Technology, Science and the Environment.

[Buce]

40 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So we've gone from it never happening to it taking many lifetimes. Progress. 

 

You sound exactly like the dinosaurs that said the telephone would never be viable. 

 

 

You've got to admire the salesman who sold the first one though.

[Guest]

Again sorry for the delay in replying. This post limit is incredibly frustrating.

 

On 28/03/2018 at 13:10, yorkie1999 said:

 

 

 

 

You're also to blame in the event of a crash as well, whereas a driver-less car isn't, which to me is the real issue, although as much as FIF wants to believe, driverless cars will never happen.

      

I believe the discussion is that the makers of the cars will be responsible in the event of the crash. You're acting like an ostrich - driverless cars already exist. I reckon people used to say the same about cars and laughed at Mr.Ford.

 

On 28/03/2018 at 13:19, Buce said:

 

One death in how many road miles?

That's hard to say for certain as there are no definite figures I can find. Waymo had logged 5 million driverless miles the last time I saw. Google had logged 3 million (but that was a while ago) Uber 2 million but Tesla have logged billions of miles for their autonomous electric cars, problem is we don't know how many of those miles are autonomous/driverless. Of course those figures are increasing exponentially at the moment. Whilst I understand the reason for the question I don't think that's the crux of this problem. The accident, according to the authorities,  would have been unavoidable whether the car was driverless or the common garden variety. So far science has shown that driverless cars will save lives (as opposed to never causing deaths) and a hell of a lot compared to normal driver based cars. I recently read a WHO report (though it was a few years old) that stated road traffic injuries caused 1.25 million world wide deaths a year - that's more than 1 person killed every 30 seconds. Not one of those was by a driver-less car.

 

If driver-less cars mean fewer road deaths how can we ignore it?

 

 

On 28/03/2018 at 14:06, Ronish Baxter said:

China has always been focusing on building up its own strength and not paying any heed to the west is doing. They have always ensured that what they build remains secret to them only and that has simply helped the nation to become one of the superpowers.

For all the shit that China gets they have just met their 2020 carbon target - 3 years early. I doubt many other countries will manage that.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/china-carbon-target-three-years-early

 

 

22 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not really, there is simply a limit where technology needs to take us and as much as people want to believe in a roger ramjet world, it's not going to happen in many life times. Yes there are driver-less cars at the moment, being tested, and there are electric cars, but not for the masses. Imagine being on the M25 with 300,000 other electric cars. Imagine replacing 40 million cars with electric vehicles, wheres the energy going to come from to power that lot being charged up every night and where's the copper going to come from for the 6" diameter wires we're going to need to lay down every street.  Imagine a couple of million self driving cars on the roads trying to interact with each other. Did you know that if you walk out in front of an av, it stops, because it has to, think how much fun the kids are going to have with that one. There's a million negatives and one positive, that being you can have a nap whilst you're being driven to where you want to go. The last man walked on the moon 45 years ago, now that was a pretty big advance in technology, but  i wonder why we stopped going.

I don't understand the first comment in bold.

 

Driver-less cars will happen because they are safer and will eventually mean that people can move more quickly without wasting time driving but it'll take some time, even if the evidence says it'll definitely happen in your lifetime. As for electric cars I think you'll find they dominate the world within 10 to 20 years. Maybe the UK are a little behind (I don't know that but your posts lead me to believe it) but over here in mainland Europe (where a lot of the cars that Brits drive are manufactured) hybrids are now commonplace and pure electric vehicles are on the rise. There are electric pumps at many service stations (including supermarkets) and also at car parks in many cities towns and villages. Even my town which doesn't even have a large supermarket has two communal electric pumps in the town centre car park and the local supermarket has an electric pump too. Added to that diesel prices have seen a politically driven price increase of 33% since Christmas!

 

It is true that the infrastructure is the most important point now that all car manufacturers are making electric cars and that governments are subsidising electric car purchases but you'll be surprised how quickly electric companies will get pumps in place in England. I read recently that the government has already agreed subsidies and unlike petrol stations which needed complete infrastructure, electricity infrastructure already exists throughout the western world - it's only the point of delivery that needs putting in place.

 

I think you underestimate capitalist greed endeavour.

 

I'm sure the final bolded statement is just a joke on your behalf but if not. The moon was about ideological power, Advances in space have continued  - even private companies go into space nowadays but it is other areas that have been the focus for the biggest technological advancements. Though space with satelite based technology has made significant advances in the average person's life - hello portable phones, mobile TV, GPS etc...

 

 

[Innovindil]

Fantastic post. Sign me up to the #FreeFIF list. 

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43584969

 

Particle physics!

[Guest]

A previous climate catastrophe which wasn't caused by man:

 

 https://www.sciencealert.com/this-ancient-climate-catastrophe-may-provide-clues-for-for-facing-ours

 

Is this one of you:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-a-british-man-has-contracted-the-first-case-of-untreatable-super-gonorrhea

 

One for Fatty Col:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/does-taking-a-hot-bath-burn-calories-30-minute-walk-passive-heating-diabetes

 

They are out there:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/something-just-passed-over-us-2-separate-airliners-encounter-strange-ufo-in-arizona-pilots-faa

 

 

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, FIF said:

A previous climate catastrophe which wasn't caused by man:

 

 https://www.sciencealert.com/this-ancient-climate-catastrophe-may-provide-clues-for-for-facing-ours

 

 

 

Interesting stuff.

 

This again for me highlights a key thing: humans can (and likely are) cause or exacerbate natural cycles, but pretty much the entire debate regarding human involvement in such things is a convenient figleaf for those not interested in the future to maintain the status quo at any cost. The cause doesn't matter nearly as much as the statistics (rising CO2 levels) and the consequences (demonstrated in that article). It's long past time that was the focus of the discussion, rather than being tied down in semantics regarding who or what was responsible for the climate shift. 

[The Bear]

 

Some lovely fields with pretty flowers right?...

 

Nope. China has a bicycle problem, where loads of companies jumped on the bike sharing phenomenon when bike sharing took off. The companies soon went bust though, meaning streets are littered with bikes. Not hundreds of them, but thousands - hundreds of thousands.

 

 

 

More on it here - https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/

 

 

 

[The Bear]

I've only just found this thread btw. I'm a huge science nerd. I did A-Level maths and physics and if it wasn't for the fact I was sick of school by that point and wanted to go out and earn some money, I'd have gone to Uni and studied Astrophysics.

 

I'm firmly on the side of (or blaming of) anthropogenic climate change btw. Oh and firmly an athiest. Just so you know where I stand!

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, The Bear said:

I've only just found this thread btw. I'm a huge science nerd. I did A-Level maths and physics and if it wasn't for the fact I was sick of school by that point and wanted to go out and earn some money, I'd have gone to Uni and studied Astrophysics.

 

I'm firmly on the side of (or blaming of) anthropogenic climate change btw. Oh and firmly an athiest. Just so you know where I stand!

Good lad.

 

The Astrophysics program at the Uni of Leicester is top btw.

[leicsmac]

In other news, the Chinese Tiangong-1 is going to burnup in atmo sometime tomorrow or the next day:

 

https://www.space.com/40154-chinese-space-station-crash-pacific-ocean-prediction.html

[The Bear]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Good lad.

 

The Astrophysics program at the Uni of Leicester is top btw.

We're talking late 90s here! I was offered a place at Keele at the time. No idea if it was any good or not. As I said I wasn't interested at the time so didn't bother looking into it. 

[The Bear]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In other news, the Chinese Tiangong-1 is going to burnup in atmo sometime tomorrow or the next day:

 

https://www.space.com/40154-chinese-space-station-crash-pacific-ocean-prediction.html

They should just let it come down on North Korea IMO. 

 

Hopefully someone cruising around the Pacific gets a video of its re-entry. 

Edited 31 March 2018 by The Bear

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, The Bear said:

We're talking late 90s here! I was offered a place at Keele at the time. No idea if it was any good or not. As I said I wasn't interested at the time so didn't bother looking into it. 

Nice stuff! Keele was my second choice, was offered Astrophysics at there and Leicester in the mid 00's and decided to stay local.

[leicsmac]

Posting this one for discussion and critique:

 

https://medium.com/@philosophytorres/should-humanity-colonize-space-181ca78905fd

 

Personally, I think that this guy highlights the very same problems already happening and vastly prevalent here on Earth and then just scales them up to use as an excuse not to expand into space, while all the time ignoring the inevitable natural consequences of staying on one planet (the Earth isn't going to stay this nice and habitable forever).

Unconvincing.

[Vardinio'sCat]

On 4/1/2018 at 14:28, leicsmac said:

Posting this one for discussion and critique:

 

https://medium.com/@philosophytorres/should-humanity-colonize-space-181ca78905fd

 

Personally, I think that this guy highlights the very same problems already happening and vastly prevalent here on Earth and then just scales them up to use as an excuse not to expand into space, while all the time ignoring the inevitable natural consequences of staying on one planet (the Earth isn't going to stay this nice and habitable forever).

Unconvincing.

 

I wouldn't like to see it at the top of our 'to do' list, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that keeping all our eggs in one basket isn't a long-term solution.

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

1-0 to the potheads!

 

States that have approved medical cannabis laws saw a dramatic reduction in opioid use, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Georgia.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180402202236.htm

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

I wouldn't like to see it at the top of our 'to do' list, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that keeping all our eggs in one basket isn't a long-term solution.

 

It really, really isn't - and quite frankly I'm amazed at the argument of anyone who thinks it is. 

[Vardinio'sCat]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It really, really isn't - and quite frankly I'm amazed at the argument of anyone who thinks it is. 

 

I have seen it said that we should focus all our energy on fixing the planet we have etc etc, but I think we have the resources to do more than one thing at a time, if we just use our money more wisely.

 

Of course when I say we, I mean Elon Musk, obviously. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

I have seen it said that we should focus all our energy on fixing the planet we have etc etc, but I think we have the resources to do more than one thing at a time, if we just use our money more wisely.

 

Of course when I say we, I mean Elon Musk, obviously. 

Absolutely, it's not an either-or dichotomy. we can and should be being better stewards of this planet while looking elsewhere too.

[Buce]

On 01/04/2018 at 14:28, leicsmac said:

Posting this one for discussion and critique:

 

https://medium.com/@philosophytorres/should-humanity-colonize-space-181ca78905fd

 

Personally, I think that this guy highlights the very same problems already happening and vastly prevalent here on Earth and then just scales them up to use as an excuse not to expand into space, while all the time ignoring the inevitable natural consequences of staying on one planet (the Earth isn't going to stay this nice and habitable forever).

Unconvincing.

 

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely, it's not an either-or dichotomy. we can and should be being better stewards of this planet while looking elsewhere too.

 

Where exactly do you think we should be looking to colonize, Mac?

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

Where exactly do you think we should be looking to colonize, Mac?

For now, we're obviously limited to our own solar system, so the Moon and Mars would be a good place to start with limited habitats, as well as getting a much better facility going in Earth orbit. There isn't anywhere that's even vaguely habitable by humans, so a lot of work would have to be done.

 

I'm not saying it's not hard, or that it might all fall on its face and be one of the biggest wastes of time, resources and money ever - that's a distinct possibility. But sooner or later this planet is going to tell us in no uncertain terms to fvck off - and one way or another we need to be ready for that.

[The Bear]

Other rocky moons would be the easiest, because they would have deposits of water ice in the deeper craters that don't get any sun. Low gravity and zero atmosphere would be a problem though.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Other rocky moons would be the easiest, because they would have deposits of water ice in the deeper craters that don't get any sun. Low gravity and zero atmosphere would be a problem though.

Lack of gravity for any length of time messes humans up in more ways than we can deal with tbh, at least for the time being. That's why a place with at least appreciable gravity would be better unless we rely entirely on spinning gravity generation. Atmo is somewhat easier to manage technologically, but still an issue.

[The Bear]

A large moon the size of Titan would be ideal.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, The Bear said:

A large moon the size of Titan would be ideal.

Titan itself still has only 0.14g. Ditto Ganymede (the largest solar system moon) - honestly thought it was more than that.

 

The best candidate is still Mars (0.38g) but even then there's going to be issues.