foodchain

Well America does experience a summer. I think solar could make provide a regular a nice sized chunk of energy for consumption. I think also that wind could provide another piece of energy. Plus its not as if any solar technology would just stop operating outside of constant intense sunlight. I think America has enough oil shale to live off of for a long time. I think the point about energy, the one that really needs to get pushed more simply is the environmental aspect. If America right now could seize the opportunity to transform to greener energy sources and materials without any real disturbance why not? Why not take that lead internationally on such a large issue by leading culturally and technologically? The other part is that we will eventually have to do this anyways. Is it something that should be done at the last minute, what about the entire history of things leading up to that point? I think change here is far better then to conserve. Simply put global warming and environmental ruin is a true threat to national security and life in general if that matters. Fossil fuel can have a perfect case made against it in court for simply being evil. I am on the boat that the current economical environment simply does not really foster the survival of alternative energy or any real strategy for that matter that would even become remotely comparable to modern fossil fuel applications. I think the government needs to find a way to provide that window in the private sector. I don't mean a tiny one like some three billion dollar grant or whatever. Someone needs to have some gusto and push for a real plan with people that could make such work.

I just read an interesting article yesterday about advances in microbial remediation or bioreactors or whatever. They are making more progress towards hydrogen production via microbes. The thing is the medium the microbes operate in is sewage. So in that process of using microbes you have possibly huge resource for a hydrogen economy while making also massive advances towards clean water. I think this is interesting because the approach seems to be more plug and play with existing society. Such as it could become a step in water purification while also generating hydrogen.

Its to easy to come across negative in a debate like this. For instance could I replace religion with any specific religion? What about any particular science? Then of course you have the idea that conflict does exist in the issue, such as the controversy somewhat in public education in the united states. I mean if you want to say something supernatural exists and science cant explain it yet, sure I don't think you get much of an argument there simply because whats to argue, thats like saying science does not know everything. Yet in other arenas certain followers of specific religions will actively try to “stop” science altogether because science does not offer any evidence to support a belief in something. It may seem mundane but at one point in the history of the earth it was almost heresy to say the earth was not the center of the universe, yet in modern day America an issue like evolution can still be attacked in a very similar way. So I guess my question is how do you deal with that really in any manner that could be productive with an issue so tense to so many, or how do you keep such civil. Science I think is limited in this regard because basically what can you say in the name of science that would be backed by science that is not all science like and science? In context to arguments put forward by any particular religious group what are the parts of that argument, I think in that you find that science could never really offer a full response to any question that could even include all aspects of some religious argument really. To me the real issue I take somewhat a great offense to is that a particular religious argument could actually be enforced by governmental law on public educational systems. Thats basically the government mandating that you must learn about creation, personally I find that wrong on many levels. Mostly because it would be saying to youth then that the all powerful adult world thinks this about science and overall thinks this about reality. In that I think science basically becomes lost for whatever purpose it had. Lastly this is why I think science in any culture would probably tend to do best with a secular plural community.

What about reproduction? What are the numbers on that?

Thats a great point. I think in the U.S. Solar energy would have a huge payoff for states like California or Arizona just to name a few. These are places where maybe some kind of mega solar center can be placed along with basically integrating solar into the city via building code laws or what not. In other places geothermal might be an option. I personally favor a portfolio type of situation really in which more then one source contributes to energy production and consumption. That being said nuclear does bug me. One thing that comes to mind is we have to deal with materials that can exist forever as far as humanity is concerned. I don't think anything else exists to deal with this stuff past burying it, and on top of this how much waste would be produced by a world set on nuclear for a power source let alone just America or the U.K in time really?

It would provide I think a huge window of opportunity in just terms of money. I don't know again how it should be used is the big question. I also think it would put more pressure on innovation by simply allowing for it. Right now I think the world economically in any advanced nation suppresses alternative energy and lifestyles to a certain extent, maybe more so in some nations or places then others but in general such occurring globally. My big selling point would be that it could offer in terms of a contract a large sum of money for some particular business to invest itself into alternative energy. Take any private sector company built around energy, I think such a window of money would be something that could create more assurance for more and more companies to invest themselves into the program. I don't think the money should be handed out as a loan unless certain conditions of failure occur such as corrupt accounting practices or something. It may seem like government policy to buy up a business for a period of time but the idea is a collective investment into American infrastructure under such an amount of money should be able to foster it being able to change successfully to something alternative and green at such a scale, in which it would just be business as usual just a different power source. The big government lean on the contracts would just have to be something that assures the business is conducting itself business like or soundly to however they were awarded the money via a contract. This is also the part I think the economy and government would really have to meld somewhat is simply in regard to policy in regards to making and awarding various contracts. --------------------- On a side note anyone know how this would actually look in real life? What if engineering programs that studied alternative energy could get just so much more money annually? the amount of ways this could influence change I think is astounding or at least large.

I think the reason physics is not unified points to the idea they dont know everything yet. The other thing I think is important is conservation laws, can those be applied to the big bang? I think some people are trying to use QM on such a thing though I don't know how any of that works. If for instance though conservation laws are never broken could it be in that just a particular conservation law. To me energy seems to be my big question? If “energy” simply cant be got rid of made from nothing how does that not hold implications on the big bang? I know its simply a philosphical question being I dont know how you would even test any of these concepts. Could you imagine some point in human society collectively when we have the technology to manipulate galaxies, I just think so much is really alien at this point to even talk about going from the reasons for the LHC.

I don't really get the idea of posting that list. Do you want to put as some number in it that its the base for life? I think my earlier question on the definition of life went unanswered. First we only have life on earth to use going from its evolution. People have produced artificial viruses in the lab from scratch and protocells exist. This chemistry involves bonding from all kinds of elements and compounds already, not just hydrogen. So in that instance you have to say even primordial chemistry we understand that could be lead to life is more then just hydrogen. Or an organism is not some uniform continuous molecular homolog of hydrogen bonding. Protobionts will absorb local RNA molecules. Behavior of consuming nucleic acids I think is also found in transformation, a process employed by microbes or some microbes I think. Could this information have any bearing on trying to study RNA world hypothesis?

I think national security could sell it but I also think using global warming could obtain more international support with the issue. A very real threat exists of china attempting to move into the lead on such a technology, I could only see such technology becoming more and more paramount in the world also. So outside of any patriotic or nationalistic thinking the point being is even in the economic world the issue does exist. The big part of it all to me is really using government as nothing more then an ignition process into alternative energy that will be consumed by private sector mostly. For instance with nuclear, we already have existing nuclear infrastructure. Cant democracy in any particular state or city allow people to make informed decisions if they want such technology to exist in that community? Basically where could you try to implement any supposed safe nuclear energy sources? As much as nuclear is an option its one that has an image that needs to be cleaned up along with real world issues that are the same. How do you sell a community of people or even a state something that can potentially produce nuclear accidents or leaks? Bottom line is even in light of being able to produce supposed safe nuclear technology no real budget exists to support it. This also exists with solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal and a whole array of technologies ranging from building materials to train designs. Does any actual list exist that compounds every single green alternative that exist even to the level of listing behaviors? Its not that being green has to imply such a harsh regime like that just that making such a pile of money available surely would attract attention going along with what its attached to.

Lets just think in some hypothetical political world the politicians unite to pass some energy reform bill that is to work in 12 years. This is how the plan would hopefully work as I see it and I just wonder if it would be possible. We open up the oil reserves in the U.S and pay for our dependent there. that money along with 250 billion dollars of taxes annually is invested in contracts with states or private sector to build a green America rich with alternative non fossil fuel use in 12 years. So what do you think could real energy alternative become a reality for the U.S in 12 years going from a budget of oil reserve consumed annually plus 250 billion annually from government on contracts to produce such an environment? Some major bonuses I see with it would be immediate aid to our economy and of course all of that money staying in the U.S paying for such infrastructure. I think such money would bear most of the burden any transformation would inflict economically while at that same time making such a change over something more realistic for the private sector to engage in. I think the real success would be in how the plan was actually formulated and then of course how it was carried out but I do think such a sum of money could make a green America or green technology a reality. It would also make America a pioneer in such an area if not industry leader globally while at the same time combating global warming if not ending it by the spread of such technology.

The above is just not an accurate description of such. Mutation for instance does not just come in one form from a point mutation. I mean could point mutations act as something producing single nucleotide polymorphisms, is this change in genetic material good or bad? Also again just as you would subscribe to carbon and hydrogen or organic chemistry this in time has lead to biochemistry. You also have molecular biology, which no real difference exists I think save the later is built around the central dogma. I think origin of life studies have emphasis here as to do you suggest that the central dogma itself referring to some molecular mechanism like transcription could be a product of a evolution/selection, such as in the rna world hypothesis? I think ribosomes are in question for such as due to composition of RNA and of course you have ribozymes and the self catalytic behavior of RNA. Plus RNA can exist alone as a virus and is central to the central dogma which could suggest a close evolutionary significance which again should impact origin of life studies.

Thats why I think microbes are important. I think going from evolution using microbes really should be beneficial towards trying to deduce possible origins of life. Could thermoacidophiles have chemistry that could evolve from some pre-biotic chemical soup, what interplay with geology must be considered such as with mud, or thermal vents? I mean microbial life is hardly understood as much as it could be, take life living in the earths crust or at the sea floor for example. I think just going from scratch on a chemistry perspective alone is not good enough, I mean sure life has to have H2O as we know it, but it also has to have carbon and RNA and so on. So you also deal with at what point does life actually exist? Here is an example of what I am talking about with the virus and its definition of being alive or dead. I mean with the example that the gene could be the most reduced unit of selection, could that basically explain how the virus could persist? Yet even with that in humans or any form of life the DNA by itself does not constitute life, which just leads back to the idea of some larger chemical interplay. This is why I think saying one particular chemical has the most importance really cant make it. If the precursor to life and basically the backbone chemically that always produced it primarily was H2O or hydrogen I would think life to be more evident in the universe giving hydrogens presence elementally in the environment in some form or another. So again I think it may point more towards certain combinations of elements or compounds or even functional groups if I can escape with that working in some kind of a collective environmental system. I mean the presence of oxygen and the subsequent impact that has had on evolution is all microbial really.

I think biologic evolution breaks down currently into three domains, two of which are archaea and bacteria, the other being eukaryota. The last one is what we are in but even then from what, I mean our genome is less then 2% different then our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom right? So using genetics I think evolution of course supports microbial life at least being the first life to appear, bacteria I think appearing billions of years ago. I think the autotrophic part of microbes in regards to evolution have bearing possibly on the chemical evolution of life on earth. Like was selection in regards to that kind of metabolism retrospective of chemical evolution? I mean can we define the oldest genes on earth in some microbes to be built around being a chemoautotroph?

Does this have to do with quantum gravity at all, or why its so important to modern physics? I think I get the basics of this thread but in regards to determinism would that mean the present or whatever down to the smallest scale could have the information in it to see the future then? I know it sounds weird but in regards to the Copenhagen interpretation I think this falls short to describe quantum mechanics in regards to measurement or observation, simply put what on the quantum scale of things could support determinism? I think that would imply we can in experiment generate the physical universe with QM or it plus relativity?

I think that why creationist “science” will fail is that it cant reach being a science. In simple terms I think, how could they ever prove, via an empirical physical mechanism throughly tested for something that could prove anything dealing with a creator period? That is what I put forward. I mean when people study evolution or ecology, they are looking for demonstrative, physical, and empirical means, how do you fit any of those variables with being a unit of creator for instance? I mean what would that look like in some math, would you have unit C for creator with some exponent on it? That part I think surely will always lack. Instead what you will have is pirates causing global warming when you get down to it. Evolution does not say there is some higher thing nor does it deny it. What the conflict is to me is that some aspects of religion just cant accept being wrong on some level, really. What other point could there be? If all views of relgiion are to be accepted then no version of it holds any real validity over another, this does not exist though of course in reality. We dont have that peaceful kind of world, we have a brutal one where people get burnt on the stake. So without much more of a pause, all evolution deals with scientifically is the science of evolution, it is not concerned with the validity of some particular cultures status and the one true sky god or something. Lastly creation science is always built on god of the gaps. Heck with all the rapid change in biology, thanks to understanding it via science, I am sure that fact we are even discovering stuff will be used as to some ammo for a creationist argument to prove the gap exists. This is painful, tedious and a waste of time generally speaking because such a cause has made arguments that warm days are a placebo effect, and surely entropy blah and etc... I have crackpot ideas that hold up just as well, they just don't happen to have as many votes, science is still lacking in both of them completely though. So that is it, creation science will never be a science because I don't know how you would make some empirical unit of the lord, whatever that may be or is or is not.

Well I gave my reasoning as an individual. Maybe truth is to broad of a word to use, but for the sake of argument with going from the history and diversity of religious beliefs to the contrast of what science seems to be about and operates I think such a word can find use. Science does not use spirituality to build some new advanced drive train as much as I don't think such goes to work making some nuclear reactor function. I think if you make all absolute beliefs factual for the sake of argument you then deal with basically saying no truth can exist about reality, otherwise you do tend to have to negate certain beliefs as maybe not true or false, if you would say ok creation is as acceptable as evolution scientifically I could then say that the FSM happens to be real? So without being very systematic about it I think religion really has no validity in regards to studying the natural world currently. I also think this brings to bear how you do accept say power in the hands of religion, should religious people have the right to veto matters such as stem cell research, how do you label bias in something like that? I don't really feel any ethical decisions exist that also happen to be clear and or concise. I don't think such a situation should be ruled by attempts to get absolute with it either, but there is a separation from science and religion in the most basic sense that one does not operate the way the other does to reach any conclusions about things. So as a culture again that accepts and or lives with concepts like multiculturalism should the idea that my post could be called insult simply devalue any points I may hold? If you say religion is stupid and or mock it should some cultural rule prevent such behavior against any religion or organized ideology or what not? I am not calling such a position a slippery slope but on what grounds is such based on what has a green light to mock in the first place and why?

I mainly stab against religion in general and take on science more or less simply from the idea I think its the only thing people have that can really generate anything close to truth about reality, I find the concept of humanity trying to live in truth more important then anything religion does. I take a great offense to the entire creationist issue because again not only is it really a masked product of Christian conservatism in America really it clearly demonstrates that religious ideas do not require anything of a factual basis in reality, such a movement seems lacking to acquire one via science at all ever by choice. Think about a world in which human survival or just humans being able to make it day to day is reduced to some reality in which no truth on anything close matters, such as being able to label hydrogen or identify a gene not viewed as important at all, I could only see this as bad. Lets look at global warming, not only to include the idea that religion and global warming have a history in various ways the idea I am trying to point out is factual understanding becomes key to survival, nothing more or less in regards to decisions we should be making with climate change. Also when you deal with religion you in my opinion ultimately accept subjectivity, this means in application to law to how people may behave in regards to shopping. This simply can be noticed to be true via all the variance in religion in just America with one example of differences in churches. I think a fine line does exist in that regard on even a “moral” level if not really an ethical one. So while a multicultural context is probably a needed requirement for people to tolerate liberty how do you define what is what in some decisions a person or people might make and really if its good? Would we via multicultural tendencies come to accept living in a theocracy? Do we as a society say its ok for students in school to accept some story from the bible as science comparable to evolution? To even where does religion become capable of being called stupid?

I am probably the last person anyone would think to call on someone for trolling but I cant possibly understand what you mean? If I could suggest one counter argument is that as you would have it evolution in terms of biological evolution has been studied by such a large variety of sciences with success for it to be nothing at least, and at most maybe just maybe the science of such actually does represent the reality, its just a thought.

Here is one possible scenario I picture. Do make say nuclear rectors capable of large scale operations in the U.S that would for the sake of safety require a massively integrated approach that has to remain fit for I would say also a rather long time after construction. You would have to have highly detailed understanding on so many things that would make up such an environment, geography, geology, and really with just those two disciplines it would require a lot in individual aspects that belong in those fields. Then you would have to have this be able to work in concert with any concentrated desire to send large quantities of people into space using such nuclear means to power such. The site would have to be built to house I would suggest rater large misses unless we used tiny little ships. In either case we would have nuclear energy so that the ship could break the earths escape velocity and make it into space. Then if this works you have at that point ships traveling through space for whatever duration of time on nuclear energy. In this case you have to deal with the ship being able to withstand any technical issues with a reactor for instance to make success a reality. I am not saying its impossible I just think the landing of mass nuclear infrastructure in the first place is something questionable. We are in a position now, thanks to fossil fuel consumption and technology to begin to at least appreciate trying to understand environmental impact. In all reality I think America should just use its reserves while generating alternative energies such as solar for example, I do know that nuclear energy does have some qualities for this issue, yet what realistic picture do we have of such in the real world? Nuclear tech exists at university level without melting down, and I know it has other applications also that don't generate three mile island stories. Such also has other points that seemed to lack neglect. What do you do for instance with medical waste alone that is harmful because of radioactivity? I do not think any sound answers exist for that, most of the time I think such materials can be found in the form of landfills. Now France has moved to generate I think at least 70% of its energy from nuclear, if anything they would be somewhat a real model for how such technology plays out in regards to pollution and populations I think.

I still think the issue is being reduced to unrealistic levels. To launch a nuclear payload in the form of ship, how big would that be, I think such would depend a bit on the ship and the gravity or planet right? SO would this mean we would trying to land possibly to giant cluster bomb of nukes, or fly that in space? This in regards to nuclear technology powering space travels is a serious issue? I don't think chemical rockets always proved to be safe in the first place, but in regards to impact whats worse? I honestly think space stations orbiting planets or just in space themselves is probably a better answer. Other technology I think would not only prove safer in terms of how much a threat in how many ways that would still make space travel a reality, I mean we dont even know I think really what we could do until we get past the current stage which barely has a space station capable of supporting life without aid yet by any means, its a big of a jump to say it has to be nuclear for anything more of a future to exist for such. I would like to close with this question. Lets say you want to make a ship that will carry 1000 people with correct life support for say some year long journey then land with such system intact on a earth sized planet, would or how could nuclear technology be made safe really for just that process? What if you change the numbers to ten thousand on some decade long journey? Do we have to have tons of little space shuttle like spaceships, I think that means lots of nukes flying around though. The issue about exposure has merit, any place on earth in which nuclear reactors have had issues its been nothing but harmful to people. There is bacteria under the site in handford washington for instance that via mutation has actually come to be able to survive in soil pretty much laden with toxic by products and waste. These are the real issues because the ships themselves would become life support and nuclear accidents truly represent that much more of a threat giving the situation such as using it to travel in space or even land such equipment.

I don't think it such a variable could have any cumulative effects, such as concentrations of such materials growing in time, plus you would still be subjecting people to levels of fallout if you want. I also would just like to think we are not talking about riding nuclear misses into population centers correct? Which would have to rival I think to the complexity or occurrence of such? I dont know if every modern home could make unless they had regular education on it, in terms of just spaceships you do deal with how bad any explosion could be I think regardless of how do deal with any dangerous levels of exposure, do you we think the halflife issue becomes more important in some vessel? Is that application you work with capable of what we are talking about? I think engineering on that scale or support for large populous in space flight or at home starts to deal with its own issues and dimensions that may not exist for every other application, it would not be like storing misses or anything right? Genetic engineering or related. Some microbes can take great deals of radiation and still survive using lots of copies of genes, this trait could be possibly useful to reduce hazards for people if it were to be integrated somehow into our cells, or some form of radiation protection at a cellular level, I think a cell/molecular level becomes again paramount in regards to exposure to radiation. You could by exposure I think become to generate hereditary cancers or what not, this in time could become build up I would think unless we can always cure cancer somehow.

I cant say for the math of how big a potential nuclear explosion might be, this though is not a null issue on the basis of explosion size. One, I do not think you could afford such a situation in flight, I think a human based attempt to repair that would be highly dangerous to do unless any populous in mass was very educated, which brings up another point about population. How many people do we really plan to support via nuclear technology like hypothesized here? I think the more prominent you make nuclear technology or central you make it the more prone that a potential accident can become real? How much exposure in time is good for a gene pool to constant radioactive bombardment, let us think it will hit meiotic cells constantly or in some good quantity without really strict control or really limited use right? Would this require genetic engineering to give people polynuclear cells or something with great deals of chromosomes? Could some kind of shielding proteins exist? Bottom line is the support for such a reality I think is skin deep when it comes down to it, I mean how you would actually get there from here minus some quantum leap. How do you control such nuclear technology in regards to the total process really? Would space trash gain a new component? To many real questions don't have any factual answers to me. I also do not think some fail percentage for nuclear reactors or technology can be 0% or some non occurrence for all time. How do you control this and how well on so many different levels or something as important of what makes space travel a reality for everyone?

I think from many perspectives we have to make space flight that safe, if not for a short term aspect such as atmospheric nuclear detonations or what not just for any survivable future of such for people in general. It may be far fetched to think such but what could honestly support any large scale effort to even live on the moon not to mention mars? if to just narrow this down to nothing but nuclear power as the option for spaceships or related topics then I don't think you can suggest such being a non consequence for absolute safety, maybe it would not be earth such would crash on but what about anything else it might have to land on? Would landing sites have to be extraneously placed in regards to say a base camp on some other planet? What about issues of a meltdown in flight? I know in the movies such seems always to be fixed but what could people do in reality being all life support is based on whatever the current environment can afford? The only option I have thought possible in regards to the incident in space case would be that the nuclear system could be in the form of separate individual and small cells, though I don't know how feasible such currently is.

Trying to debate religion is pointless. One simple example is how well supported biological evolution is yet such is still countered massively by various acts and means from people. Lets look at the entropy argument. A person who obviously must understand that air conditioning units sell, the core of the earth is active, lighting strikes still persist and so on would state that life cant have occurred as is because it goes against entropy somehow:doh: Personally I think matter violates entropy and chemistry is a form of black magic that should get such types burnt at the stake. People, not all but some simply will never agree to biological evolution or what it means or could mean via research in regards to people, they just simply will never accept this regardless of how many links you give them to why such is real, like understanding genetics or whatever. I mean thanks to people studying biology you can now get BS level degrees in fields like biotechnology, hmm, wonder what you learn and work with in that field. Another point. Biological evolution is the study of that, it does not try to break down what the big bang is or was or what not. Another point, how did all the diversity of people come about, in terms of anything down to why different cultures even exist, I do know the bible does not explain this at all past what the people that made it happened to know. Again, its pointless to try and debate religion, it really is. Another point is scientology. Its a full fledged religion and its new and it was also made by people, it survives because people give it validity, do you think you will somehow debate scientology away, I seriously doubt this. If someone wants to be religious I personally as a individual have no issues with it, yet any religious person reading this must surely be able to understand that the whole of science should not be based on Taoism or anything to do with the eight fold path. Also last time I checked science pretty much sprouted fourth from a method, like making a hypothesis and trying to falsify such, I also think currently that you cant mix religion into this to any extent with success, so again, pointless. Morality comes from people and people evolved, then they made math and rocket engines... To deny this I think basically says what? I want to know and this is why I am asking.

think I can understand where you are coming from somewhat though I am a complete laymen of QM. As far as I know I think an instaton is a product of say a quantum vacuum, or metastable in a quantum vacuum. Beyond this I think a big push if I am not behind the times is trying to relate concepts like zero point energy and thermodynamics into some empirical understanding that matches what we see in regards to expansion of the universe. I think also at as close as we can get to absolute zero effects like quantum tunneling still persist, so I have no idea what that means. In regards to origin of life which you brought up I again think QM can be useful. In relation to such I like decoherence and einselection really more then any other directions people have taken QM. Now I don’t really grasp a harmonic oscillator now do I fully grasp thermodynamics but if a system is by natural forces, laws, etc, as a constant moves towards equilibrium my quantum leap is to suggest that primordial life is a product of this, as such it was a chemical formation that favored moving the system towards equilibrium. That in regards to geologic cycles on the earth the environment or the composition of such in regards to say carbon or water in time came to form say primordial life really as something that moved such towards equilibrium. I think decoherence and einselection become useful here in regards to trying to deduce how such a chemical reaction or series or constant state of such would come about in regards to say thermodynamics or how energy behaves in regards to matter as it pertains to a system moving towards equilibrium. Though overall beyond QM I think the biggest question in my mind is if conservation of energy will always truly hold. Simply put if that is the case then you deal with something infinite truly, being it can never be destroyed.