Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
by MonteQuest » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 03:02:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', ' ')But an important aspect to understand of technological innovation is it’s relation to biological evolution. Technological evolution very accurately follows biological evolution – essentially technology is just the next natural step in evolution. In biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are needed (over a very long time period though). Technological evolution also results in the appropriate breakthroughs being developed as they are needed, only the results happen exceedingly faster then they do in the natural world.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
However, most technological breakthoughs are a result of random chance as well...usually accidently found while trying to discover something else.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by rexxz » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 04:03:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
Well it obviously isn't "too" random, there are factors that do influence the occurence of genetic mutation, and the way it takes form.
-
rexxz
- Wood
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue 27 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
-
by garyp » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 11:28:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
However, most technological breakthoughs are a result of random chance as well...usually accidently found while trying to discover something else.
Actually IIRC evolution is mainly driven by sexual recombination of DNA, and chiefly by the impact of natural selection. random genetic mutation on its own wouldn't be enough to create the diversity and capability of what we see.
Similarly, technological breakthroughs are almost never random, they are the product of data, understanding and usually the exposure to concepts from outside the domain. Pure type 5 innovations are extremely rare.
-
garyp
- Peat
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 12:01:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('garyp', ' ')Actually IIRC evolution is mainly driven by sexual recombination of DNA, and chiefly by the impact of natural selection. random genetic mutation on its own wouldn't be enough to create the diversity and capability of what we see.
You recall wrongly. For natural selection to occur:
There must be
heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.
There must be
differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.
Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.
Variants do not arise because they are needed as you alluded to earlier. They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.
Big steps in evolution require new genetic instructions (mutations) by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. The mechanism seems to be that of infectious viruses could transfer this code to the whole breeding population.
The random chance that 2 individuals would mutate the same way and find each other to breed becomes rather remote, otherwise.
This is why Darwin insisted that most evolution takes place over millenia.
Last edited by
MonteQuest on Sat 02 Sep 2006, 15:10:10, edited 2 times in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by garyp » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 12:47:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('garyp', ' ')Actually IIRC evolution is mainly driven by sexual recombination of DNA, and chiefly by the impact of natural selection. random genetic mutation on its own wouldn't be enough to create the diversity and capability of what we see.
You recall wrongly. For natural selection to occur:
...
Variants do not arise because they are needed as you alluded to earlier.
I never said variants arise because they are needed. That's not the evolution we know, although I do remember papers which suggested there might be routes which affected the genes passed outside the action of natural selection. Something regarding chemical predisposition to faster genetic drift in times of stress, similar to the temperature dependent sexual selection in alligators.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hey arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.
While I agree about it being random and governed by chance, its important to recognise that recombination of existing alleles is a faster and more effective mechanism for delivering the diversity needed for natural selection to work.
The example I remember was a moth, usually light coloured, which evolved a dark coloured varient when soot from the industrial revolution made light variants prone to standing out, and getting eaten. Mutationwise there was nowhere near enough time or mutation rate to generate such a change - but there was enough time for natural selection and existing dormant genes for darker colours to have the observed effect via sexual recombination.
Either way, the point with regard scientific developments and progress is that ideas are not generally random chance events appearing from nowhere, they are recombination of existing ideas, concepts, data pulled together in new ways. Therefore if, and its a big if, if you can have understanding of a broad swathe of human knowledge the greater the body of knowledge, the greater the probability of new discovery. Double the pace of research on alternative energy and you get more than double the output as ideas from one area can be applied elsewhere (eg exponential growth).
Attention on important problems in science can have dramatic payback.
-
garyp
- Peat
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 13:42:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('garyp', ' ')I never said variants arise because they are needed.
Yes, you did.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are
needed (over a very long time period though).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he example I remember was a moth, usually light coloured, which evolved a dark coloured varient when soot from the industrial revolution made light variants prone to standing out, and getting eaten. Mutationwise there was nowhere near enough time or mutation rate to generate such a change - but there was enough time for natural selection and existing dormant genes for darker colours to have the observed effect via sexual recombination.
They did not "evolve" a dark colored varient. Genetically, the difference between the light and dark forms has been shown to be due to a single gene, the allele for melanism being dominant to that for lighter coloration.
Natural selection had nothing to do with it. The rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth was due to differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by coyote » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 14:31:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')volution requires new genetic instructions (mutations) by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. The mechanism seems to be that of infectious viruses that transfer this code to the whole breeding population.
The random chance that 2 individuals would mutate the same way and find each other to breed becomes rather remote, otherwise.
Monte, I'm confused by this. What about dominant and recessive genes? Won't a dominant new gene be passed on, possibly to multiple offspring, from a single parent -- and continue itself that way? And I thought that even a recessive gene could remain in the code, simply not showing up in traits until matched through pairing. Or am I confusing genes with mutations? Would you clarify please?
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
-
coyote
- News Editor
-
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: East of Eden
-
by MonteQuest » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 15:05:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')volution requires new genetic instructions (mutations) by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. The mechanism seems to be that of infectious viruses that transfer this code to the whole breeding population.
The random chance that 2 individuals would mutate the same way and find each other to breed becomes rather remote, otherwise.
Monte, I'm confused by this. What about dominant and recessive genes? Won't a dominant new gene be passed on, possibly to multiple offspring, from a single parent -- and continue itself that way? And I thought that even a recessive gene could remain in the code, simply not showing up in traits until matched through pairing. Or am I confusing genes with mutations? Would you clarify please?
Sure. I was addressing the notion of a
big evolutionary step, which Darwin noted would probably would have to be taken by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. I edited my previous for clarity.
This is why Darwin insisted on the tiny incremental steps in his theory. With our modern understanding of DNA, we see that evolution could likely be enhanced by viral transmission of code.
Dominant and recessive mutated genes that promoted survival and reproduction would most definitely be passed on, but passing on these genes does not in itself lead to evolution that results in a new species or change in features.
However,
over time,
if the selection forces remain the same for many generations, these beneficial mutations become more and more abundant, until they dominate the population, while mutations or genes with a lesser fitness disappear or become recessive.
A simple process, but it gets quite confusing.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by coyote » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 15:54:29
Thanks for explaining Monte. Yet another topic for me to get caught up on!
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
-
coyote
- News Editor
-
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: East of Eden
-
by Omnitir » Sat 02 Sep 2006, 22:19:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', ' ')But an important aspect to understand of technological innovation is it’s relation to biological evolution. Technological evolution very accurately follows biological evolution – essentially technology is just the next natural step in evolution. In biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are needed (over a very long time period though). Technological evolution also results in the appropriate breakthroughs being developed as they are needed, only the results happen exceedingly faster then they do in the natural world.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
However, most technological breakthoughs are a result of random chance as well...usually accidently found while trying to discover something else.
Yes, the internal mechanisms of biological and technological evolution are completely different. However it’s the end results that are virtually identical (identical except for the extreme time differece).
So biological evolution will give a species a new appropriate biological tool when it requires it to help it survive. It isn’t ‘designed’, but the appropriate tools are developed when they are needed. Likewise, technological evolution gives our species appropriate new tools as we require them to help us survive. They usually aren’t designed (similar to biological evolution techno evolution usually gives us the appropriate tool through random developments) but they do give us the appropriate tools as we need them.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by MonteQuest » Sun 03 Sep 2006, 01:19:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', ' ')So biological evolution will give a species a new appropriate biological tool when it requires it to help it survive. It isn’t ‘designed’, but the appropriate tools are developed when they are needed.
No, they aren't. Mutations are not developed, they are random chance.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction and that are incorporated into the gene pool sometimes giving rise to whole new species.
Evolution gives no tools, mutations do.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by Aaron » Sun 03 Sep 2006, 07:45:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Attention on important problems in science can have dramatic payback.
Of course... but which "breakthroughs"?
<And more importantly... when?>
See first post this thread
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron
- Resting in Peace
-
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
-
by MonteQuest » Sun 03 Sep 2006, 12:06:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('garyp', 'S')imilarly, technological breakthroughs are almost never random, they are the product of data, understanding and usually the exposure to concepts from outside the domain. Pure type 5 innovations are extremely rare.
Not random, but very often accidental or unexpected. Science has coined the phrase, "the Principle of Limited Sloppiness".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n 1791 Luigi Galvani was an anatomist at the University of Bologna. Galvani was investigating the nerves in frog legs, and had threaded some legs on copper wire hanging from a balcony in such a way that a puff of wind caused the legs to touch the iron railing. A spark snapped and the legs jerked violently (even today, we speak of being "galvanized" into action). In one unintended step, Galvani had observed a closed electrical circuit, and related electricity to nerve impulses.
In 1879, Louis Pasteur inoculated some chickens with cholera bacteria. It was supposed to kill them, but Pasteur or one of his assistants had accidentally used a culture from an old jar and the chickens merely got sick and recovered. Later, Pasteur inoculated them again with a fresh culture that he knew to be virulent, and the chickens didn't even get sick. Chance had led him to discover the principle of vaccination for disease prevention.
Wilhelm Roentgen was experimenting with electrical discharges one evening at the University of Wurzburg in 1895. There was a screen coated with a barium compound lying to one side, and Roentgen noticed that it would fluoresce when an electrical discharge would occur in the tube he was watching. On reaching for the screen, Roentgen got his hand between the discharge tube and the screen and saw the bones of his own hand through the shadow of his skin. In 1901, Roentgen received the Nobel prize for his accidental discovery of X-rays.
Alexander Fleming was a young bacteriologist at St. Mary's Hospital in London in 1928. One day in his cluttered laboratory, he noticed that a culture dish of bacteria had been invaded by a mold whose spore must have drifted in through an open window. Under the microscope, he saw that, all around the mold, the individual bacteria that he had been growing had burst. He saved the mold, and from it produced the first penicillin.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by garyp » Sun 03 Sep 2006, 18:13:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('garyp', ' ')I never said variants arise because they are needed.
Yes, you did.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are
needed (over a very long time period though).
Sorry, but that's Omnitir, not me.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Natural selection had nothing to do with it. The rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth was due to
differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions.
Well, that's my definition of a natural selection driver. Red in tooth and claw.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')ot random, but very often accidental or unexpected. Science has coined the phrase, "the Principle of Limited Sloppiness".
While such events do happen, and tend to be both responsible for significant left turns in knowledge, and to be widely reported - they are only a small percentage of the total number of innovations.
As part of TRIZ, inventions, innovations and patentable ideas were surveyed and classified into 5 levels:
Level 1) Obvious solutions drawn from only a few possible options = 32% of innovations
Level 2) Small improvements in existing systems = 45%
Level 3) Significant improvements in existing systems, with ideas from outside the domain = 18%
Level 4) Solutions found from within science but not in the normal domain of technology = 4%
Level 5) Solutions from outside the confines of known scientific knowledge < 1%
While the level 5 inventions get the attention, its much more often that levels 3 & 4 deliver the key developments that people use.
As a few for instances:
Enhancing the efficiency of solar cells by sandwiching different layers with different absorption spectra to cover the visible band is a level 2 invention - its fairly obvious, but its significantly raised the capability of PV systems
Hard disk densities have continued to rise in the main as a result of developments like 'pixie dust', 'perpendicular recording', etc. One of those techniques - 'Partial Response Maximum Likelihood' could probably be said to have come from level 3 innovation - marrying uncertainty techniques with magnetic sensors.
Ultrasonic cleaning of materials was a level 3/4 innovation, significantly different and outside the norm of solvent cleaning.
Penicillin could be said to be a level 5 invention, outside technology and science at the time.
How does this apply to energy and Aaron's restated question?
Well firstly I'd suggest there is ample scope for level 2/3 enhancements to biofuels, different systems approaches, bioengineered crops, etc. A total guess, but I'd guess there is a doubling in the efficiency of such systems to be expected within medium term timeframes.
Quantum dot solar cells might turn out to deliver noticable improvements with a level 4 innovation.
We could probably expect some level 1 & 2 innovations in the extraction and use of fossil fuels - we already know how to improve efficiency significantly (its just cheaper to do the same old thing).
Oil shales and tar sands could also expect maybe a doubling in the efficiency of extraction via novel level 3 type techniques - maybe using bioremediation type techniques.
Ultracapacitors seems to be a hot area, with quite a bit of movement and the chance of level 4 innovations utilising carbon nanotubes, etc.
Microturbines already exist, but we could see those moving into many more areas and maybe making level 2 type changes in how you power electric vehicles.
Outside all of these, there is the possibility of a significant development in nanomachine technologies, acting as a basis for molecular engineering in all of these fields and possibly even greater wins the extent of which are impossible to limit.
Not forgetting fission, fusion of course.
And if you want a real level 5 left field discovery, someone might figure out zero point energy. I'd put the possibility of that somewhere similar to everyone voluntarily embracing permaculture ideas and powerdown.
There is a lot of scope for innovations within the extent of existing human knowledge, its a case of the right type of attention, with the right support and less obstructions placed in the way.
Its possible to be positive. Even if the decline rate is 8%, that's only 3.6 Gb equivalent to find extra each year from about 20 different potential routes; or about 0.18 Gb equivalent on average from each. Taxing, difficult, but not hopeless.
-
garyp
- Peat
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
-
by Omnitir » Mon 04 Sep 2006, 02:36:51
Excellent post Garyp
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Variants do not arise because they are needed as you alluded to earlier. They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.
Cause and effect. The cause for the variants obviously is not because a species decides it needs some new biological tool to help it survive. However the end result, a new tool or ability for survival, has come about because it helps it survive. Variants do arise because they are needed. The mechanisms that get the variants there are random, but the resulting variants are perfectly adapted to enable better survival. They exist because they are needed.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')So biological evolution will give a species a new appropriate biological tool when it requires it to help it survive. It isn’t ‘designed’, but the appropriate tools are developed when they are needed.
No, they aren't. Mutations are not developed, they are random chance.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction and that are incorporated into the gene pool sometimes giving rise to whole new species.
Evolution gives no tools, mutations do.
Again, cause and effect – your focusing on the internal mechanisms rather then the end result. The result is that biological species end up with the appropriate tools at the appropriate times. And this is also how technological progress works.
Technological evolution is like biological evolution on fast forward. The most important technologies often aren’t intentionally develop but are spin-off results that happen to have a suitable place in society. When there is a need to be filled, often a spin-off technology will fill that need.
For example, millions of people in underdeveloped countries now have clean and safe drinking water, not thanks to focusing on the problem, but thanks to the space shuttle program. The vast majority of the most useful technologies in use today came about as spin off technologies.
Partially through random ‘mutation’, or rather random developments, which occur at an ever increasing pace, we will be able to adapt to peak oil.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by MonteQuest » Mon 04 Sep 2006, 02:48:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'V')ariants do arise because they are needed. The mechanisms that get the variants there are random, but the resulting variants are perfectly adapted to enable better survival. They exist because they are needed.
No, they do not. They exist because existing genes mutated at random, not in response to any
need. The mutations that
just so happened to promote survival are incorporated in to the gene pool.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he result is that biological species end up with the appropriate tools at the appropriate times.
No, they do not. If the mutation promotes survival in a changing environment, it is incorported in to the gene pool. It casues the species to evolve over time, it has nothing to do with meeting a need.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, millions of people in underdeveloped countries now have clean and safe drinking water, not thanks to focusing on the problem, but thanks to the space shuttle program. People heat their food cost effectively not thanks to focusing on developing efficient ovens, but thanks to developments in radar technology. The vast majority of the most useful technologies in use today came about as spin off technologies.
But these technologies have reduced the number of people the earth can support due to the increase in per capita demand they allow.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by kolm » Mon 04 Sep 2006, 04:29:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')However, most technological breakthoughs are a result of random chance as well...usually accidently found while trying to discover something else.
The steam machine, the car, electromagnetism, the battery, the semiconductor, integrated circuits, Woehler's urea synthesis, Nanotubes, controlled nuclear fission, lasers..
I don't think so.
-
kolm
- Peat
-
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Thu 11 May 2006, 03:00:00
-
by Omnitir » Mon 04 Sep 2006, 08:44:26
MonteQuest, the bottom line; do you refute that evolution results in solutions, meaning species better equipped to survive changing environments?
The point is that technology finds solutions just as evolution does, though you have successfully obscured the point by arguing about how evolution functions (which is irrelevant to the point).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'V')ariants do arise because they are needed. The mechanisms that get the variants there are random, but the resulting variants are perfectly adapted to enable better survival. They exist because they are needed.
No, they do not. They exist because existing genes mutated at random, not in response to any
need. The mutations that
just so happened to promote survival are incorporated in to the gene pool.
Yes, yes, yes, as I’ve said several times now, we agree on the internal mechanisms of evolution. Mutations are completely random. But that is the internal mechanism. What is the end result?
Do species survive because they evolved useless adaptations, or do they survive because the happen to have the right mutations that give them an edge?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')The result is that biological species end up with the appropriate tools at the appropriate times.
No, they do not. If the mutation promotes survival in a changing environment, it is incorported in to the gene pool. It casues the species to evolve over time, it has nothing to do with meeting a need.
So if that species ends up with an adaptation that better enables it to survive a changing environment, you think that a need has not been met?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')For example, millions of people in underdeveloped countries now have clean and safe drinking water, not thanks to focusing on the problem, but thanks to the space shuttle program. People heat their food cost effectively not thanks to focusing on developing efficient ovens, but thanks to developments in radar technology. The vast majority of the most useful technologies in use today came about as spin off technologies.
But these technologies have reduced the number of people the earth can support due to the increase in per capita demand they allow.
So? How does this refute the fact that the appropriate technologies are developed when they are needed?
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
-
by WebHubbleTelescope » Mon 04 Sep 2006, 09:01:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrflora', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')According to the scientists who study physics, as opposed to companies marketing this idea, the failure of micron-level control in manufacturing techniques makes the ultra-capacitor a pipe-dream.
This is quite simply wrong. Ultracapacitors are on the market right now.
Regards,
M.R.F.
I think he is referring to the control over the dielectric thickness. To boost capacitance you make layers thinner, but make it too thin and it breaks down. As you get thinner, more chance for fluctuations in the manufacturing process leading to weak spots.
-
WebHubbleTelescope
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Mon 04 Sep 2006, 11:29:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'M')onteQuest, the bottom line; do you refute that evolution results in solutions, meaning species better equipped to survive changing environments?
Yes, you have it backwards.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutations. Evolution does not better equip species, mutations do. It isn't the evolution that better equips, it is the genetic mutations that allow the species to adapt. If, over time, if the selection forces remain the same for many generations, these beneficial mutations become more and more abundant, until they dominate the population, while mutations or genes with a lesser fitness disappear or become recessive. The result, an evolved species to
that particular changed environment.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he point is that technology finds solutions just as evolution does, though you have successfully obscured the point by arguing about how evolution functions (which is irrelevant to the point).
Then don't make incorrect statements and nonsense analogies and I won't correct them.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')o species survive because they evolved useless adaptations, or do they survive because the happen to have the right mutations that give them an edge?
Species evolve due to random genetic mutations that promote the survival of that particular variant. Look to the several different beaks of Darwin's finches. The mutations give them the edge to exploit their environment and promote their survival.
Just because a species evolves does not make it better prepared to survive a new changing environment, but the one from which it evolved.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o if that species ends up with an adaptation that better enables it to survive a changing environment, you think that a need has not been met?
But they don't. Evolution does not prepare a species for a changing environment as it cannot know beforehand what adaptations will be required.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o? How does this refute the fact that the appropriate technologies are developed when they are needed?
Didn't try to do that. But often meeting a need creates even greater needs and demands upon the environment. Entropy at work.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'H')istory has shown us that every technological breakthrough has produced unforeseen secondary effects more disastrous than if it had never been invented. Every technological invention has appeared because the ones which preceded it rendered necessary the ones which followed. The faster we make new "transformers," the faster available energy is used up. We are always playing "catch-up." The problems proliferate faster than the solutions.
Also:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', '')Necessity is the mother of invention.” Throughout the history of human civilization, it has been necessity that has always fueled new inventions. However, time and again these inventions were often driven by the desire to make something cheaper or more affordable. Cheapness, not necessity, is often the mother of innovation.
And cheapness drives renewed or increased consumption.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
Return to Energy Technology
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
