tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7748268135718777680..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Quasars, supermassive black holes... and Perseverance(!) and more!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87289910325255533302021-02-24T19:42:07.281-08:002021-02-24T19:42:07.281-08:00onward
onward
onward<br /><br />onward<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42629210143435177682021-02-24T15:31:24.099-08:002021-02-24T15:31:24.099-08:00@ Greg & Dr. Brin: RE: USA "bully/not bul...@ Greg & Dr. Brin: RE: USA "bully/not bully":<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States<br />A 2016 study published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution (published by the University of Maryland) analyzing U.S. military interventions in the period 1981–2005 found that the U.S. "is likely to engage in military campaigns for humanitarian reasons that focus on human rights protection rather than for its own security interests such as democracy promotion or terrorism reduction."[97]<br /><br />AND<br />The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere<br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/<br />"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America and fomented coups against democratically elected populists.<br /><br />The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 — whose government was replaced by an authoritarian monarchy favorable to Washington — the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961, and the violent toppling of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, whose government was swept aside in 1973 by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet."<br /><br />AND<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention<br />One study indicated that the country intervening in most foreign elections is the United States with 81 interventions, followed by Russia (including the former Soviet Union) with 36 interventions from 1946 to 2000—an average of once in every nine competitive elections.[2][3][4][5]<br /><br />Keith Halperinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841504651752178493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45374586560888453732021-02-24T12:36:43.598-08:002021-02-24T12:36:43.598-08:00Remember all the tongue-wagging about how you can&...Remember all the tongue-wagging about how you can't accuse someone of treason unless there's an ongoing war with an enemy for him to aid? I guess that's one of those things that only applies to accusations against Republicans.<br /><br />Also, remember the pearl-clutching about how if one accused (say) Benedict Donald of treason, you were implicitly arguing that he should face the death penalty? And how egregious it would be to make such a claim against one's political opponents? Again, I guess that's one of those things that only applies to accusations against Republicans.<br /><br />https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/24/opinion/mitch-mcconnell-would-like-trump-to-fade-away.html<br /><i><br />[Marjorie Taylor] Greene has won a peculiar kind of fame with her pre-election declarations that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was guilty of treason.<br /><br />Greene suggested Pelosi could be executed, CNN reported. “She’s a traitor to our country,” Greene declared in a video posted on Facebook.<br /><br />"She took an oath to protect American citizens and uphold our laws. And she gives aid and comfort to our enemies who illegally invade our land. That’s what treason is. And by our law representatives and senators can be kicked out and no longer serve in our government. And it’s, uh, it’s a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason."<br /></i>Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81540295492504061272021-02-24T12:06:32.810-08:002021-02-24T12:06:32.810-08:00Greg B you keep missing the point. YOU are accusin...Greg B you keep missing the point. YOU are accusing the United States of America... as an organized institution, as a nation in general, of committing a systematic strategy that would under many lights be considered a campaign of repression against allies. YOU are the one bearing burden of proof for such a calumny, that runs against all stated policies and treaties and could be interpreted as a series of acts of war. And as proof of such a deliberate campaign of repression, anecdotes do not suffice.<br /><br />Given how implausible that sickly-sweet alluring meme is, with its voluptuous sense of outrage toward a purported Big Bully, my own anecdotes - while not DISproof - are vastly more valid because they weaigh against an assertion that is patently absurd in its own right.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51956266424098837892021-02-24T11:30:52.511-08:002021-02-24T11:30:52.511-08:00TCB:
At this point users don't always know wh...TCB:<br /><i><br />At this point users don't always know what is real or even WHO is real.<br /></i><br /><br />There was an <i>Fantastic Four</i> story in which the FF go back in time and prevent the accident which gave them their powers in order to allow The Thing to not be a monster. When they return to the present, the world has changed. The Skrulls are seemingly benevolent, and have given humans a drug of some kind which gives <b>everybody</b> super powers. Except Ben (formerly The Thing) who senses somehow that he's just happier without powers.<br /><br />I feel like that regarding Facebook and Twitter. Everybody else is doing them, including my wife, and I'm just, "Naw, I don't need that in my life."<br /><br />In the comic story, it served Ben well when the powers turned out to be part of a trap set by the Skrulls. Hopefully, it will serve me well in like manner.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20855655553968143492021-02-24T04:34:55.656-08:002021-02-24T04:34:55.656-08:00* Create new and particularly addicting social med...<i>* Create new and particularly addicting social media platforms which renders large segments of users (primarily younger people) unable to function well in non-digital society</i><br /><br />Hmmm. If I were Zuckerberg/Mercer/etc. and I wanted to make Facebook even more destructive, it'd go something like this:<br />1. Develop the Oculus technology to include direct neural interface. Add wireheading/pleasure stimulant and fun virtual neural experiences that literally can't be done physically.<br />2. Always online, just like your cellphone is when it's on.<br />3. Meeting your friends in headspace.<br />4. Now add bot "friends". Programmed to deceive the users however Zuck and Co. choose.<br />At this point users don't always know what is real or even WHO is real.TCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08153506222271955110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27208410769094428392021-02-24T00:08:05.544-08:002021-02-24T00:08:05.544-08:00Keith,
aren't we talking about the foreign po...Keith,<br /><br /><i>aren't we talking about the foreign policy of a particular administration?</i><br /><br />Some might, but I don't. The US is a kind of organism with objectives of its own. Other nations have their own too. The problem is that some 'sovereign states' are composed of multiple 'nations'. That can make for quite a mess. The US is at least two parts like this. Maybe ten but many of them get along well enough that we can approximate it as Union vs Confederacy.<br /><br />This notion underlies a field known as 'geopolitics'. Nations as organisms of a sort. Not very smart, but with a will to survive and an inclination that causes their objectives to be fairly consistently worked upon by those who lead.<br /><br />Whether people believe all this or not, it does offer an interesting explanation for the strength of Trump's support and his opposition. The two large blocs within the US are fighting over national objectives. We've been at it for quite some time.<br /><br /><i>I wonder if we'll start to see water (or other resource-caused) wars in the "the Roaring '40s" or later.</i><br /><br />You don't have to wait. They are already under way. We've only fought about water since the ice sheets melted back. We've only been in ecological overshoot since the ice melted too. Who knew climate change could have such a huge impact on us, hmm? 8)<br /><br /><br />The autism plague has a special attraction to me since my son is solidly on that spectrum. He's almost 22 now and I've learned quite a few things. I've ridden the roller coaster of hope and despair and noticed a things things that aren't true. It's not lead, or mercury, or weak-willed mothers. It's probably an injury to the brain that occurs to the fetus when the mother's immune system activity provokes a fetal response. It doesn't take much damage to a fetal nervous system to have long term impacts. There isn't much to be done about it later either except love them and help them try to make it in a world that tends to overload them.<br /><br />We are riding the ragged edge of big intelligence. Neurons about as tiny as they go instead of skulls with volumes larger than can fit through our mother's pelvis. Ragged edge. Kinda fragile at times.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54014890161828163842021-02-24T00:05:12.595-08:002021-02-24T00:05:12.595-08:00David Brin said...
Sorry Greg. I see your repeated...<b>David Brin said...</b><br /><i>Sorry Greg. I see your repeated (even when refuted) plaint of US bullying... while supported by individual event anecdotes ... to be a whine that's is essentially untrue.</i><br /><br />From my point of view, you haven't "refuted" - you are just saying that demonstrated examples of bullying don't really count, because they are only "individual event anecdotes".<br /><br />The thing is, Europe tends to be more or less aligned with the USA on most things. And in this sort of case nothing needs to be done: we already agree. The question is: what about the cases where we do <i>not</i>? It is <i>these</i> cases where the USA resorts to bullying.<br /><br />Again: perhaps the most troubling is that USAans don't even <i>recognize</i> that this occurs, or wave away obvious examples as "anecdotes". It is easy to say "X never happens" if one is willing to claim that all the examples of X happening don't count.gregory byshenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565517478782844083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1922676478242205762021-02-23T18:37:03.950-08:002021-02-23T18:37:03.950-08:00@ Everybody: Re: US foreign power:
When we say &qu...@ Everybody: Re: US foreign power:<br />When we say "the U.S.", aren't we talking about the foreign policy of a particular administration? <br /><br />@ Alfred: As usual, you make a great deal of sense. I wonder if we'll start to see water (or other resource-caused) wars in the "the Roaring '40s" or later. <br /><br />Here're a couple of gloomy techno-thriller scenarios (if they haven't already been done to death): <br />* An unidentifiable cyber-attack on the Three Gorges Dam, leading to a massive flood killing thousands of people. <br />* Simultaneous worldwide assassinations carried out by hordes of slaughterbots <br />(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw) as a false-flag operation.<br /><br />The "Long Game":<br />* Create new and particularly addicting social media platforms which renders large segments of users (primarily younger people) unable to function well in non-digital society<br />* Develop (through inside moles) and distribute various types of genetically-modified grains or plants which go into meat substitutes, some of which over time cause severe allergic reactions and/or mental problems- retardation, autism ("the Autism Plague"), lessened impulse control and increased anger (like lead ingestion) to large segments of the population. The strains cease being distributed prior to the damage taking effect.<br />* A nation-(and Western world)wide search, training, creation, and support for hundreds or thousands of Trump/Bolsonaro/Berlusconi/Orban/Duterte 2.0-types of right-wing authoritarian demagogues and organizations ("America's Got Fascists!) AND create (apparently) as a reaction similar left-wing authoritarian demagogues and organizations.<br />* Start a "War on Tolerance", "War on Compromise", "War on Moderation", etc. with the value "Not only must I win, but you must also lose." These would not just be in politics but in all social interactions, and "Truth Warriors" believe these "so-called 'values"" are dangerous and those who hold them are enemies who must be eliminated...<br />Keith Halperinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841504651752178493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24437748912016004722021-02-23T16:36:07.799-08:002021-02-23T16:36:07.799-08:00Right now Europe should concentrate 1st on its own...Right now Europe should concentrate 1st on its own health and cohesion and 2nd on ensuring Ukraine gets enough help to stay free along with the Baltics. <br /><br />For that the EU needs US help. But we should not lead on that. Get free of Russian gas and their blackmail rings. If the US has lost the high moral ground then Europe needs to take it up... which is hard because in fact the Union "America" side of our civl war is actually LESS racist than most continentals. Just sayin'...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8008863501895924422021-02-23T14:58:51.313-08:002021-02-23T14:58:51.313-08:00I think David and Gregory are talking past each ot...I think David and Gregory are talking past each other a bit.<br /><br />David argues that Europe being stronger isn't a near-term risk to the US. Quite true. Probably not for the remainder of this century. Maybe we will wind up in a war with Russia before 2040, but that is looking less likely now.<br /><br />Gregory argues that we keep them that way by throwing our weight around. Quite true lately, but it usually takes a softer form. Big exceptions exist, though. Look at the Suez conflict in the late 50's and how we threatened the UK to get what we wanted for example.<br /><br />David argues we need Europe to be stronger than they are now. Mostly true I think, but I'd argue against the stronger nations being the anti-immigrants ones. We don't need their small-horizons attitudes dominating in Europe.<br /><br />Gregory argues (I think) that the US should be less of a bully. I'd translate that as 'less of a barbarian.' Well… that's a moral judgement mostly. Barbarians have their place on the world stage. Our inclination to be one has stopped essentially every war where the combatants need to convoy forces across the sea. We COULD have stopped the UK action in the Falklands, but chose not to do it. There IS a place for us to be what we are, but we CAN go too far.<br /><br /><br />I don't mind Gregory's admonition that we should be more mature, but I don't think that likely in this century. We've got an internal fight with our Confederates to hold our attention right now, so the rest of the world WILL have respite. Not for long, though. Our attention will turn outward occasionally when someone surprises us and provokes a disproportionate response. Stronger ties among EU member nations can help reduce the chance that those surprises will originate in Europe. It would behoove them to make plans accordingly.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8366649721792837172021-02-23T14:45:48.974-08:002021-02-23T14:45:48.974-08:00@ Everyone: Thanks for your ideas. Re: "nukes...<br />@ Everyone: Thanks for your ideas. Re: "nukes vs. no nukes"- much as I enjoy watching people argue about things a they may/may not know about, I'm not going there, because I don't know enough. <br /><br />I agree with Jim in that we are in ecological overshoot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)<br />"A widely discussed[15] study published in January 2021 in Frontiers in Conservation Science, emphasizes the significance of overshoot stating that "simultaneous with population growth, humanity's consumption as a fraction of Earth's regenerative capacity has grown from ~ 73% in 1960 to 170% in 2016, with substantially greater per-person consumption in countries with highest income."[16] These numbers are based on recent Ecological Footprint studies.[17] The Frontiers in Conservation Science publication explains that "[t]his massive ecological overshoot is largely enabled by the increasing use of fossil fuels. These convenient fuels have allowed us to decouple human demand from biological regeneration: 85% of commercial energy, 65% of fibers, and most plastics are now produced from fossil fuels.[16]" <br />and that based on biocapacity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint), Terra can sustainably support ~3G people (1960's world population) at an Italian/Spanish standard of living (0.9 HDI), and we can get there by ~ST:OS/B5 time- 2300 CE (https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol28/39/) <br />"A global move to the fertility levels seen in a number of Chinese urban centres (around 0.75) over the coming 40 years would result in a peaking of global population before 2050 and a decline to only 3.6 billion in 2100 and 150 million people by 2200.<br />But even the more realistic range of long term fertility levels of 1.5-1.75 (higher than it has been in much of Europe for the past decades) would lead to declines in global population size of 2.6-5.6 billion by 2200 and even 0.9-3.2 billion by 2300", <br />and make good progress by 2100 (https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext) <br />"Global population is likely to peak well before the end of the century. Given that we forecasted that societies tend towards a TFR lower than 1·5, once global population decline begins, it will probably continue inexorably. Within the declining total world population some countries will sustain their populations through liberal immigration policies and social policies more supportive of females working and achieving their desired family size. These countries are likely to have larger overall GDP than other countries, with the various economic, social, and geopolitical benefits that come with stable working-age populations. Our UIs and scenario analysis showed that for no country or territory is the demographic future cast in stone. Policies that countries pursue today can alter the trajectory for fertility, mortality, and migration. Population size and composition are not exogenous factors for countries to account for in their planning, but rather outcomes that they can help direct." without gigadeaths.Keith Halperinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841504651752178493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90020606353210254302021-02-23T14:39:17.500-08:002021-02-23T14:39:17.500-08:00Der Oger,
For the asteroid topic, I want a separa...Der Oger,<br /><br />For the asteroid topic, I want a separate post. I'm MUCH more enthusiastic about this topic than empires and politics… and (to be honest) much more inclined to alter my opinions.<br /><br />There will eventually be a run to the asteroids. Probably a few of them depending on what gets found and the evolution of technology both for extraction and consumption. Much like there were multiple gold rushes in North America and gold was found.<br /><br />Our gold rushes are instructive in subtle ways, though. One happened around Charlotte in North Carolina in the late 1830's. The history is interesting because there was a short time when one of the US Mints was located there even though there was a big one in Philadelphia. Why? Well… it wasn't easy to ship gold from around Charlotte to Philadelphia. The delay mattered enough to affect the value of the gold. The next rush in California helped spawn the San Francisco mint to which CA gold and NV silver could be shipped. BUT… gold mining comes in more than one form. Lots of people now about the folks panning for it, but the later folks washed away entire hillsides and sifted through the dirt using elemental mercury. The second technique would not have been available except for an Hg discover in CA a few years earlier. Shipping Hg around the Horn would have had quite an impact on the value of the gold produced.<br /><br />History tends to focus on the production side, but demand was heavily politicized. For example, Ag production in the western states quickly outstripped US needs for silver coinage. There were periods when the mints didn't not produce silver dollars because they weren't needed. What was a silver mine owner to do? Hmm. Buy a congress critter of course and force the Mint to buy.<br /><br />The point of this is to suggest that all resource extraction becomes a combination of economics and politics. Doesn't matter if it is gold, silver, or oil. The same will be true for asteroid resources. We know the general shape of the history that will likely emerge, but don't assume we will know the details. Without local Hg in CA, our gold rush period would have been quite different after the streams were panned out. If the discover around Charlotte had occurred a little later when more roads and rails existed, their history would have been quite different. Small-seeming side resources make huge differences in extraction techniques AND in what politics might develop around it all. This affects both the history of extraction and what consumers will fund as possible substitutions.<br /><br />Economics around resources is really a study in substitutions. Cu wires instead of Au wires unless Ag is cheap.<br /><br />Politics around resources is really a study in uses of human capital. Robotic devices instead of Human ones unless telepresence centaurs (Laggy human & real-time AI) are sufficient.<br /><br />None of it is simple even when the broad sketches can be known. What we do know is it won't be a single, multi-faction elite. Elite alliances of smart people pursuing $$ tend to be fluid.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72938790252292961942021-02-23T14:16:54.758-08:002021-02-23T14:16:54.758-08:00Der Oger,
But in as much as the history of the Am...Der Oger,<br /><br /><i>But in as much as the history of the American Empire is a success story, it is also a cautionary tale that helps some people winning elections over here.</i><br /><br />Heh. Very true. That means you and I are more likely to quibble about details than fundamentals. That means negotiation is QUITE possible.<br /><br />Let me wrap up by saying this. Many of us know we need you all… and by that I mean all the member nations of 'The West'. It isn't so much a US empire as it is a West-ern empire. Yah. We are big. Our navy outnumbers all of the rest of you combined. That misses the softer point that most of what gets done is with soft power and at least partial consent of other members of the empire.<br /><br />So, when we are being stupid… say so.<br />When we harm you… say so.<br />Persuade and Compete.<br />We will grumble, but we will all be better off for it.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4542229038469381192021-02-23T13:58:24.661-08:002021-02-23T13:58:24.661-08:00Sorry Greg. I see your repeated (even when refute...Sorry Greg. I see your repeated (even when refuted) plaint of US bullying... while supported by individual event anecdotes ... to be a whine that's is essentially untrue. <br /><br />Moreover anyone who asserts that sane USAans think the USA is currently "sane" is exercising truly insane delusion. (Parse THAT one out eh?)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45872139221173763702021-02-23T13:44:10.761-08:002021-02-23T13:44:10.761-08:00David Brin said...
Sorry Greg, you are still wrong...<b>David Brin said...</b><br /><i>Sorry Greg, you are still wrong. Yes the empire throws its weight around. But we have no fear of the EU being a rival in any near term scenario. We still need them to become MORE influential in the world, not less. To pick up MORE of the burdens, not fewer. Ask me again when there's real rivalry afoot. As of now, that's just laughable.</i><br />True as written, but doesn't address my point.<br /><br />Yes, the USA does not see the EU as a rival - mostly. And yes, the USA wants the EU to become "more influential" - but <i>in support of the goals and interests of the USA</i>. Whenever the EU (or any European state) has interests that are not aligned with the USA, the USA "throws its weight around" to change that. And if the USA sees any possibility of an equal arising, it throws its weight around still more.<br /><br />And that is the nature of the problem, and why I noted that USAans don't even see this is a problem: because the USA tends to see its goals and interests as the obvious goals and interests of all right-thinking people and states, and most USAans find it difficult even to imagine that others might legitimately have different goals and interests. In some cases this blind spot is <i>worse</i> for the "sane", "fact-case" USAans, because their conclusions are the "sane", "fact"-based ones - which means that anyone thinking differently must be deluded or disingenuous.gregory byshenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565517478782844083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4576803898691660762021-02-23T13:22:46.503-08:002021-02-23T13:22:46.503-08:00Keith
In the 1970's Ivan Illich thought of on...Keith<br /><br />In the 1970's Ivan Illich thought of one rule that would have massive systemic effects.<br /><br />A global speed limit of 25-30 mph for all people and goods.<br /><br />have some fun and start to think about how that would change society, treat it like a Science fiction thought experiment.jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865068658069680309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38344852006718983262021-02-23T13:19:30.383-08:002021-02-23T13:19:30.383-08:00Again and agin. "David you're hilarious!&...Again and agin. "David you're hilarious!" Never a single step toward acknowledgement of matters raised by others. A truly sick puppy. But within bearable range. But now far too boring to actually read.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54817771769443748412021-02-23T13:16:04.349-08:002021-02-23T13:16:04.349-08:00David you are so unintentionally hilarious.
I am p...David you are so unintentionally hilarious.<br />I am pretty sure it is you who needs a good long look in the mirror, you are the one denying that we are deep into ecological overshoot. The consequence of being in ecological overshoot is a mass die-off of the species that was in overshoot. That is what is in store if we do not take the problem seriously and change our behavior. It is not something I want to happen. Now the situation with humans is potentially a little different, because some humans consume far more than most. If those who are consuming vast resources, substantially reduce their consumption there will be more for others. Again 10% of the wealthiest consume 50% of the resources. A substantial reduction in the consumption by the wealthy followed by a gradual reduction in the size of the population (by keeping the birth rate below the death rate for many decades) is a non horrible way to deal with overshoot.<br /><br />But that will not happen as long as we have economic growth as the central organizing principle for the economy. (you can’t green the Wendigo, you must abandon him)<br />jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865068658069680309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87162142471803427052021-02-23T12:05:33.175-08:002021-02-23T12:05:33.175-08:00Daniel - re-Nuclear
I used to think that the probl...Daniel - re-Nuclear<br />I used to think that the problem with Nuclear was all of the regulations and the public relations nightmare of "radiation death cooties"<br />Then China put a lot of resources into Nuclear - a very pragmatic government<br />Then after 20 years or so China de-emphasised nuclear in favour of Wind and Solar<br />This is China so they did not go "cold turkey" just moved the main emphasis <br /><br />So what IS the problem?<br /><br />In my career I have done a huge amount of improvements in industry - they have included some large "steps" - but the actual benefits have come from the "death of a thousand cuts"<br />literally tens of thousands of small steps that add up to halving the costs in 20 years<br /><br />I think THAT is the problem with Nuclear<br />The tiny cuts do NOT pass the Risk/Benefit analysis - so they don't happen<br />As a result Nuclear is still the same cost as it was 50 years ago - while its competition is now less than a quarter of the cost<br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19482258389933796082021-02-23T11:32:06.009-08:002021-02-23T11:32:06.009-08:00Sorry Greg, you are still wrong. Yes the empire th...Sorry Greg, you are still wrong. Yes the empire throws its weight around. But we have no fear of the EU being a rival in any near term scenario. We still need them to become MORE influential in the world, not less. To pick up MORE of the burdens, not fewer. Ask me again when there's real rivalry afoot. As of now, that's just laughable.<br /><br />Jim's notion that the naturalist folk tales of indigenous peoples makes them sophisticated gloabal-thinkin environmentalists is likewise laughable. Jim's own smug, highly educated and extremely dour (the Earth needs 5 billion humans to just die, Die, DIE!) version of environmentalism merits a good long look in the mirror.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36949118478251512742021-02-23T10:33:18.966-08:002021-02-23T10:33:18.966-08:00David, I disagree that it is a "falsehood&quo...David, I disagree that it is a "falsehood".<br /><br />Perhaps a small part of the population would be happy with Europe as a true equal to the USA, but it is (I think) a small part. The rest - including your leaders, whether Trumpian crazies or sane - want Europe to be strong, <i>but not as strong as the USA</i>; strong enough to support the USA, but <i>not</i> strong enough to choose its own course. USAans want the USA to be in control, and mostly seem to believe that the USA <i>should be</i> in control.<br /><br />This is economic as much as military. A few things close to home for me, from the last year...<br /><br />The USA is one of a handful of states that taxes non-resident "citizens". The 'citizens' is in scare quotes because the USA has an expansive definition of citizenship, which means that some people have been determined to be 'citizens' even if they have never set foot on US territory. A not-insignificant number of Europeans have had to jump through a series of hoops in order to file paperwork to keep their bank accounts, as the USA has threatened to block access to the USA for banks that do not provide information on US "citizens" with accounts.<br /><br />The USA no longer leads in semiconductor production, and has thus pressured our government to block sales of manufacturing equipment to Chinese companies, in order to ensure that the Chinese manufacturers cannot produce the highest quality chips.<br /><br />The USA has pressured European countries to block use of Chinese hardware in telecommunications, on "security" grounds - despite never being able to provide <i>any</i> evidence of misuse of that hardware. (And despite the fact that the USA has, in fact, used US telecom hardware to spy on other countries. Some have argued that the real reason for the US opposition to Chinese computer hardware is that such hardware cannot easily be misused by US intelligence services.)gregory byshenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565517478782844083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49562160047624987132021-02-23T10:14:25.499-08:002021-02-23T10:14:25.499-08:00David you are an almost an endless source of amuse...David you are an almost an endless source of amusement.<br />It is quite clear that you have not adjusted your “big picture” to account for reality.<br /><br />In the year 2000 fossil fuels represented ~86% of total energy use, and in 2019 it was 83.3% of total energy use, but the total amount of fossil fuels burned increased almost every year (except for the great recession and the pandemic). <br />Now if I would have told David Brin 20 years ago that fossil fuel use would be substantially greater in 2020 than 2000 and that fossil fuels would still be providing more than 80% of primary energy, and that climate change would be having serious negative consequences all over the globe, you would have laughed and said I lacked a positive sum understanding. <br /><br />And then there is David’s idea that wealth lets you love the ecosystem more. I think that totally ignores indigenous people all over the world (or people like the Amish, hippy communes and some small farmers). But even more importantly, even though wealthy people may be more willing to say the love the environment, they still have the lifestyles that cause most of the problem. The lifestyles of top 10 % in wealth are responsible for more than 50 % of the environmental problem. <br /><br />Now onto the “renewables are fossil fuel extenders”. Until you actually make the concrete, the steel, and all the other raw materials that go into say a wind turbine with renewable energy they are fossil fuel extenders. It is clearly not impossible to do that but there is a problem of the size of the problem and the limited time (and other resources) we have for a change over to renewable energy.<br /><br />And then there is David’s confusion about being satiated. Yes, there are plenty of individuals who are willing to get off the endless greed loop, but the same can not be said for governments, companies, banks, insurance companies, real estate agencies, etc. The undying hunger for ever more (the demon Wendigo) still sits at the center of economy and is its central organizing principle. We can never be sustainable if economic growth is our central concern. <br />jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865068658069680309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17548937751343606652021-02-23T09:56:28.492-08:002021-02-23T09:56:28.492-08:00Natural Gas power plants are very cheap to make, r...Natural Gas power plants are very cheap to make, reqire none of the vast surrounding infrastructure of coal or nuclear... so little that they tuck them in small places and that came back and bit Texas. I'm not worried about the capital sunk costs of methane plants. the generators can be sent to geothermal sites and the pipelines can feedstock into chemical plants. <br /><br />I do think the methane venthers must be drone hunted down. the Biden admin must seek-and-fine them as a revenue source.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25473015302040061172021-02-23T09:48:59.695-08:002021-02-23T09:48:59.695-08:00Daniel Duffy said...
Dr Brin: "Natural gas is...<b>Daniel Duffy said...</b><br /><i>Dr Brin: "Natural gas is a huge win"<br /><br />If I could wave a magic wand and cut our GHG emissions in half, everyone would consider that to be a major win for the environment. Natural gas is that magic wand.</i><br /><br />If it were a magic wand, then it would be a fine thing. Unfortunately, it is not "magic", but requires resources.<br /><br />An important point is that any decarbonization plans for the near future should be mileposts on the way to the further future. If we build natural gas facilities during the coming ten years, then we will need to throw them away in the years after that if we want to truly decarbonize. This may not be a good use of resources. Better, if possible, to push ahead on carbon-neutral as fast as we can. In other words, even if gas is better than coal, we really should not <i>now</i> be bulding <i>new</i> carbon-emitting powerplants.<br /><br />I believe that Bill Gates makes this point in relation to 2030/2050 carbon goals in his book - at least he said this in an interview from last week.gregory byshenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565517478782844083noreply@blogger.com