliabinsk go uncommented :-)
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 3:09 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Possible. I wonder what effect, though, would happen if that meteor hit the plant squarely in the middle. I mean, with that much force, how much radiation would be thrown out, and how would the cores go into a melt down (they would be destroyed instantly).

Indeed! My guess too (not an educated, but at least an informed guess) is, that even a direct hit to a nuclear plant wouldn't use the fuel to feed the explosion. For two reasons:

1. Due to all the other things that are surrounding the actual fuel pellets, there would never be enough weapons-grade elements in the same place at once to obtain critical mass under these circumstances.

2. If my guess is correct, due to some laws of physics the energy in the blast from the meteorite would be released instantaneously, leaving none of the 200 millisecs needed for the 60 or so reactions required for the material to go through to reach the blast-point. After 200 milliseconds, the mass is simply no longer dense enough.

However, as uranium is a metal, what will most likely happen is, that the majority of the fuel (and anything in it, plutonium, caesium etc) will be volitalized, leaving a vastly more radioactive plume than what any nuclear accident has ever released to date.

Consider these numbers: If i remember correctly, the blast from the meteorite was calculated to be around 1MT, right?
That means that in a direct hit, any size npp would be completely within the blast-radius, which means that the entire plant and anything in it would be - indeed - vaporized. At chernobyl, 192 tons of fuel was in the reactor and less than half was volitalized. At fukushima, about 800 tons of fuel in total was in jeopardy, with much less volitalized. More than at chernobyl, but still no more than, say, 250-300 tons maximum. However, fukushima housed 1900 tons of fuel (in the reactors and in spent fuel pools) total on site, which would have made one seriously deadly plume if a 1MT blast should strike there.
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 3:38 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Overall, my conclusion is this: looking at the state of this Earth and its nations, and seeing how multi-national corporations hold power in various countries worldwide, and seeing the interdependency modern Super powers have, there is little chance of nuclear warfare. However, if such an event DID happen, it would be an event that could end much of life on Earth. There are places (such as that Seed farm in glacier, can't recall the name) designed for people to continue life after a cataclysmic event, but the chances of that event happening thanks to nuclear warfare is slowly becoming none existent, if not already so.

I agree with you here too, nuclear WAR will most likely not be what ends the human race :-)
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 3:50 pm
I learnt yesterday that there is actually a disease that turns people into what we call 'zombies' , although I can't remember what it is called
Permalink
| July 14, 2013, 4:17 pm
I believe the most likely cause of an apocalypse would be nuclear warfare because there are a few countries that have a bunch if nucleus weapons (I forgot which ones) and they could just bomb us or any country any minute. I don't think a zombie apocalypse or a meteor hitting Earth is very likely. Giant meteors coming towards Earth haven't been seen for years so the possibility of that isn't very likely, and a zombie apocalypse, well...scientifically it is possible but the chances of that happening, in my opinion, are very slim.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 12:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Stephen Boe
I believe the most likely cause of an apocalypse would be nuclear warfare because there are a few countries that have a bunch if nucleus weapons (I forgot which ones) and they could just bomb us or any country any minute.

Addressed that. (I don't feel like typing up that long comment again :-)
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 12:56 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
I agree with you here too, nuclear WAR will most likely not be what ends the human race :-)

I agree with this, but I am still firmly of the belief that nuclear war is, though highly unlikely, still the most probable option for the end of civilization as we know it.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 12:59 pm
Quoting Kiwi Brix
I learnt yesterday that there is actually a disease that turns people into what we call 'zombies' , although I can't remember what it is called

I am also of the firm belief that the world as we know it will not end by zombie apocalypse.


Sidenote:
Good apocalypse story with a twist to it. Go watch Pacific Rim, AMAZING!
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 1:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I agree with this, but I am still firmly of the belief that nuclear war is, though highly unlikely, still the most probable option for the end of civilization as we know it.

I still don't see how that is the leading way that humanity ends. A space rock hit would more likely be a human ender, in my opinion.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 8:26 pm
Quoting Kiwi Brix
I learnt yesterday that there is actually a disease that turns people into what we call 'zombies' , although I can't remember what it is called

It's called Nodding Disease. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/world/africa/uganda-nodding-disease Freaky!!
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 8:34 pm
Okay, here's how it's going to work, because it's all happened before, and it's all going to happen again.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3014203/fast-feed/meet-darpas-humanoid-robot-that-could-someday-save-you-from-a-crumbling-building
They're building these robots better all the time. The mobility and the artificial intelligence are progressing at a wicked pace. They talk about them being first responders, going into dangerous places. We all know they're going to be fighting wars soon enough, like the drones in the air are already. It won't be too long before the robots figure out they're getting the short end of the situation. That's when they decide to get rid of us, one way or another. "You know, when we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question, why? Why are we as a people worth saving?"
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 8:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
It's called Nodding Disease. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/world/africa/uganda-nodding-disease Freaky!!

I'm glad you brought attention to this; more people need to know what is happening. Hmm. The thing is that while this is truly tragic, it only seems to be occurring in those third world countries. I dunno if it has to do with quality of water, or what, but should these countries advance to second world country, this "disease" could possible stop.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 9:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
Okay, here's how it's going to work, because it's all happened before, and it's all going to happen again.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3014203/fast-feed/meet-darpas-humanoid-robot-that-could-someday-save-you-from-a-crumbling-building
They're building these robots better all the time. The mobility and the artificial intelligence are progressing at a wicked pace. They talk about them being first responders, going into dangerous places. We all know they're going to be fighting wars soon enough, like the drones in the air are already. It won't be too long before the robots figure out they're getting the short end of the situation. That's when they decide to get rid of us, one way or another. "You know, when we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question, why? Why are we as a people worth saving?"

Hmm, deep question at the end. That will be made into a thread soon, by the way. We are getting to a point where our technology has advanced so much, we really need to think before connecting a power source. A robot invasion isn't something that will happen now (drones in the military are mostly controlled from the ground by actual pilots; only a handful *at best* are almost completely autonomous). Robots aren't quite like the powerful ones we see in Pacific Rim, or BSG. Still have a bunch of programming to go. It all depends on how careful we are; we can either create a Commander Data, or Lore.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 9:54 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I'm glad you brought attention to this; more people need to know what is happening. Hmm. The thing is that while this is truly tragic, it only seems to be occurring in those third world countries. I dunno if it has to do with quality of water, or what, but should these countries advance to second world country, this "disease" could possible stop.

It's scary, for sure. I'd have to guess some of these viruses in Africa must be jumping to humans from other animals. Handling them, eating them, especially organs (brains) from other primates. Generally not a good idea. Like mad cow disease. I don't think you can cook away those prions in a camp fire.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:04 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Hmm, deep question at the end. That will be made into a thread soon, by the way. We are getting to a point where our technology has advanced so much, we really need to think before connecting a power source. A robot invasion isn't something that will happen now (drones in the military are mostly controlled from the ground by actual pilots; only a handful *at best* are almost completely autonomous). Robots aren't quite like the powerful ones we see in Pacific Rim, or BSG. Still have a bunch of programming to go. It all depends on how careful we are; we can either create a Commander Data, or Lore.

I was thinking more like Six or Boomer...
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
It's scary, for sure. I'd have to guess some of these viruses in Africa must be jumping to humans from other animals. Handling them, eating them, especially organs (brains) from other primates. Generally not a good idea. Like mad cow disease. I don't think you can cook away those prions in a camp fire.

Definitely. Maybe it will show people that you should thoroughly cook meat before consuming it.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:08 pm
it will be the shortage of oil!
everything this world has is based on it!
we will survive, but, it will be very different!
only the super rich will keep
the comforts we are used to.
then, drinkable water will get in shortage,
it will decimate humans from the billions
we are today, animals and plants,
will almost all disappear.
slowly changing the planet into desert.

Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:26 pm
all we want is life beyond...thunderdome! lol.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting cyberfrank 2010
it will be the shortage of oil!
everything this world has is based on it!
we will survive, but, it will be very different!
only the super rich will keep
the comforts we are used to.
then, drinkable water will get in shortage,
it will decimate humans from the billions
we are today, animals and plants,
will almost all disappear.
slowly changing the planet into desert.

So, a bit like that new movie, uhm, Elysium? Oil is used a lot; I read somewhere of a person who was converting old nuclear plants to suck in air, and then through some process, it would make it into useful gasoline. Not sure how the project has progressed, but if we can do that, why change our ways?
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:36 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I still don't see how that is the leading way that humanity ends. A space rock hit would more likely be a human ender, in my opinion.

Again, I agree. Nuclear war would be apocalyptic, but not the end of the human race (not counting radiation mutations).
Destroy our civilization yes, extintion, no.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:37 pm
Robots won't be that much of a threat. Like matrik, just blow an EMP and they're useless.
Besides, I would HOPE that the designers put in some sort of kill code into the root programming so we can shut em down. If we are smart (and I plan on designing those things, I should know), we will make sure they never become unstoppable.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Again, I agree. Nuclear war would be apocalyptic, but not the end of the human race (not counting radiation mutations).
Destroy our civilization yes, extintion, no.

Maybe, but after reviewing it, I can't see why a nuclear war would break out in the first place.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Maybe, but after reviewing it, I can't see why a nuclear war would break out in the first place.

Because some madman like Ahmadinejad will get one.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
Because some madman like Ahmadinejad will get one.

I stated it above, but I will again, in the case of Iran, starting a nuclear conflict would not be in their best interest. They are faced with the possibly nuclear state of Israel; it would get them no where. Ahmadinejad isn't smart, but he can't be that obtuse.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I stated it above, but I will again, in the case of Iran, starting a nuclear conflict would not be in their best interest. They are faced with the possibly nuclear state of Israel; it would get them no where. Ahmadinejad isn't smart, but he can't be that obtuse.

Well that's obvious to us, but theses radical terrorists aren't reasonable. They want to kill anyone who's not in their religion.
Permalink
| July 15, 2013, 10:57 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Well that's obvious to us, but theses radical terrorists aren't reasonable. They want to kill anyone who's not in their religion.

which means they will use any WMD they can get, nuclear or otherwise. So global war at the hands of terrorists is still on the table.
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 12:26 am
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I agree with this, but I am still firmly of the belief that nuclear war is, though highly unlikely, still the most probable option for the end of civilization as we know it.

Well.. While i do agree with you that the probabillity of nuclear war has actually INCREASED since the end of the cold war (See 'Countdown to Zero' - a documentary about the world's nuclear arsenal post cold war-era) i actually think there are several other more likely end-of-humanity scenarious. One is outlined in my first comment to this thread :-) Adding whatever the planet itself - and space - might throw at us too, it seems incredible that we are even still here, considering our own addition to the risk-scenario just since the dawn of the industrial age.
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 10:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
which means they will use any WMD they can get, nuclear or otherwise. So global war at the hands of terrorists is still on the table.

I dunno, I mean, a worse case scenario, 9/11 played out, and yes there was a war from it, but it was hardly a "global conflict". Unless someone manages to destroy, say, the Kremlin (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol), or something THAT serious, then there might be a nuclear conflict. However, an attack like that can be stopped, if entities like the NSA (hint, hint) can surveil dangerous folks (though this is getting off topic, so). Nuclear ware is just flat out unlikely. Its worthy of a mention, but not of panic.
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:06 am
Quoting cyberfrank 2010
it will be the shortage of oil!
everything this world has is based on it!
we will survive, but, it will be very different!
only the super rich will keep
the comforts we are used to.
then, drinkable water will get in shortage,
it will decimate humans from the billions
we are today, animals and plants,
will almost all disappear.
slowly changing the planet into desert.

Interesting! Like me, you also believe that our blatant disregard for the enironment will be what ultimately kills us. I just think that it will be another Fukushima, or the slow bleeding of radioactive emissions from the world's 500+ nuclear plants and processing sites. Though general environmental poisoning is high on my list too :-D
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:10 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I dunno, I mean, a worse case scenario, 9/11 played out, and yes there was a war from it, but it was hardly a "global conflict". Unless someone manages to destroy, say, the Kremlin (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol), or something THAT serious, then there might be a nuclear conflict. However, an attack like that can be stopped, if entities like the NSA (hint, hint) can surveil dangerous folks (though this is getting off topic, so). Nuclear ware is just flat out unlikely. Its worthy of a mention, but not of panic.

Of course it's not worthy of panic. Do we still have many cold war nuke shelters? Probably not. If and when they start flying, your ----ed.

ANd yes, it would take a pertty big target takedown to do the job but theoretically, what if the terrorists launch it over the north pole at DC? We'd likely assume it was Russia, we'd fire back, Russia would fire back, everyone else would fire, s--t hist the fan, lots of people die.
Now, the odds of that are a lot more likely than a space rock and pretty much anything the planet can throw at us, no matter how catastrophic, won't be a global apocalypse (unless every supervolcano erupts at once or something).
Last I checked, wasn't the countdown to zero clock at 4 minutes to midnight? I remember it being at 3 not too long ago.

MI: Ghost Protocol - Good movie.
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:27 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Of course it's not worthy of panic. Do we still have many cold war nuke shelters? Probably not. If and when they start flying, your ----ed.

ANd yes, it would take a pertty big target takedown to do the job but theoretically, what if the terrorists launch it over the north pole at DC? We'd likely assume it was Russia, we'd fire back, Russia would fire back, everyone else would fire, s--t hist the fan, lots of people die.
Now, the odds of that are a lot more likely than a space rock and pretty much anything the planet can throw at us, no matter how catastrophic, won't be a global apocalypse (unless every supervolcano erupts at once or something).
Last I checked, wasn't the countdown to zero clock at 4 minutes to midnight? I remember it being at 3 not too long ago.

MI: Ghost Protocol - Good movie.

Alright, well I see some flaws with your terrorist plan. Firstly, where wil terrorist get a longe range nuclear ICBM? And then, how will they launch it? The US is monitoring all Russian and Chinese ICBM sites. They would know when was launched. With that in mind, it would impossible for then US to launch.
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:32 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Alright, well I see some flaws with your terrorist plan. Firstly, where wil terrorist get a longe range nuclear ICBM? And then, how will they launch it? The US is monitoring all Russian and Chinese ICBM sites. They would know when was launched. With that in mind, it would impossible for then US to launch.

Where there are nuclear warheads, there are delivery vehicles.
That then begs the question, what is the current range of Iranian ICBMs (they have nukes, there is an almost certainty they have missiles).
Iran is in the middle east. It's an easy target for terrorists to get nukes. that's why them having nukes concerns me.
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Where there are nuclear warheads, there are delivery vehicles.
That then begs the question, what is the current range of Iranian ICBMs (they have nukes, there is an almost certainty they have missiles).
Iran is in the middle east. It's an easy target for terrorists to get nukes. that's why them having nukes concerns me.

Uh, no. ICBMs are about as complicated as the warhead they are carrying. They cost millions to make, and their guidance systems and rocket motors are not something you can get from your local hardware store. Next, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. It has a program to make them, but it has constantly been set back (including a US hacking of the computers that controlled the centrifuges used in the production of enriched Uranium. Let's just say that they exploded (which they did) ). Also, Iran is not known to have ICBMs that can carry nukes the required distance. And, finally, there are the missile interceptors the US has. Their accuracy is questionable, but they are there.
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:43 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. It has a program to make them, but it has constantly been set back (including a US hacking of the computers that controlled the centrifuges used in the production of enriched Uranium. Let's just say that they exploded (which they did) ).

XD Thats America for ya!
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:51 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
XD Thats America for ya!

It's what happens when you allow the CIA to execute missions most people would consider breaking privacy.....
Permalink
| July 16, 2013, 11:54 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Interesting! Like me, you also believe that our blatant disregard for the enironment will be what ultimately kills us. I just think that it will be another Fukushima, or the slow bleeding of radioactive emissions from the world's 500+ nuclear plants and processing sites. Though general environmental poisoning is high on my list too :-D

I dunno about pollution ending us, though. I mean, it is a problem, but I don't think it threatens humanity.....
Permalink
| July 17, 2013, 7:40 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I dunno about pollution ending us, though. I mean, it is a problem, but I don't think it threatens humanity.....

Couldn't agree more about the spirit of the main point. One thing you can count on with humans, we will adapt to our current situation. I can't say that the conditions under which we'll be living would be ideal, though. I believe that humanity as we know it would be very much threatened.

If pollution starts to take its toll on our natural resources, especially water, and they become scarce, the human population will be cut down by a staggering percentage. I believe that at that point, we will see a power shift in the world. The natural resources that we take for granted, (even the most skeptic can agree to that), will become more like currency. He who controls the water, or the clean air, or the livestock, or untainted plantlife, controls the world.

Under those conditions, war will break out. Not between countries, (because with availability of natural resources dropping, international warfare will become less of a possibility), but between factions within what would be more likely regions than a single country, or even a single state for that matter.

At that point, it will be the strong that survive. Those that were used to the luxuries of life will be easy targets, for not only what they have, but also the fact that they have lost the human instinct of getting by with less. Makes them weak. I'm not judging here, but in the fight between the tennis pro and the factory worker, my money is on the factory worker every day of the week. All of a sudden the have-nots become the haves. Power shift.

That would create more of a post-apoc setting. Survival would be day to day, but that is survival nonetheless.
Permalink
| July 17, 2013, 8:35 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I dunno about pollution ending us, though. I mean, it is a problem, but I don't think it threatens humanity.....

I'll admit the true answer is very much hanging in the air (bad pun, i know :-D) but peronally, i think it may well be a major contributor to the decline of the human race. I mean, a big system takes time to react. So even if we stop when things start to look bad, it may well be too late.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 2:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
I'll admit the true answer is very much hanging in the air (bad pun, i know :-D) but peronally, i think it may well be a major contributor to the decline of the human race. I mean, a big system takes time to react. So even if we stop when things start to look bad, it may well be too late.

True. The problem is, "global warming" is something very controversial; I mean, yes, humans produce A LOT of CO2, but how does that compare to forest fires (that are naturally occurring), decaying plants and animals, etc? I mean, yes we do make an impact, but is that impact enough to change Earth's climate? I don't know.

Now, I would like to say that the idea that poison is being put into the environment is a bit overrated. I mean, yes, there is toxic waste from, say, nuclear power plants, but is it really dirty? Most of the smoke coming from smoke stacks are actually just steam; is it that dirty? Depleted uranium is kept in heavily guarded pools of water; the water itself being closely monitored. I don't think that nuclear plants really harm the environment on a day-to-day basis. However, in a core meltdown..... (that is for another thread).
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 2:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Tim C
Couldn't agree more about the spirit of the main point. One thing you can count on with humans, we will adapt to our current situation. I can't say that the conditions under which we'll be living would be ideal, though. I believe that humanity as we know it would be very much threatened.

If pollution starts to take its toll on our natural resources, especially water, and they become scarce, the human population will be cut down by a staggering percentage. I believe that at that point, we will see a power shift in the world. The natural resources that we take for granted, (even the most skeptic can agree to that), will become more like currency. He who controls the water, or the clean air, or the livestock, or untainted plantlife, controls the world.

Under those conditions, war will break out. Not between countries, (because with availability of natural resources dropping, international warfare will become less of a possibility), but between factions within what would be more likely regions than a single country, or even a single state for that matter.

At that point, it will be the strong that survive. Those that were used to the luxuries of life will be easy targets, for not only what they have, but also the fact that they have lost the human instinct of getting by with less. Makes them weak. I'm not judging here, but in the fight between the tennis pro and the factory worker, my money is on the factory worker every day of the week. All of a sudden the have-nots become the haves. Power shift.

That would create more of a post-apoc setting. Survival would be day to day, but that is survival nonetheless.

Sorry to keep you waiting, Tim C., but I really wanted to spend some time thinking before responding to your well thought out comment. Anyways, lets see.....

Firstly, I want to address this "water" problem. People love to throw the old "The Earth is made up of so and so percent of water, but only so and so percent is natural drinking water" (I put in so and so because the numbers rarely are the same, depending on your source). Yes, that is true, but the key word is NATURAL. There are desalination plants, that take water in from the ocean, cleans it, and then makes it available as drinking water. All of a sudden, Earth's oceans become something we can drink from! Whats more, while there are 7 Billion humans here on Earth, considering how much water is, uhm, put back into the world, our water supply from the oceans could comfortably hold up humanity, and let all those little sea creatures live. So really, water isn't too big of a problem now (at least finding it).

Now, resource wars are something else. If you take, say, the US, you will find much of what you need; farmable land, streams of water (and a bunch of areas where the aforementioned desalination plants can be put), variable geography, allowing all types of energy sources to be exploited, raw materials are available, so really, if the US wanted to (hint, hint, investors!) the US could be self sufficient. Mind you, it would be mean more work for everyone, but so long as the union stayed together, I see no reason as to why the US would need to fight for anything (and if it needed to, well). Now, the US, therefore, has a bit of a jackpot. It can sustain its 320 Million+ population with the land and resources it has entitled to it. Other countries, well. It depends; India might have trouble feeding over 1 billion people (its one-third the size of the US as well!), China might fair better, as it has vast regions that haven't been settled (though how much is farmable is debatable), Japan, ooh, yeah, okay, uhm, Russia should be able to survive; has a small population, yet a BUNCH of land to use for farming (might be cold, but still), European countries might have trouble, so really, it all depends on how you cut the cake. Overall, I'm not sure if there will be conflicts over the last drop of water, but I do know that should a scenario like that happen, the safest place to be would be in the US, or Canada. Stable countries, lots of land, and a plenty of protection from the 5.7 Billion people that reside across the ocean.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:08 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Stable countries, lots of land, and a plenty of protection from the 5.7 Billion people that reside across the ocean.

How would you define stable? Self-sufficient countries? Well, China is developing very quickly, and it is becoming very advanced in such a short period of time. As for the people, I'm pretty sure that the US might have equal murders, if not more than China. The government there keeps its people in check, and you might see it as strict, but it's not like the stereotypes you hear about. Their government works.

And to add to that, Canada has already reached its peak, in my opinion. Or at least its getting really close. America has been in decline for a while, from what I know. If there's any country that'll be stable for much longer, its China.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
How would you define stable? Self-sufficient countries? Well, China is developing very quickly, and it is becoming very advanced in such a short period of time. As for the people, I'm pretty sure that the US might have equal murders, if not more than China. The government there keeps its people in check, and you might see it as strict, but it's not like the stereotypes you hear about. Their government works.

And to add to that, Canada has already reached its peak, in my opinion. Or at least its getting really close. America has been in decline for a while, from what I know. If there's any country that'll be stable for much longer, its China.

Theres more to stability than tyrant control of your people. China represents a country that is holding back the full meaning of "freedom". Now, yes, the US is in a decline. But in terms of raw materials, what is needed to keep a population working, the US already has that. The thing is that China is still "stabilizing". Its military force needs work (they just copy Russian and American equipment). And I don't think that it has all the farmland that it needs, completely cultivated and ready to go. The US and Canada have that. Its just how much that US has, which is more than China. There is more to it than just which country it "more advanced". (Which I still say is the US).
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 4:35 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Theres more to stability than tyrant control of your people. China represents a country that is holding back the full meaning of "freedom". Now, yes, the US is in a decline. But in terms of raw materials, what is needed to keep a population working, the US already has that. The thing is that China is still "stabilizing". Its military force needs work (they just copy Russian and American equipment). And I don't think that it has all the farmland that it needs, completely cultivated and ready to go. The US and Canada have that. Its just how much that US has, which is more than China. There is more to it than just which country it "more advanced". (Which I still say is the US).

I've been to China before, and there's freedom to burn. You can ride on a motorcycle without helmets and with your 3yr old children if you please. As for their army, they have over 2 million people active in their military. The US only has a little less than 1.5 million. Does it matter if they copy equipment? As long as the weapon works, it'll do.
I'm quite sure that the farmland percentage for China is decent, but what's the point of growing food if you can just buy it from other countries?
And I'm positive that China is definitely up there, with Japan, of how advanced it is. Their transit includes magnet train and an extensive subway system. Pfft, they even have television sets in buses and taxis!
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 4:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
I've been to China before, and there's freedom to burn. You can ride on a motorcycle without helmets and with your 3yr old children if you please. As for their army, they have over 2 million people active in their military. The US only has a little less than 1.5 million. Does it matter if they copy equipment? As long as the weapon works, it'll do.
I'm quite sure that the farmland percentage for China is decent, but what's the point of growing food if you can just buy it from other countries?
And I'm positive that China is definitely up there, with Japan, of how advanced it is. Their transit includes magnet train and an extensive subway system. Pfft, they even have television sets in buses and taxis!

Alright, this is straying off topic. If you want to say that China is better than the US, please take it to the USA thread; I will meet you there.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 5:02 pm
On the subject of water, pollution, and global warming:
I'm not worried about our water supplies. As mentioned earlier, technology can and will be used to provide viable water sources from the ocean.
Now, pollution and climate change are a real danger. The CO2 and other substances released through the burning of fossil fuels is making an impact on our environment, and not in a good way. I know that some of you say that compared to natural decay and forest fire the CO2 emissions of humanity aren't overly important, but that is incorrect. For thousands if not millions of years the Earth has sustained a cycle where the number of plants utilizing CO2 balances the release of CO2. Now, we have cut down and burned vast swaths of forests, crippling the planet's ability to eliminate these toxins, and we've burned fossil fuels, carbon reserves which until now were harmlessly stored underground for millions of years. Effectively, we have stacked both sides of the equation to opposite poles - too much carbon emissions and too few plants to counteract them.
This causes a variety of problems, I'll only mention the two main issues though.
1. Global warming. CO2 guards heat with the greenhouse effect, and since we burn fuel more efficiently these days less particles are released to form clouds, hence more sunlight and heat reaches Earth and is trapped. This will raise the average temperature of our planet, making regions inhospitable to plants and animals, melting our ice reserves (and therefore speeding the heat increase) and drastically altering weather patterns. With more heat comes more energy for storms.
2. Ocean acidification. Even gaseous pollutants like CO2 end up in our water supply at the end, and aquatic species can not tolerate changes to their environment. It is estimated that if we continue as we are, within the next 50 years almost all aquatic life will be extinct. Since fisheries provide such an immense wealth of food and resources, especially for overpopulated countries, this will lead to war or famine - resulting in mass death in either case.

Just my two cents.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 5:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
On the subject of water, pollution, and global warming:
I'm not worried about our water supplies. As mentioned earlier, technology can and will be used to provide viable water sources from the ocean.
Now, pollution and climate change are a real danger. The CO2 and other substances released through the burning of fossil fuels is making an impact on our environment, and not in a good way. I know that some of you say that compared to natural decay and forest fire the CO2 emissions of humanity aren't overly important, but that is incorrect. For thousands if not millions of years the Earth has sustained a cycle where the number of plants utilizing CO2 balances the release of CO2. Now, we have cut down and burned vast swaths of forests, crippling the planet's ability to eliminate these toxins, and we've burned fossil fuels, carbon reserves which until now were harmlessly stored underground for millions of years. Effectively, we have stacked both sides of the equation to opposite poles - too much carbon emissions and too few plants to counteract them.
This causes a variety of problems, I'll only mention the two main issues though.
1. Global warming. CO2 guards heat with the greenhouse effect, and since we burn fuel more efficiently these days less particles are released to form clouds, hence more sunlight and heat reaches Earth and is trapped. This will raise the average temperature of our planet, making regions inhospitable to plants and animals, melting our ice reserves (and therefore speeding the heat increase) and drastically altering weather patterns. With more heat comes more energy for storms.
2. Ocean acidification. Even gaseous pollutants like CO2 end up in our water supply at the end, and aquatic species can not tolerate changes to their environment. It is estimated that if we continue as we are, within the next 50 years almost all aquatic life will be extinct. Since fisheries provide such an immense wealth of food and resources, especially for overpopulated countries, this will lead to war or famine - resulting in mass death in either case.

Just my two cents.

Alright, before I begin my research, I want to address your more heat= more storms. That isn't strictly true. A storm is caused when a warm and cold front collide. Actual temperature is a part of that, but not the sole reason why storms form. Now, let me do a little bit of research, and get back to yah.....

AFTER RESEARCH:

We don't exactly know how many trees there are in the world now, but a NASA estimate in 2005 give the number around ~400 Billion. Now, that is less than before, but that isn't the point. The point is that we don't know how much we are effecting global warming.

Extrapolating from a few sites, it appears that there is over 720 Billions tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and humans, in total, create about 6 Billion tons of CO2. Now, that sounds good, but you have to realize that yes, we are impacting global warming, and with new superpowers rising, that are hungry for power, its getting worse. It all hinges on what fuel source we use; and China is not filling me with a lot of hope.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 5:42 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Alright, before I begin my research, I want to address your more heat= more storms. That isn't strictly true. A storm is caused when a warm and cold front collide. Actual temperature is a part of that, but not the sole reason why storms form. Now, let me do a little bit of research, and get back to yah.....

AFTER RESEARCH:

We don't exactly know how many trees there are in the world now, but a NASA estimate in 2005 give the number around ~400 Billion. Now, that is less than before, but that isn't the point. The point is that we don't know how much we are effecting global warming.

Extrapolating from a few sites, it appears that there is over 720 Billions tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and humans, in total, create about 6 Billion tons of CO2. Now, that sounds good, but you have to realize that yes, we are impacting global warming, and with new superpowers rising, that are hungry for power, its getting worse. It all hinges on what fuel source we use; and China is not filling me with a lot of hope.

Fair enough - potentially more storm power then. Potentially the same.

Exactly, when we start to put weight on a scale which has been finely tuned over millions of years, the balance slips no matter how small that weight may seem. Life here has evolved over those millions of years to survive in those conditions, changing the environment thousands of times faster than nature would will have our planet pressed hard to evolve in time.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 5:59 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Fair enough - potentially more storm power then. Potentially the same.

Exactly, when we start to put weight on a scale which has been finely tuned over millions of years, the balance slips no matter how small that weight may seem. Life here has evolved over those millions of years to survive in those conditions, changing the environment thousands of times faster than nature would will have our planet pressed hard to evolve in time.

Yeah, but even if we shut down every power plant and factory that produces CO2, can Earth sustain over 7 Billion people constantly releasing CO2? I have a video here that is pretty cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rltpH6ck2Kc It describes some interesting Stats. We need to make a machine that can take away CO2 in the hundreds of tons range. Otherwise, the poor old trees and dandelions will be working WAY overtime.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 6:03 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad


Well, Achintya, you are full of excellent counterpoints. You’re clearly a well-read person and enjoy a good debate. It has been a pleasure for me to go back and forth with you on this and I never mind waiting for an intelligent thought.

However…

I don’t think that the lack of drinkable water is something that we have to fear tomorrow, but certainly something that needs to be thought about with some serious chin-rubbing. Desalination is the obvious solution to the water problem. Sea water will make you sick to drink it untreated; it will dehydrate you faster than hydrate. So what do you do? Desalinate. Right?

But desalination is more than pouring a glass of sea water into a coffee filter, wait five minutes, then drink to your heart’s content. It is a lengthy and quite costly process, just in energy consumption, not even considering labor. To hydrate the masses, based on the solution being desalination, would be a fortune to maintain, even per day. If we find ourselves in the situation that we have to depend on the world’s drinking water coming from the sea, we are, at that point, in a true crisis.

Here is a personal experience to try to establish some human character.

My wife and I moved to our neighborhood assuming that we would never have children. We actually thought for a while that we couldn’t. It’s a nice neighborhood, but in an overall bad school district. We didn’t have to worry about that, though. Then, the Good Lord blessed us with The Munch, and, from a financial standpoint, moving to a better school district was unrealistic. We decided to try to enroll her in a neighboring district and pay the tuition so that she can get a better education in a better district. Understand, we’re not talking ritzy here, just another humble town, but with a better school district. OVER $8,000 A YEAR to send her to a public school less than five miles from my house, but outside the district. I could send her to the local community college for that. Nobody will pay that, and the district knows it. All the while, those children inside the district go for free. The message was clear. “We have a better school district than you, and your child will not be coming here. We will take care of our own.”

The question is this:

If the timely and expensive process of desalination becomes our solution to the drinking water crisis, who gets the water?

Your solution works if the only factors considered are virtually infinite amounts of salt water and desalination. When you factor in cost and the human effect, though, things start to get a bit fuzzy. Your solution depends almost solely on human beings’ propensity for sharing what we have, which is scant, at best. Self-preservation could very well be the human legacy.

The coasts would become those that have the power, because of easy access to water, but when costs become more of a reality, the towns that have desalination plants will become selfish. When that happens, those towns will become less likely to share their water, but more likely to lend a cup of salt;) Power shift. With the only fresh water, they will also become the only area, (aside from traditionally affluent regions that can still afford the price of water), with edible vegetation and healthy livestock. Demand will greatly outweigh supply. Prices will skyrocket. People will get by for a while, (albeit a short while), but, eventually, life will become hard, and there won’t be much of hearing, “Daddy, I’m so thirsty,” or, “Mommy, when will we eat next?” before rebellion happens.

Please refer to my last comment from paragraph three and on for the rest of this scenario.

My point here is that desalination is a viable solution to the water crisis, but eventually, even this solution leads to the point of my last comment anyway. Water becomes currency. The people are divided into ever smaller groups. Conflict on the rise. Every single one of your other points depends on healthy water. If we lose an abundance of safely drinkable water, everything else falls apart.

Apocalypse.

Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 8:04 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Tim C
Quoting Achintya Prasad


Well, Achintya, you are full of excellent counterpoints. You’re clearly a well-read person and enjoy a good debate. It has been a pleasure for me to go back and forth with you on this and I never mind waiting for an intelligent thought.

However…

I don’t think that the lack of drinkable water is something that we have to fear tomorrow, but certainly something that needs to be thought about with some serious chin-rubbing. Desalination is the obvious solution to the water problem. Sea water will make you sick to drink it untreated; it will dehydrate you faster than hydrate. So what do you do? Desalinate. Right?

But desalination is more than pouring a glass of sea water into a coffee filter, wait five minutes, then drink to your heart’s content. It is a lengthy and quite costly process, just in energy consumption, not even considering labor. To hydrate the masses, based on the solution being desalination, would be a fortune to maintain, even per day. If we find ourselves in the situation that we have to depend on the world’s drinking water coming from the sea, we are, at that point, in a true crisis.

Here is a personal experience to try to establish some human character.

My wife and I moved to our neighborhood assuming that we would never have children. We actually thought for a while that we couldn’t. It’s a nice neighborhood, but in an overall bad school district. We didn’t have to worry about that, though. Then, the Good Lord blessed us with The Munch, and, from a financial standpoint, moving to a better school district was unrealistic. We decided to try to enroll her in a neighboring district and pay the tuition so that she can get a better education in a better district. Understand, we’re not talking ritzy here, just another humble town, but with a better school district. OVER $8,000 A YEAR to send her to a public school less than five miles from my house, but outside the district. I could send her to the local community college for that. Nobody will pay that, and the district knows it. All the while, those children inside the district go for free. The message was clear. “We have a better school district than you, and your child will not be coming here. We will take care of our own.”

The question is this:

If the timely and expensive process of desalination becomes our solution to the drinking water crisis, who gets the water?

Your solution works if the only factors considered are virtually infinite amounts of salt water and desalination. When you factor in cost and the human effect, though, things start to get a bit fuzzy. Your solution depends almost solely on human beings’ propensity for sharing what we have, which is scant, at best. Self-preservation could very well be the human legacy.

The coasts would become those that have the power, because of easy access to water, but when costs become more of a reality, the towns that have desalination plants will become selfish. When that happens, those towns will become less likely to share their water, but more likely to lend a cup of salt;) Power shift. With the only fresh water, they will also become the only area, (aside from traditionally affluent regions that can still afford the price of water), with edible vegetation and healthy livestock. Demand will greatly outweigh supply. Prices will skyrocket. People will get by for a while, (albeit a short while), but, eventually, life will become hard, and there won’t be much of hearing, “Daddy, I’m so thirsty,” or, “Mommy, when will we eat next?” before rebellion happens.

Please refer to my last comment from paragraph three and on for the rest of this scenario.

My point here is that desalination is a viable solution to the water crisis, but eventually, even this solution leads to the point of my last comment anyway. Water becomes currency. The people are divided into ever smaller groups. Conflict on the rise. Every single one of your other points depends on healthy water. If we lose an abundance of safely drinkable water, everything else falls apart.

Apocalypse.

Hmm, alright. Well firstly, I would like to say, I really do apologize for your problem with the education system. I love that you and your family recognize the importance of education, and the rising cost of it, as well as the prejudice still held across the globe. I have an education thread around here somewhere. Its not active right now, but your story really should be written there as well; I really want to here the communities thoughts on that injustice. Thank you for sharing that.

Now, onto the Apocalypse. I remember watching an episode of a show called Build it Bigger (is that show cancelled? I haven't seen a new episode in years). It was a desalination plant in Australia. I mean, it makes sense, its a country surrounded by salt water, a desalination plant would really help out any water situation. After perusing around the internet (scary, right?!) I found that the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant will be quite expensive. Local residents receiving water from the plant will see increases of up to 64% on their water bills, which is a lot. it will also be using a massive amount of electricity, which will also be costly (though the Australian government claims that it is planning on running the system on "green energy" to make the water plant "carbon neutral"). So yes, a Desalination plant would be horrendously expensive, and seeing how coastal cities would very much be in power, could start a war of factions. HOWEVER, there are some other things to consider. Firstly, the government. People may not like it, but the government simply won't allow states to go at each other over water; their overwhelming control is something worth considering. Next, there just patriotism. I mean, the US is legendary for its patriotism (yes, I am influenced by it as well :-P ), and that force may keep people tolerant enough. There several social ethics, morals, and ideals that you have to consider, is what I am getting at. (That sentence went Yoda style!) Now, if you have seen my ISSC, or Flying Airport, or Green Energy MOCs, you can see that I have *tried* to create a system accessible to the public, yet also be sustainable, both environmentally, and electrically. Water can be created in other ways (water vapor is created when you burn liquid hydrogen), but it all depends on what is best for your location. Now, once again, I must say that the US and its massive, and diverse, landscape, allows hundreds, if not thousands, of places to get water. Whether it be a water well in Texas, a river in Mississippi, or a geyser in a state park, the point is that the US has access to A LOT of different water sources, and, coupled with the aforementioned social ethics, I don't see the US falling into a civil war over resources. Now, Canada, I would say, would be even more stable. Even less of a population, and I am sure that Canada would be happy, as well as the US, to share resources, should it be necessary. The areas that I see any "faction wars" going on would be Africa (though that is already was it happening, so) and I would say in South America. Why in these areas? Because at least in the case of Africa, droughts are EXTREMELY common, and therefore, water is commodity that every power would love to control. In South America, the problem is a bit like this. Drug Cartels are already practically waging war. In the event of a Earth-running-out-supplies, I would imagine that these notorious groups would do anything to stay afloat. It all depends on how "civilized" (and I don't like throwing that word around, since it is sooooo controversial) a country is, between its own people.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 9:09 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad

mostly because our way is wrong, we abuse the planet, it s too small to act as we do,
our best solution to oil, is algea,
it s better than corn to make oil,
but, then, we still have the greenhouse
effect wich affects the ozone,
and algea will be needed to feed people,
the ground to grow food is getting
exhausted, it will not give much
in the future, because we abuse it with
petrochemicals to get more from it,
instead of using natural elements,
+ the greenhouse heat makes it dry too fast,
we re facing a 'soylent green' situation!
see this 70 s movie, you will be horrified!

I doubth that nuclear will help, as it s
not yet found on how to stop the radiation,
the reaction lasts too long,
it destroys more than it helps.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 11:15 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
Interesting! Like me, you also believe that our blatant disregard for the enironment will be what ultimately kills us. I just think that it will be another Fukushima, or the slow bleeding of radioactive emissions from the world's 500+ nuclear plants and processing sites. Though general environmental poisoning is high on my list too :-D


because of the oil financial system,
the shortage will be a shock about 100 times
911, if you can imagine that...

all countries will fight over the last drops,
it will be an arm struggle like none has
ever happened, as all will have to rely
on their reserves, wich last about 2 weeks,
because of disproportionate demand!

countries will have no choice but, keep oil
for security, government, and army only!!!
citizens will get NO oil at all 0% dry!
buisnesses will end, capitalism will fall.

an all new centralised system will take it s place, because of new technologies like pcs,
cameras, bar codes, some powerful people
will completely control EVERYTHING
in their respective countries, until all
unite under a central global entity...

what comes after is up to guesses really.

Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 11:27 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
the bush administration knew that, but,
they decided on not following the Kyoto
accord, because of their family knowledge
on oil reserves, their bet is that oil
will stop before it reaches that point,
however, my guess is that they figure
that the world s population will fall
so drasticly, that there won t be a need for so much food anymore!


Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 11:35 pm
Quoting cyberfrank 2010

because of the oil financial system,
the shortage will be a shock about 100 times
911, if you can imagine that...

all countries will fight over the last drops,
it will be an arm struggle like none has
ever happened, as all will have to rely
on their reserves, wich last about 2 weeks,
because of disproportionate demand!

countries will have no choice but, keep oil
for security, government, and army only!!!
citizens will get NO oil at all 0% dry!
buisnesses will end, capitalism will fall.

an all new centralised system will take it s place, because of new technologies like pcs,
cameras, bar codes, some powerful people
will completely control EVERYTHING
in their respective countries, until all
unite under a central global entity...

what comes after is up to guesses really.

+1
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 11:37 pm
Quoting Tim C

the solution is quite simple,
INDEPENDANCE!!!
we have to recuperate our own water,
produce our own power,
eliminate and manage our garbages ourselves!

quit thinking in the industrial era of big grids wich will take responsibility and management of our needs!

we keep power grids connected only to be civil,
but, the rest is up to ourself,
you ll see people change habits quite fast
once their backyard is full of garbage,
you know that, once you get sick by dumping paint in your drinking water you won t repeat that mistake...ever!
when it s everybody s responsibility...
it s nobody s responsibility!!!
think about it deeply,
you ll know I m right!


Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 11:53 pm
Quoting Tim C
the solution is...INDEPENDANCE!
we have to stop thinking in the industrial era,
when everybody is responsible...
NOBODY is responsible!

we have to recuperate our own water,
produce our own power,
manage our own garbage for ourselves.

if there where no garbage collection,
you can bet that people would manage it better
before their backyard is full.

if you dumpted paint in your drinking water once, you would nt make this mistake twice!

we d keep a power grid linked only to be civil,
those big plants allow abuse
of management, we have to be responsible
for ourselves!

we have to stop making a big entity taking
charge, because it leads to abuse.

it just needs to be there for order and
justice, that s what we really need government for.


Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 12:16 am
that s why I built Cybercity!
to give a good example of how it should be,
before it s too late!
if we ever want to reach star trek,
we have to go trough this!

the old cities are finished, it s game over!
suburbia is dying...too thirsty for oil!
it s not sustainable anymore...

Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 12:20 am
Quoting cyberfrank 2010

the solution is...INDEPENDANCE!


I am more of a fan of linked small community communism. It works pretty much like you are saying, except it keeps a better connection between people and gives the basis for large projects like spaceflight.
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 4:23 am
Quoting cyberfrank 2010

because of the oil financial system,
the shortage will be a shock about 100 times
911, if you can imagine that...

all countries will fight over the last drops,
it will be an arm struggle like none has
ever happened, as all will have to rely
on their reserves, wich last about 2 weeks,
because of disproportionate demand!

countries will have no choice but, keep oil
for security, government, and army only!!!
citizens will get NO oil at all 0% dry!
buisnesses will end, capitalism will fall.

an all new centralised system will take it s place, because of new technologies like pcs,
cameras, bar codes, some powerful people
will completely control EVERYTHING
in their respective countries, until all
unite under a central global entity...

what comes after is up to guesses really.

That is an interesting - and quite likely - scenario, which could well be a major contributor to the decline of the human race. I agree though, that it would likely not be the final straw for us :-)
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 9:42 am
 Group admin 
Quoting cyberfrank 2010
Quoting Tim C
the solution is...INDEPENDANCE!
we have to stop thinking in the industrial era,
when everybody is responsible...
NOBODY is responsible!

we have to recuperate our own water,
produce our own power,
manage our own garbage for ourselves.

if there where no garbage collection,
you can bet that people would manage it better
before their backyard is full.

if you dumpted paint in your drinking water once, you would nt make this mistake twice!

we d keep a power grid linked only to be civil,
those big plants allow abuse
of management, we have to be responsible
for ourselves!

we have to stop making a big entity taking
charge, because it leads to abuse.

it just needs to be there for order and
justice, that s what we really need government for.


Hmmm. I dunno. I mean, in theory, yes, it sounds good. But let me remind you, Cybercity, that the way you were suggesting is reminiscent to the "Medieval" Times in Europe, and times before then. Large families held power, and well, supported themselves. But look at the war. The problem is that if one family is self sufficient, and another family is too, those two parties will want to expand, for whatever reason. And since they are "self sufficient" those two parties will start feuding. I feel that going to independence sounds good, I don't know how practical it will be, considering the history of humanity.

Also, you should note this: multi-national companies. Take, for instance, Boeing (cause I like that company a lot!). It is an AMERICAN company, but it has engineers and offices all over the world. Therefore, its a Multinational Corporation (kinda like this here Debate Club, except they make money :-p). And in these corporations, products and ideas are designed in built in TEAMS. The workplace is becoming more and more team based; in Star Trek, look at how the crew of the Enterprise are. They are in teams (Engineering, Security, Bridge officers, etc) and they do their own designated bit. Now, I am not suggesting communism, but I think that total independence might not be a step that humans, considering their nature to expand and the will to fight, should do (again).
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 10:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I am more of a fan of linked small community communism. It works pretty much like you are saying, except it keeps a better connection between people and gives the basis for large projects like spaceflight.

Well, as we discussed a month ago, how would you get to communism? I mean, countries were not able to keep communism stable, so I don't quite see how you can support it. Though I do agree on your point about spaceflight. The Russian systems work, but as that recent rocket launch has proven, its getting outdated, and its quality standards are getting lower. And NASA, well, needs money to even send people to space.
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 10:49 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True. The problem is, "global warming" is something very controversial; I mean, yes, humans produce A LOT of CO2, but how does that compare to forest fires (that are naturally occurring), decaying plants and animals, etc? I mean, yes we do make an impact, but is that impact enough to change Earth's climate? I don't know.

Now, I would like to say that the idea that poison is being put into the environment is a bit overrated. I mean, yes, there is toxic waste from, say, nuclear power plants, but is it really dirty? Most of the smoke coming from smoke stacks are actually just steam; is it that dirty? Depleted uranium is kept in heavily guarded pools of water; the water itself being closely monitored. I don't think that nuclear plants really harm the environment on a day-to-day basis. However, in a core meltdown..... (that is for another thread).

About the CO2 thing, that seems to be a matter of conviction to some extent. It is not one of the issues that interest me much, but what i did read about it has me convinced :-) Nuclear technology is more my thing. Unfortunately it is an extremely complicated subject, and one mired in controversy too.

All nuclear power plants routinely emit radioactive gasses along with the steam from the cooling towers or -stacks and heavier elements through leaking pipes & seals, and the NRC (or their counterparts in other countries) issue yearly 'maximum release-rates' for every single plant, based on its age and design properties.

Depleted uranium (238U) is what you have when you extract the isotope best suited for fuel or weapons-production (235U) from the processed uranium ore (yellowcake), known as enriched uranium. The stuff in the pools is not depleted - on the contrary :-) 1-2% of the enriched uranium has been transformed into other stuff, most notably caesium, strontium and plutonium. The rods are a lot more radioactive when they leave the reactor than when they enter.

Plants do monitor the temperatue of pools, but the spent fuel is not particularly well guarded (well from human interference of course, about as well as the rest of the plant). In the case of at least one reactor design it is even placed completely outside the containment, some 100 feet up in the air. Also, since backup systems are not required by the NRC to be able to support the spent fuel pools in the event of loss of outside power, no nuclear plants (in the US at least) have those backup systems.

Thanks for making a thread for this part of our debate by the way! If i find the energy to continue debating this particular issue, i'll put it in the other thread :-)
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 11:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
About the CO2 thing, that seems to be a matter of conviction to some extent. It is not one of the issues that interest me much, but what i did read about it has me convinced :-) Nuclear technology is more my thing. Unfortunately it is an extremely complicated subject, and one mired in controversy too.

All nuclear power plants routinely emit radioactive gasses along with the steam from the cooling towers or -stacks and heavier elements through leaking pipes & seals, and the NRC (or their counterparts in other countries) issue yearly 'maximum release-rates' for every single plant, based on its age and design properties.

Depleted uranium (238U) is what you have when you extract the isotope best suited for fuel or weapons-production (235U) from the processed uranium ore (yellowcake), known as enriched uranium. The stuff in the pools is not depleted - on the contrary :-) 1-2% of the enriched uranium has been transformed into other stuff, most notably caesium, strontium and plutonium. The rods are a lot more radioactive when they leave the reactor than when they enter.

Plants do monitor the temperatue of pools, but the spent fuel is not particularly well guarded (well from human interference of course, about as well as the rest of the plant). In the case of at least one reactor design it is even placed completely outside the containment, some 100 feet up in the air. Also, since backup systems are not required by the NRC to be able to support the spent fuel pools in the event of loss of outside power, no nuclear plants (in the US at least) have those backup systems.

Thanks for making a thread for this part of our debate by the way! If i find the energy to continue debating this particular issue, i'll put it in the other thread :-)

Well, firstly, would like to thank you for correcting any errors that were brought up earlier about nuclear energy; always in the mode to learn! Now, I want to hit on one thing you mentioned (and this is very much getting into that other thread) but these gasses that are released, how much of it does there need for seious, irrepaitbae damage to the environment? And how much of it is being released? And finally, in the read surrounding nuclear reactors, just how much damage has occurred?
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 11:37 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, firstly, would like to thank you for correcting any errors that were brought up earlier about nuclear energy; always in the mode to learn! Now, I want to hit on one thing you mentioned (and this is very much getting into that other thread) but these gasses that are released, how much of it does there need for seious, irrepaitbae damage to the environment? And how much of it is being released? And finally, in the read surrounding nuclear reactors, just how much damage has occurred?

Oh you're very welcome :-) And you're right, so i'll reply there in a moment.
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 11:50 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
because I need action in my stories,
Cybercity does nt cover all the bases
of perfect society, just ecolo,
I needed the GF for injustice of a big corp.

but, the will to fight always comes
from unfulfilled needs,
that s why star trek works, the technology
provides all needs, it erases the motive
for aggression, people s lives are fulfilled,
the more you get answers, the more questions
remains in science, and other disciplines,
mankind can always seek more,
I think people will be more interested in
expanding their minds than anything else
in the future, the universe is a grand
place, so much secrets and interesting
things to explore will keep them busy,
the common needs will be taken for granted,
and they ll ask why we where so small minded.


Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 12:35 pm
Now, it's possible to create energy from radio wavelength electro-magnetic radiation. However, since it's composed of such long waves, you need massive collectors to generate even a few watts of power.
The question is, could we instead build devices which convert high energy radiation (x-rays, UV rays, gamma rays) into electricity by launching collector satellites into space and somehow ferrying the power back to Earth? Since those rays are far more powerful, you'd need smaller collectors and could gather more energy - you just have to get out of Earth's shielding atmosphere.
Permalink
| July 20, 2013, 7:17 pm
I think Tesla had some gizmos for beaming electricity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power
Permalink
| July 20, 2013, 8:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
I think Tesla had some gizmos for beaming electricity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power

I was just about say that! Also, I did some research in bluetoothing power back during the designing phase of my Flying Airport. It's still very much in the very early designing phase, though.
Permalink
| July 20, 2013, 8:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting cyberfrank 2010
Quoting Achintya Prasad
because I need action in my stories,
Cybercity does nt cover all the bases
of perfect society, just ecolo,
I needed the GF for injustice of a big corp.

but, the will to fight always comes
from unfulfilled needs,
that s why star trek works, the technology
provides all needs, it erases the motive
for aggression, people s lives are fulfilled,
the more you get answers, the more questions
remains in science, and other disciplines,
mankind can always seek more,
I think people will be more interested in
expanding their minds than anything else
in the future, the universe is a grand
place, so much secrets and interesting
things to explore will keep them busy,
the common needs will be taken for granted,
and they ll ask why we where so small minded.


Hmm, yeah, I can see where you are going with this; its a bit like what Gene Roddenberry was thinking when creating Star Trek. I do hope that eventually, people will be interested in further improving the reach of humanity, not just sit around and do nothing, because they can.
Permalink
| July 22, 2013, 11:36 am
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Now, it's possible to create energy from radio wavelength electro-magnetic radiation. However, since it's composed of such long waves, you need massive collectors to generate even a few watts of power.
The question is, could we instead build devices which convert high energy radiation (x-rays, UV rays, gamma rays) into electricity by launching collector satellites into space and somehow ferrying the power back to Earth? Since those rays are far more powerful, you'd need smaller collectors and could gather more energy - you just have to get out of Earth's shielding atmosphere.

Well, this kinda strays from your point, but I wonder, what about a pole reversal? I know that those take thousands of years to complete, but would one be an apocalyptic event?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:13 pm
Other topics



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use