How can we establish a new theory for the perfect world for atheists?

Views: 710

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

They looked older than they were! Oh, what were YOU talking about --?

How can we establish a new theory for the perfect world for atheists?

If you mean "a perfect world" to mean "completely free from faults or defects" then I don't accept that such a thing is possible (for atheists or for anyone else). Instead we might theorize at how humanity could solve its most challenging problems.

Imagine a source of energy that is cheap, plentiful, clean, safe, and virtually inexhaustible. Imagine the oil in the middle east became nearly as worthless as the sand it's sitting under. Imagine the best fuel for the new source of energy was found in the regolith of the moon, propelling humanity into space.

We could start by putting vast resources into developing these sources of energy that don't threaten our survival, then boost our chances further by mastering space travel and colonizing other habitable places in the solar system. Science figures prominently in these goals and solutions. Religion contributes nothing, impedes science, drives endless bloody wars, and causes humanity to expend precious resources to secure regions that provide much of the world's existing sources of energy: petroleum.

Atheistic global perfection would be grand. But I'll take a world that has its priorities right.

I'd love to see fusion happen, but the breakthrough has been elusive so far.

Even ITER seems to be 15 years away...though I guess the situation is improving.  A break even demonstrator plant is now projected to be 15 years in the future, instead of 30.  That only took about fifty years to happen.  At this rate, I might see breakeven happen before I die.

I know I am sounding cynical.  I really do want it to succeed.  But the track record so far has been abysmal; fusion has been nothing but an employment program for physicists.

As for getting into space, that's been a fond dream of mine since I was in school, but I don't see the government doing it while it continues to blow money on everything else (wars with no plan to win, entitlements, all the other bullshit the government engages in that consumes resources instead of producing them) instead.  The only hope is that the private sector developments take off.  The good news is, if it really has all the virtues claimed (and I believe it will), private enterprise will do it because it will pay; not money necessarily but producing more than it consumes.  (Prediction:  some people won't be able to stand the fact that it does pay, and bitch about it.  How dare people make money by producing wealth!)  The biggest hazard is that we burn all of our resources (and/or civilization collapses) before it begins to return more resources than it consumes, and find ourselves trapped.  I fear we are dangerously close to that point now.

I'd love to see fusion happen, but the breakthrough has been elusive so far. Even ITER seems to be 15 years away...though I guess the situation is improving. A break even demonstrator plant is now projected to be 15 years in the future, instead of 30. That only took about fifty years to happen.

Fusion works. The problem is net energy output. Our current scientific knowledge allows us to build reactors, but they require more energy to produce the fusion reaction than the fusion reaction they produce. (I know you probably realize it. This was for the benefit of others reading the conversation.) ITER is an attempt at learning to build better fusion reactors. After ITER, is DEMO, the first attempt to build a fusion reactor with a net energy output as a precursor to commercial fusion power plants.

At this rate, I might see breakeven happen before I die.

We just might. I'd be almost as happy to see a real commitment to the project before I die. It wouldn't necessarily have to be government sponsorship, although I'd prefer to have the technology end up in public hands.

I know I am sounding cynical. I really do want it to succeed. But the track record so far has been abysmal; fusion has been nothing but an employment program for physicists.

The track record so far has been promising enough for 34 countries representing half the world's population-- including the European Union, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US– to fund ITER with billions of dollars.

It's commitment and funding that has been abysmal, particularly from the United States. This is due rising construction costs, the global recession (a product of the American religious right), and the austerity canard (another product of the American religious right), not the track record of fusion or of ITER, which has only started constructing the reactor.

The biggest hazard is that we burn all of our resources (and/or civilization collapses) before it begins to return more resources than it consumes, and find ourselves trapped. I fear we are dangerously close to that point now.

Agreed. This is what I meant earlier about wishing humanity had its priorities in order. The limitless power of a star inside a box. That would literally save the human race. Isn't that worth a 'Manhattan Project' effort? Isn't that worth trillions of dollars and the effort of generations? I think so.

Our current scientific knowledge allows us to build reactors, but they require more energy to produce the fusion reaction than the fusion reaction they produce.

To clarify my error of haste: "Our current scientific knowledge allows us to build reactors, but they require more energy to produce the fusion reaction than the fusion reaction produces energy."

On a parallel note, NASA is now investigating the possibility of Roddenberry's Warp Drive, which was also thought to require more energy than it was worth, but another scientist, whose name at the moment escapes me, found a way to reduce that expenditure to a mere fraction of the original estimation - maybe he could get together with the fusion people.

Me too, and since my coffee is too hot to drink right now I can't think of anything else.  I'll go with his answer, if it's ok.

There's never going to be a perfect world as long as humanity is around.

Sometimes, kOrsan, it's like you are reading my mind.

 

k0rsan is absolutely correct Sagacious - Its people. And I wish he'd come back and explain more because most people think that its some words in a book thats causes the problems.

"k" is a man of few words, who says what he has to say, directly and to the point, and leaves one thinking, "Who was that masked man --?"

Nuff said!!! ;)

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 4 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service