Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

[The_Doctor]

The Doctor - your intellect definitely escapes me - I follow generally what you are saying, but obviously you are more intelligent than I. Maybe I have aged so much that I'm bored with everything and am seeking solutions to greater questions. The LLNL project just drives home the thought that money isn't real...the projects are real, but the money to support that sort of thing over the years isn't real...All of these projects are stimulus projects to supply jobs so people will work so people will pay taxes so governments can have wars to stimulate those industries and the vicious circle continues. Thats why Im content with sitting in a chair, firing up a big old doobie and watching the show and laughing at it all.

This entire thread would have been more fun to discuss in person and with a bottle of Jack Daniels.

Yep. I don't drink anymore, never did much since various punk gigs and such decades ago, but that conversation and bottle of Jack Daniels would be worth the hit on the liver.

I reckon you got my point though, just think of the bit about money not mattering, while the project does for whatever other reason. So you mentioned the nasty cycle of exploitations that go with it, but we can consider the duality like a coin that can't be spent without parting with both the head and tail sides (trying to buy stuff with the head of the coin only is a task worthy of John Cleese at his finest and furiousest). Money is very much an abstraction, in the sense I used it, the reversal of the usual habitual way most people use it. Using that habit is how those controlling money make it 'real'. To get out from under that yoke it really pays to value what we have and can do (which you also said), and not what they want us to value.

I hope the UK floods allow people to recover based on how they dig in like in war time, and value those who help them, and value whatever they have, and know, that survives any change. That way they will be much stronger against the government's attempts to change their lives, usually for the worse. The US gets a LOT of extreme weather that makes people think this way every year, in almost every state. I suspect that this, and not guns or money or even the Constitution, is at the heart of the US population's general resistance to bad government. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and govt does interfere entirely too much, but I suspect that events, which usually drive politics, give chances for locals to build in ways that central organisations cannot control so well. So in turn, changing climate may well have some helpful effects on human predation on other humans, so long as we don't end up fighting to the death over food and land to live on.

Sometimes I see it on a big serene scale, other times I get panicked to the point of seeing nothing clearly at all. Just sensing some kind of contact beyond me is usually enough to improve the view.

Planters, I think you cut to the chase pretty well when you mentioned 'if I like it', because the last time I picked up that one chapter and read it, I didn't. Maybe I might try writing SF again, doubtful though. While there's worse, there is so much more than is better. I wrote some poems though, over various years. Not many, but enough that I liked. Not yet found a reason to dump one into this thread, but it may happen, depends what things people say, and whether it would work better than my usual post length...

[The_Doctor]

What a thoroughly enjoyable thread.

Maybe, our virus-like breeding and population growth, our wars, our pollution, are the reason that we are alive as a species. Could it be that we need massive populations in order to survive catasrophes, whether made by us or not?

Could it be that everything is, because it has to be?

Are we on topic?

Always..
Anyway, I think spreading and diversity has been considered the key to survival, but too many in one place risks bigger losses. Human evolution and survival has been mostly if not entirely based on an implied divergence, but it's not the whole truth. Recent archeology has found that hominids of various types diverged, AND interbred, and similar things happen on fairly small scales, especially in island tribes. Too much convergence, and also too much divergence, is unhealthy. Convergence, because it results in easily corrupted DNA, skeletal defects, etc... Divergence, because it makes a species become alien to itself, and often it will attack itself if it doesn't recognise the validity of convergence. And in our age, humanity mostly does NOT recognise this! Hence the 'ethnic cleansing' and vicious wars against civilians or holders of different religious views. Given that convergence is a vital part of human history, ignored so deeply that people still deny the proof hauled out of the ancient earth we have all lived on, this failure of judgement will have to be fixed before we can live safely with increased population density.

So my view is that we have been conditioned to think that large populations are needed, but only when spread out. Africans, Native Americans, Celts, have often found themselves forced off wide areas of land, pushed into small ones, and it's driven them to drink, or worse. High population density has become a disaster for nearly everyone forced into it. We either have to accept convergent evolution so we can accept that other's lives are like our own, so we can survive this pressure, or we must reduce population some other way.

We're already facing a great human cull, it grows almost as fast now as the rise in human population, but if we can accept convergent evolution we will probably figure out a voluntary way to reduce births without forcing anyone into anything. Even if we do this it won't be utopia, but it will at least mean we finally figured out some self regulation worldwide, instead of continuing to get up the nose of the imaginary Agent Smith. Please don't anyone tell me you don't get that reference.

Anyway, most patterns, even those that look random, usually configure as netlike. Compare that with the notion of a permanently diverging 'family tree'. Even the 'many worlds' hypothesis is ludicrous, demanding as it does that an entire universe must be spawned for every quark and neutrino transition involved in the striking of one small match flame. Economists talk of growth the same way. Ever upwards, outwards, always demanding that THEIR shares always go up too. 'Growth' in the economic sense is a notion only about 70 years old. Like most other temporary insanities, they blast outwards as if there can be no convergence, even while every scale in existence from electronics, star formation, rivers, whatever, shows that things must return in some way to what they were as well as moving to something new. 'Growth' as a permanent divergence can't win. Even if you can hurl a stone right out earth or even solar orbit, it will end up in a cycle eventually, orbiting something. Modern economic 'growth' is illusion, and forcing it is nothing short of fear and panic, driven mostly by people who have too much, think they should be Master of the Universe, and are terrified of falling from the stupid pile they built for themselves. The reality is that most of us aren't that high, or that fear-driven stupid, so why should we worry? Just keep their whips off your backs, and you'll do ok.

[The_Doctor]

This thread is starting to remind me of "idiocracy".

How so? Or which bits?

[Galvonaut]

.......
What does other life forms bring to the planet? Nothing. When another species dies out, nobody notices, except for the biologists who go mad at the loss of biodiversity. I dare say we are much more than just a virus. We have consciousness, we have discovered many secrets of nature, and who knows what we will be capable of.
......

I thought that our existence depended on other species. The web is complex, trees storing CO2 for instance. I think that we are symbiotic in nature, not just with unknown species but also with Mother Earth herself. The earth may not miss us humans but we may well miss the things we kill off everyday.

Do you think that highly mutagenic species, such as H5N1 also learn from their environment and discover secrets of nature to ensure their continued survival? It may seem automatic to us, but aren't we pretty automatic too? Consumerism works on the simplest of levels. We are hunter gatherers - So they sell women handbags (to gather) and men fast cars and violent computer games (to chase and hunt).

.......
This annoys me so much. There is a form of nuclear fission that is in many ways superior to uranium-235 fission (based on thorium), but the only reason it's not used anywhere in the world is because you can't make nukes out of it. I really think humanity has evolved beyond this point. Why are there no thorium based nuclear power plants in times of non-proliferation? Or was that just a decoy so the rest of the world wouldn't get the impression the big boys were still busy developing atomic bombs?

Is this LFTR? I've read quite about this tech, although most scientists on-line say that Thorium doesn't work well in a conventional reactor (but it's not conventional)!
From what I've read, it is inherently safe, having a salt plug that melts if things over heat, stopping the reaction and waste material (and stocks that we already have) can be reprocessed. Thorium is also everywhere! It's crazy that we are presently burning stuff as rare as Platinum.

Don't quote me on that though - I'm not a nuclear physicist

Keith

[TechJunkie]

That's noble of you.

Dude, your post to too long to write a rebuttal, LMAO.

Yes, and no on nobility. My side of my family has violent, and suicidal tendencies, anger issues, addiction, and depression. We are also control freak narcissists. Luckily I'm more like my mom, who is the complete opposite. My girl's family has sever mental heath issues, addiction, and hereditary physical ailments (cancer, Crohns, ect.) So we decided not to chance producing a messed up kid. She's only 34 so I'm very lucky to have someone who supports my view on the matter.

But what I do consider noble is we dont use birth control. So I stand firm that there are no "accidents", only stupidity.

I have an old saying, "You cant get a mouth pregnant."

Edit: A quick note on how your kid could change the world for the better. Any child can change the world for the better, you dont have to produce one, there are more than enough waiting for loving families.

[colouredmirrorball]

Is this LFTR? I've read quite about this tech, although most scientists on-line say that Thorium doesn't work well in a conventional reactor (but it's not conventional)!
From what I've read, it is inherently safe, having a salt plug that melts if things over heat, stopping the reaction and waste material (and stocks that we already have) can be reprocessed. Thorium is also everywhere! It's crazy that we are presently burning stuff as rare as Platinum.

Don't quote me on that though - I'm not a nuclear physicist

Keith

I'm no expert either. I just heard about it in a lecture as an introduction, so don't ask me details. It's true that it wont work on conventional uranium reactors, which is probably the biggest reason it's not in use anywhere. You basically need to start from square one, and go through the lengthy process of design, optimisation, research etc.
(By the way, don't you mean plutonium? Platinum is a bit too stable a material to produce enough energy by fission ;D)

I thought that our existence depended on other species. The web is complex, trees storing CO2 for instance. I think that we are symbiotic in nature, not just with unknown species but also with Mother Earth herself. The earth may not miss us humans but we may well miss the things we kill off everyday.

Yes. Biodiversity is a necessity. I should have expressed myself better. TechJunkie said humanity has nothing to add to the planet. We only destroy for our own good. The point has been made before that we are not unique in this, meaning I don't follow his vision.
I meant that nobody cares for the life on this planet. It's just a lucky accident. The universe doesn't know we are here. The Earth doesn't know we are here. The Earth isn't aware that it's pretty unique. Any organism that manages to starve his environment dies out. It's evolution. It's normal. It happens everywhere. It is even unevitable for any species. The average lifetime for one species is about 10 million years. The deviation to this number is large.
Humanity is a big and unique exception. We are smart enough to keep ourselves alive for much longer than 10 million years, as a species. (If we will, or should, is an entirely different story). But we also have the technology and enough crazy/dumb minds to end it all within ten years.

What does life have to add to the planet? Well, in the end it's just a planet, and nobody's near us to come and gaze upon the wonders this planet has produced. It only matters for the ones who live on it. The mass extinction humans brought upon this planet (and this is a fact), makes it less worthwile in my opinion.

Recently, the European Union passed a bill (without a majority of votes! What a joke to call the EU a democracy) that allows genetically modified mais (DuPont's TC1507) to be cultivated. Not only has the mais stronger fruits, it also produces a pesticide against butterflies and moths. These animals already have a hard life in the environment we changed, if these plants are cultivated on a large scale it might be enough to exterminate many beautiful butterfly species. Once again humanity opted for its own profit in stead of paying respect for the Earth and the others we share it with. The only argument for the Commission to pass this bill was that there were no studies proving the mais was harmful for humans. The ecological aspect wasn't even an argument! If we want to survive, this attitude has to change.

Edit: A quick note on how your kid could change the world for the better. Any child can change the world for the better, you dont have to produce one, there are more than enough waiting for loving families.

That's distant future, I'd like to enjoy life a little longer before taking up that big a challenge. I don't want to make the decision for adoption just yet...

[TechJunkie]

That's distant future, I'd like to enjoy life a little longer before taking up that big a challenge. I don't want to make the decision for adoption just yet...

Me too, I like my free time very much. I'm not in a great financial situation yet either. To be honest I'm good with not having a kid. My girlfriend is getting the itch though. I have to keep reiterating now is not the time. But I do what her to have someone for after I'm gone. Right now because of physical conditions my life expectancy is ~13 years. She'll only be 47 so I need to make sure shes not alone.

[The_Doctor]

The universe doesn't know we are here. The Earth doesn't know we are here. The Earth isn't aware that it's pretty unique.

That might not be true. Reality may be more confounding than we can imagine. First, take the simple two-slit experiment. Photons have no brains, they cannot 'know' where to land to arrange interference fringes when both slits are open, yet they do, based on existence beyond their own nature and extent, and they even seem to do it with no respect for 'light speed' too. 'Knowing' might be a more fundamental thing of the pattern of existence than our brains know. I doubt we have any monopoly on it, for sure.

Earth is a very self-regulating system and has been for a long time. Just supporting life is a very long-odds game, continuing to do it for aeons is downright ridiculous if there is no self-regulation going on in an attempt to sustain it. We don't have to believe in the Gaia hypothesis to see this, it's enough to look at the odds, and a few ways it actually happens.

One interesting one currently is the jet stream. VERY recently, apparently, a climatologist have published a view (recent BBC article reports this) that the jet stream meanders more because it's weaker, more easily pushed around by obstacles like high pressure regions. I think he's actually got it wrong. While his notion looks convincing at face value, try this: The jet stream is known to train slower air around it, hence all the storms we have in the UK this winter. (And fast airstream,s are used in inductry to train airflows where fans are not helpful, this is old news). Now, if the jetstream meanders more, it cannot be weaker, it must be STRONGER, how else can it train extra air the way it has this winter?! I think it is stronger because the warming climate is more dynamic, not just 'hotter'. So assuming my notion is right, and the climatologist is wrong (which I will assume, at least for now), it may follow that the Earth is trying to dissipate extra energy from global warming by using a greater area to spread the energy in the jet stream to prevent an even more violent and localised event. Judging by the fact that the result includes more snow all over the US and Europe, and more water on land even where it cannot freeze, it suggests the Earth may be well aware of its state, and its risks, and is rapidly raising its albedo in an effort to cool itself down.

As this is happening during a curious moment of solar (in)activity in which the sunspot cycle is not behaving as expected, it may be that the sun has a role in this, and that we cannot separate weather on Earth from the conditions of the entire solar system, to some extent. The last time the sun went this silent, it caused the Maunder Minimum, a 'little ice age' that lasted from 1300 to mid 1800's. It seems to me that the sun and the Earth may be working together to preserve life in the solar system.

Everything is connected, so while this seems like an unacceptably 'mystical' reach for most people, it beats the alternative of assuming that it's all 'random'. Anyway, 'Random' is just a word for 'pattern we do not understand'. Anyone who studies 'random' knows this, and knows that using natural processes is usually the best way to get it precisely because those processes depend on a greater existence than can be created in any computer. That thought alone should tell us how careful we must be with models and assumptions. Even 'random selection' is a poor model of life. it only talks about how things get eliminated, not about how they arise in the first place!

[The_Doctor]

Btw, I decided not to marry or have kids. I knew at age 6 that I did not want to do this. I have reached 48 years with no change in mind, and no regret. How the hell I could know this at age 6 I do not know. Paradoxical, but that's how it is. Maybe an increasing number of people just sense, or have a genetic predisposition, to living in a way that will become more common as people need to reduce the strain of population growth. It might even be why homosexuality is such a big thing now. I don't think I'm gay (and I totally have the hots for Jodie Marsh which might be contentious in its own right), but there are many ways that sex is being steadily separated from procreation. Humans are changing. I won't try to predict outcomes though...

[Galvonaut]

I'm no expert either. I just heard about it in a lecture as an introduction, so don't ask me details. It's true that it wont work on conventional uranium reactors, which is probably the biggest reason it's not in use anywhere. You basically need to start from square one, and go through the lengthy process of design, optimisation, research etc.
(By the way, don't you mean plutonium? Platinum is a bit too stable a material to produce enough energy by fission ;D)

Yes, need more research - I expect Japan will look into more, if they can afford it, or have enough living scientists to do the research after Fukushima
It's Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. Well worth reading about if you get a chance.

I meant as rare an element as Platinum - although I think I was wrong there. Uranium is actually 500 times as common as gold, although finding it in quantities that are financially economical to mine is another question.

Yes. Biodiversity is a necessity. I should have expressed myself better. TechJunkie said humanity has nothing to add to the planet. We only destroy for our own good. The point has been made before that we are not unique in this, meaning I don't follow his vision.
I meant that nobody cares for the life on this planet. It's just a lucky accident. The universe doesn't know we are here. The Earth doesn't know we are here. The Earth isn't aware that it's pretty unique. Any organism that manages to starve his environment dies out. It's evolution. It's normal. It happens everywhere. It is even unevitable for any species. The average lifetime for one species is about 10 million years. The deviation to this number is large.

Ah, ok.
I think the planet and the universe may know we are here. The planet is already reacting to our actions with climate change and increased algal activity to name just 2. The planet after all is not a singular thing, like an empty moon, it is the sum of its inhabitants. Our first radio signal are now 200 light years away and given the quantum nature of things, distance may not matter. Maybe we are an effect of the universe - maybe everything is intrinsically linked.

Maybe, just maybe, our nuclear pollution is key to us evolving into something new. Fukushima and Chernobyl and whatever disaster is next may not be a disaster. It may be key to evolving quickly enough to survive whatever changes are coming.

Meh, maybe just spouting crap now

Humanity is a big and unique exception. We are smart enough to keep ourselves alive for much longer than 10 million years, as a species. (If we will, or should, is an entirely different story). But we also have the technology and enough crazy/dumb minds to end it all within ten years.

What about Horse Tail? Equisetum has a lineage going back maybe in excess of 300 Million years! It happens to produce spores too.

Recently, the European Union passed a bill (without a majority of votes! What a joke to call the EU a democracy) that allows genetically modified mais (DuPont's TC1507) to be cultivated. Not only has the mais stronger fruits, it also produces a pesticide against butterflies and moths. These animals already have a hard life in the environment we changed, if these plants are cultivated on a large scale it might be enough to exterminate many beautiful butterfly species. Once again humanity opted for its own profit in stead of paying respect for the Earth and the others we share it with. The only argument for the Commission to pass this bill was that there were no studies proving the mais was harmful for humans. The ecological aspect wasn't even an argument! If we want to survive, this attitude has to change.

Yeah, it's utter nonsense. And they expect us to believe that they are doing it to feed the starving. We bin the excess on a daily basis, and seem to be consuming more and more.
In Europe now, it is illegal to sell non-certified seed. We, like many other countries hold seed swaps, just to keep the rare and tasty fruit and veg alive for posterity and security. GM is wrong on so many levels. Seed should not be propriety, it should not be illegal to sew the second or third, ad infinitum generation seed.

I used to be a beekeeper and know that the more GM seed that is sold, the more problems beekeepers (and bees and other insects) will have. Seed with higher resistance will mean yet bigger fields, creating a monoculture that is harmful to many species, including us.

I think there are plenty of people who DO give back to the planet. I am not being too productive at the moment, but have planted vast numbers of trees, coppiced woodland to help at risk species, taught conservation skills and helped set up this little project in my home town.

Speaking of coppicing, there are species at risk now, which only exist through the actions of man. There is a coppice woodland close to me that is pre-Christian. Trees that are over 2000 years old, only alive now because man has chopped them down so often - and surprisingly, for the purpose of war.
Short rotation coppice of Hazel, for instance (brought here by the Romans) is particularly species rich.

There are people who care about people and planet. I try and do my bit but have had a blip recently.

Maybe I'll get back on it

Keith