Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/19/trump-order-protect-weedkiller

 

The MAHA lot..? 

Exactly so, yes.

 

39 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86y1g6wde3o

 

Great news, March 6th feels round the corner. 

Fantastic news. 

 

Think I said when it was first published though; what is it with the timing of NASA astronauts heading for the Moon and the US President being a felon? Weird that it's happening twice.

[ozleicester]

Waste of money... but meh to human suffering

[Zear0]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Waste of money... but meh to human suffering

You do spout nonsense sometimes. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

20 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

You do spout nonsense sometimes. 

How is spending billions to do something again for the sake of it going to improve anyone's life?

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

How is spending billions to do something again for the sake of it going to improve anyone's life?

Exactly, why bother sending people into space when all it has given us as a spill over capability of GPS, weather forecasting, global communications, earth observation and funded the development of high efficiency solar cells, brand new composites and radiation shielding read-across into health care.

 

Research and Development funded by high risk frontier strategic requirements is the biggest enabler to development of advanced technologies. Similar to defence investment, it drives massive innovation that helps everyone.  It's impossible to predict the breakthroughs that get made a result of the endeavours and to claim these things "don't improve anyone's lives" is just daft.  Yes, we've done this before,  but this programme is about 1/3 the cost in real terms of Apollo and it has the potential to kick start future industries.  Sure we had the same people moaning about voyagers exploring the world so it's not a surprising attitude or people wondering why Alexander Fleming was mucking about with mould before he discovered antibiotics saving billions of lives.

 

The moon is 3 days away and makes far more sense for exploration than Mars.  We could develop radio astronomy on the far side of the moon, run data centres in an extremely cold environment powered by solar panels, use the zero atmosphere to make ultra-pure manufacturing in an inert vacuum.  Development of this capability is essential and we'd still be living in caves grunting if we only ever spent money on the essentials in life.  Let's close all the museums, arts and entertainment whilst we're at it shall we?

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Exactly, why bother sending people into space when all it has given us as a spill over capability of GPS, weather forecasting, global communications, earth observation and funded the development of high efficiency solar cells, brand new composites and radiation shielding read-across into health care.

 

Research and Development funded by high risk frontier strategic requirements is the biggest enabler to development of advanced technologies. Similar to defence investment, it drives massive innovation that helps everyone.  It's impossible to predict the breakthroughs that get made a result of the endeavours and to claim these things "don't improve anyone's lives" is just daft.  Yes, we've done this before,  but this programme is about 1/3 the cost in real terms of Apollo and it has the potential to kick start future industries.  Sure we had the same people moaning about voyagers exploring the world so it's not a surprising attitude or people wondering why Alexander Fleming was mucking about with mould before he discovered antibiotics saving billions of lives.

 

The moon is 3 days away and makes far more sense for exploration than Mars.  We could develop radio astronomy on the far side of the moon, run data centres in an extremely cold environment powered by solar panels, use the zero atmosphere to make ultra-pure manufacturing in an inert vacuum.  Development of this capability is essential and we'd still be living in caves grunting if we only ever spent money on the essentials in life.  Let's close all the museums, arts and entertainment whilst we're at it shall we?

Some people on this planet don't even have the essentials of life though.

 

Try telling all this to the literally hundreds of millions of people who live in extreme poverty.

 

"Oh... you're building an ultra-pure manufacturing plant on the moon? My son would love to hear about that, but he died of malnutrition last week "

 

As far as closing the arts, sure, why not, if it helps. I've said several times on here how ridiculous it is that people pay hundreds of millions of pounds for some coloured oils on canvas when there's so much poverty in the world.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Some people on this planet don't even have the essentials of life though.

 

Try telling all this to the literally hundreds of millions of people who live in extreme poverty.

 

"Oh... you're building an ultra-pure manufacturing plant on the moon? My son would love to hear about that, but he died of malnutrition last week "

 

As far as closing the arts, sure, why not, if it helps. I've said several times on here how ridiculous it is that people pay hundreds of millions of pounds for some coloured oils on canvas when there's so much poverty in the world.

When it's all considered to be a massive money laundering market, then it becomes less ridiculous and more realistically criminal, I think. 

 

On the general topic, it's been said before, it will be said again here and it's obvious - to guarantee the future, any kind of future, for our species, both of the options discussed above need to be done. That has to be possible, because if it's not the results are dire for a great many people no matter what. 

Edited 21 February by leicsmac

[Zear0]

59 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Some people on this planet don't even have the essentials of life though.

 

Try telling all this to the literally hundreds of millions of people who live in extreme poverty.

 

"Oh... you're building an ultra-pure manufacturing plant on the moon? My son would love to hear about that, but he died of malnutrition last week "

 

As far as closing the arts, sure, why not, if it helps. I've said several times on here how ridiculous it is that people pay hundreds of millions of pounds for some coloured oils on canvas when there's so much poverty in the world.

Again you're making a really weird point and deliberately conflating arts programmes within the city to educate and entertain people with private collectors paying high prices. A whiff of hippocracy with the multi-billions pound footbsll industry we all consume here. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

20 hours ago, leicsmac said:

When it's all considered to be a massive money laundering market, then it becomes less ridiculous and more realistically criminal, I think. 

 

On the general topic, it's been said before, it will be said again here and it's obvious - to guarantee the future, any kind of future, for our species, both of the options discussed above need to be done. That has to be possible, because if it's not the results are dire for a great many people no matter what. 

Not before the mother planet is secured.

 

Make no mistake, once the Earth is stripped bare, it won't be the likes of you or I on the colony ship to Tau Ceti, or even Mars, it'll be the rich and the famous. Maybe the bare minimum of scientists (extra weight) and robots can do all the donkey work, right?

 

Douglas Adams was writing humour, but he was also making a point. Telephone sanitation is important.

Edited 22 February by Trav Le Bleu

[ozleicester]

Privilege

[Zear0]

Cheese

[danny.]

Some baffling attitudes here. So we just stop any advancement until we solve worldwide poverty (will never happen).

[leicsmac]

18 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Not before the mother planet is secured.

 

Make no mistake, once the Earth is stripped bare, it won't be the likes of you or I on the colony ship to Tau Ceri, or even Mars, it'll be the rich and the famous. Maybe the bare minimum of scientists (extra weight) and robots can do all the donkey work, right?

 

Douglas Adams was writing humour, but he was also making a point. Telephone sanitation is important.

As was James Corey when he wrote The Expanse series. 

 

I have no disagreement whatsoever about the likelihood of human inequality continuing even if we reach out into space.

 

The point is that if we don't, sooner rather than later something will happen that will make us all very, very equal. And, that requires attention and it requires long term resources, as abstract as the idea might be in comparison to the suffering shown to us every day through a variety of media.

Edited 22 February by leicsmac

[Trav Le Bleu]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As was James Corey when he wrote The Expanse series. 

 

I have no disagreement whatsoever about the likelihood of human inequality continuing even if we reach out into space.

 

The point is that if we don't, sooner rather than later something will happen that will make us all very, very equal. And, that requires attention and it requires long term resources, as abstract as the idea might be in comparison to the suffering shown to us every day through a variety of media.

And I'm saying we could use that money to make life sustainable on Earth. Moving house because you burnt down your conservatory is just lazy. Learn from it and rebuild, otherwise you're just going to burn down the conservatory in your new house.

 

NB, have you read The Long Earth novels by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter. Interesting series in which the restrictions of finite resources are removed?

Edited 22 February by Trav Le Bleu

[CornwallFox]

23 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Some people on this planet don't even have the essentials of life though.

 

Try telling all this to the literally hundreds of millions of people who live in extreme poverty.

 

"Oh... you're building an ultra-pure manufacturing plant on the moon? My son would love to hear about that, but he died of malnutrition last week "

 

As far as closing the arts, sure, why not, if it helps. I've said several times on here how ridiculous it is that people pay hundreds of millions of pounds for some coloured oils on canvas when there's so much poverty in the world.

There's unlimited money in the world. It's a human construct which is created out of thin air by central banks. We can have nice things, it's capitalism that's stopping is organising the world fairly because it's entire reason for being it's to fund capital. 

 

[danny.]

2 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

There's unlimited money in the world. It's a human construct which is created out of thin air by central banks. We can have nice things, it's capitalism that's stopping is organising the world fairly because it's entire reason for being it's to fund capital. 

 

*human nature 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Essentially, this guy is Owen Lars.

 

‘Reimagining matter’: Nobel laureate invents machine that harvests water from dry air | Water | The Guardian

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/21/nobel-laureate-omar-yaghi-invents-machine-that-harvests-water-from-dry-air

 

[Dahnsouff]

On 22/02/2026 at 15:30, CornwallFox said:

There's unlimited money in the world. It's a human construct which is created out of thin air by central banks. We can have nice things, it's capitalism that's stopping is organising the world fairly because it's entire reason for being it's to fund capital. 

 

Human greed, individuals with  a shallow need to promote themselves above others you mean?

[leicsmac]

On 22/02/2026 at 13:36, Trav Le Bleu said:

And I'm saying we could use that money to make life sustainable on Earth. Moving house because you burnt down your conservatory is just lazy. Learn from it and rebuild, otherwise you're just going to burn down the conservatory in your new house.

 

NB, have you read The Long Earth novels by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter. Interesting series in which the restrictions of finite resources are removed?

I have not read those, but they are on my list. 

 

We should absolutely be good custodians of our Earth, as much as we can, for as long as we can. But as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said, "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever".

Edited 23 February by leicsmac

[danny.]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Human greed, individuals with  a shallow need to promote themselves above others you mean?

Waiting for @leicsmac to call this out too…

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Human greed, individuals with  a shallow need to promote themselves above others you mean?

 

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

Waiting for @leicsmac to call this out too…

Certainly, though it is a more nuanced view of human behaviour by virtue of pointing out it is an individual flaw rather than simply bracketing it as behaviour humanity is predestined to engage in. 

 

Either way, however, that sentiment is neutralised from human decision making, or the Earth, likely coupled with that same sentiment, does the same to our species, along with a great many others. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Human greed, individuals with  a shallow need to promote themselves above others you mean?

An element of that yes. But the form of capitalism followed in the US and UK is extreme and directly leads to the problems we see.

[dsr-burnley]

On 22/02/2026 at 15:30, CornwallFox said:

There's unlimited money in the world. It's a human construct which is created out of thin air by central banks. We can have nice things, it's capitalism that's stopping is organising the world fairly because it's entire reason for being it's to fund capital. 

 

At risk of derailing the thread completely, the reason we can have nice things is because capitalists make them. (I suppose ecomonics is a science?)

 

The poorest people somehow seem to live in countries that haven't embraced capitalism. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

At risk of derailing the thread completely, the reason we can have nice things is because capitalists make them. (I suppose ecomonics is a science?)

 

The poorest people somehow seem to live in countries that haven't embraced capitalism. 

This isn't remotely true is it? 

Capitalism is a system. 

Being an entrepreneur, having a business, selling things, is not solely related to capitalism. That's a mistake of understanding I often see made. 

 

A Harvard study found that innovation has always relied on government support. Government plays a foundational role in driving innovation, particularly in high-risk, early-stage research that leads to major breakthroughs like the internet, GPS, and mRNA technology. While the private sector often leads in applied development and commercialisation, government funding supports a significant portion of foundational patents. 

 

At the same time, the UK had the most extreme version of capitalism in Europe, whilst simultaneously having quite a significant number of the poorest areas, and some of the richest. Huge wealth disparities are very much part of late stage capitalism.

Edited 25 February by CornwallFox

[Dahnsouff]

Isn't this neo-liberalism? A wilfully unregulated version of capitalism? As neo-liberalism abhors state ownership, capitalism makes no such preference.