Considered the obvious military and weaponry applications of this technology? Like setting fires to forests, croplands, population centers and industrial installations. These concepts if actually launched, may prove to be a relatively inexpensive weapon of mass destruction.
Still, any idea that could conceivably keep a human presence in space should be supported. I recently talked to a scientifically illiterate who believed we will eventually be terraforming Mars. I tried to get across the obstacle of the gravity well of the Earth and how much energy and applied resources need to be invested to launch any payload into space, to no avail.
When the government's budget tightens up and energy costs go up, there is no way. A real pity this reality. I believed so deeply when I was a youth that we would have lunar colonies by this time, that the truth was a bitter, bitter pill.
PeakOil is You
THE Solar Power & Space Thread (merged)
by clv101 » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 08:21:14
The space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do. It's not something to promote when facing a lower energy future.
At best it will provide a source of energy... so human civilisation will just hit the next buffer be it pollution, water, dieses etc. A techno solution is not and can not be a long term solution. It just delays the inevitable, delays the point when growth has to stop. The longer we manage to patch up the existing system the bigger the problems will be in the future.
At worst (and far more likely in my opinion) it will divert scarce resources, energy, brain power etc from useful projects concerned with the transition to sustainable civilisation.
I've said it many times on the site, the worse thing we can do is to try and maintain exiting civilisation against the odds. It's fundamentally unsustainable, the sooner we recognise this and act accordingly the better.
Massively complex technology based endeavours are not the future!
This coming from an engineer with a masters degree in computational physics - I'm no technophobe.
At best it will provide a source of energy... so human civilisation will just hit the next buffer be it pollution, water, dieses etc. A techno solution is not and can not be a long term solution. It just delays the inevitable, delays the point when growth has to stop. The longer we manage to patch up the existing system the bigger the problems will be in the future.
At worst (and far more likely in my opinion) it will divert scarce resources, energy, brain power etc from useful projects concerned with the transition to sustainable civilisation.
I've said it many times on the site, the worse thing we can do is to try and maintain exiting civilisation against the odds. It's fundamentally unsustainable, the sooner we recognise this and act accordingly the better.
Massively complex technology based endeavours are not the future!
This coming from an engineer with a masters degree in computational physics - I'm no technophobe.
-
clv101 - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Bristol, UK
by JohnDenver » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 11:33:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101', 'T')he space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do.
Actually, its energy use is quite modest. Fuel costs are a neglible part of overall launch costs, and space equipment generates its own energy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')It's not something to promote when facing a lower energy future.
We're getting to the stage where it doesn't need to be promoted. Today, launching is a business which people engage in for the money. Space is now where the internet was in the early 90s. It's a cloistered academic environment, originally developed for defense purposes, which is being increasingly invaded by a circus of profit-seeking interests. Space tourism is one example. Undoubtedly, the purists are going to gripe a lot about the commercialism, just like they did with the internet.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t best it will provide a source of energy... so human civilisation will just hit the next buffer be it pollution, water, dieses etc.
If energy were plentiful enough, you could clean up all the pollution, and distill as much water as you want, to 100% purity if you want. You could also mine minerals from the sea. Gold would become as cheap as dirt.
Consider your argument shuffled around. "If we keep curing diseases, it would be horrible. We'd just hit the next buffers: energy, pollution and water. Therefore, we should hope that "Peak Cure" comes soon to bring us back to our senses. Developing cures for diseases is just making the problem worse, causing the population to balloon, and making the inevitable crash more severe. Complex medical technologies are not a sustainable solution."
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') techno solution is not and can not be a long term solution. It just delays the inevitable, delays the point when growth has to stop.
The longer we manage to patch up the existing system the bigger the problems will be in the future.
I asked John Markos, but I'll ask you too. Would you be in favor of legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions? You seem to be saying that technology is the gun that civilization is going to shoot itself with. Wouldn't it be immoral to stand by and let that happen? Shouldn't you prevent the worse outcome by halting the development of techno energy solutions, as quickly as possible? That would seem to be a logical way to achieve powerdown: illegalize the development of new energy technology.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')assively complex technology based endeavours are not the future!
I don't think the space mirror idea is that complex. In fact, it's the low-tech simplicity of it that makes it appealing.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his coming from an engineer with a masters degree in computational physics - I'm no technophobe.
I don't know. I'm not trying to provoke you, but I think it would be fair to say that your ideas have a strong luddite influence.
