/sci/ - Science & Math

like* oh yeah, pic unrelated

http://www.futuretimeline.net/22ndcentury/2100-2149.htm#mars

>>2918708
Shit looks legit

If glorious transhumanism wins.

If non-glorious luddism wins.

>>2918767
It won't.

>>2918775

I can only hope 3:

(That and throw bricks at Greenpeace people)

>>2918796
Nothing wrong with Greenpeace people, just the standard ignorance. People are not well-informed to the extent of technology. We could easily have a consumerist but sustainable and relatively non-polluting society if we utilized the best technologies available.

>>2918803

You're fogetting the whole anti-nuclear-power thing. God, they are almost as sad as Republicans.

>>2918807
>inform them of thorium
>???????
>PROFIT

>>2918796
Greenpeace is an environmental organization. Opposing technology and applications of technology which destroy the environment isn't Luddism.

>>2918810

>But that's going to be ten times more polluting and cause cancer or a HUGE disasster like three mile island i know because a guy who lives in the forest making bombs told me so

>>2918822

It is when they oppose nuclear power and GM food.

>>2918807
Except you can't be stupid enough to deny that, although better than coal etc, nuclear power isn't exactly a good technology, or that proper safety standards aren't being met because of negligent corporate control.

>>2918822
Well, Greenpeace members can be luddites too.

You need to consider that the rise of stupidity on earth (dysgenics?) is real. Stupid people in government.. democratically elected by stupid religious fanatics, hip-hop fans, rednecks, Lady Gaga fans, etc.

Combined with dwindling resources, natural and human .. now controlled by stupid politicians. Banking systems, now controlled by morons. And civilization breaks down due to all the crap. That's a real possibility, even a modern reality.

>>2918839

Death over terawattage ratio.

>>2918767
Wow that looks cool. Where can I support this so called 'luddism'?

>>2918836
Opposing GM foods is about as anti-science as the opposition of chemical weapons is anti-chemistry. The "benefits" of GM crops are at best exaggerated, at worst fabricated.

Genetic modification is in essence a huge patent scam, allowing a few corporations (ie Monsanto) to control the food market, driving up food prices in developing nations.

>>2918846

>You need to consider that the rise of stupidity on earth (dysgenics?) is real. Stupid people in government.. democratically elected by stupid religious fanatics, hip-hop fans, rednecks, Lady Gaga fans, etc.

Stupid people have always existed. If anything, we're getting better since the glory of the Internet allows intelligent people to meet and pool their collective genius while the remaning r'tards drone away on Facebook.

>>2918853
So? First, I said that nuclear tech was better than coal and natural gas. Far and away. But Greenpeace opposes nuclear as well as coal. What we should be doing is pouring money into R&D for green tech, which is being largely underfunded.

Second, specious facts are specious. It's hard to gauge the deaths caused by nuclear incidents.

>>2918855

We've been genetically engineering plants since the dawn of human history, since the invention of agriculture. Determining which crops are pruned, which are harvested, and killing certain animals while allowing others to breed more is a form of primeval, inefficient, and blind genetic engineering.

>>2918870
That's true, but not at the scale of destroying natural biodiversity needed for evolution. We're destroying evolution.

>>2918870
Did you read my post? It's not the actual genetic modification that's the problem, it's the patenting of seeds and processes that's what makes genetic modification of food so harmful.

80% muslim sand nigger.
they are out-fucking the rest of the world.
enjoy your future you assholes.

>>2918868

>What we should be doing is pouring money into R&D for green tech, which is being largely underfunded.

For one thing, solar panels, no matter how well developed, will never output more than 1,4 kilowatts per square meter. This is a fact. Space-based solar power is a pie-in-the-sky idea as much as space elevators, since people are too utterly retarded to want a microwave beam raining down on the planet, even if it's only on deserts. Hydroelectric power damages the environment far, far more than any nuclear power plant. Hell, even plants grow on Chernobyl, and they evolved to resist radiation though. Not so much for flooding. And hydroelectric dams are far more prone to destroying whole towns when there's even the smallest earthquake to crack them open, while nuclear reactors have shown to be safer.

Consider Fukushima: Built in the forties, before Chernobyl. It survived an earthquake seven times greater than the maximum of its structure, and a tsumami, at the same time. Even though the whole anti-nuclear movement had blocked recent, required upgrades in the plant's security (Instead of shutting them down, now Greenpeace is trying to prevent them from being upgraded. Beautiful)

>>2918886
The fuck?
Any biology / biochemistry lab has the techniques and tools to GM a plant... a substitution of a single bp in the GM DNA would skirt around any patents. Not only that but patents do expire and after that then any company could make and sell the same seed type

>>2918894
If we put solar panels on the roofs of most building, line the highways with solar panels, and line the coasts with wind power, our energy needs should be met.

Incidentally, I'm not anti-nuclear. But nuclear plants have a history of negligence and cost-cutting that can't be tolerated. Something has to change, and Greenpeace is not wrong for demanding that.

>>2918894
>Space-based solar power is a pie-in-the-sky idea as much as space elevators, since people are too utterly retarded to want a microwave beam raining down on the planet, even if it's only on deserts.

When the fuck did you become the pessimist?

>>2918912

>If we put solar panels on the roofs of most building, line the highways with solar panels, and line the coasts with wind power, our energy needs should be met.

For point one, people will complain about, say, their freedom to stack rocket launchers on roofs is being violated.

For point two: Good luck making a material that is sturdy, has the traction required by car wheels, and is also fully transparent to let light into the solar panels.

Point three: Again people complaining about how lining the coasts with wind power would ruin the landscape or something.

Nuclear power is the best option for now, it's compact and energy dense, and while the security standards should be enforced with greater strenght, it's still the only option that doesn't require flattening whole square kilometers of land to erect gigantic fans.

>>2918895
I don't think you understand.

Suppose you're running a farm that doesn't use patented crops. But the neighboring farm does. Suppose their seeds blow onto your land. Guess what? You're in patent violation. And while Monsanto comes knocking on your door with an arsenal of lawyers, you can barely afford one.

But Monsanto offers you a way out. Just sign here and use our seeds. No problem, right? But the processes are patented too, so you're forced to by their chemicals, etc. And finally, you're not allowed to use the seeds that are produced from the crops you grow from their seeds, because they techically own them.

>>2918934

Solution: burn the seeds.

>>2918930
For points one and three, I think that's a little pessimistic, but no doubt there will be idiots. But this means we should be focusing our energies on educating people, not resigning our fates and going to the next-best alternative.

For point two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI

>>2918950

>educating people

Pic very much related.

>video

They mention their inability to produce such a material. It's even said in the NBF article.

>>2918934
>patent violation
How the fuck, using the product does not infringe on any patent. Any dumb fuck farmer who falls for any bullshit scheme like that is doomed to failure anyways. The patent only can protect the products production and use. It doesn't cover licensing, etc. Plus GM crops are sterile so that you are simply not able to reuse seeds without having to buy them directly from the company. No seeds = no worries about your "patent infringement."

>>2918959
Current inability. Your faith in science is weak. Besides, it wouldn't be necessary anyways. Improvements in solar tech will mean more effective, cheaper solar cells, if there's the funding for it.

>>2918966
>using the product does not infringe on any patent
Yes, it does. What do you think a patent is?

>>2918959

>>2919001

>Your faith in science is weak

Science is not "You just gotta give them sciencers some time to whisk us away to nerdtopia".

>it wouldn't be necessary anyways

But but but but but but

The CARS would SLIDE to their DOOM 3:

Bump for interesting topic

Why do you faggots hate animals and the environment so much?

>>2918700
WWIII will be over; Jesus will be ruling from His throne in Jerusalem; people will live hundreds of years; there will be worldwide peace and a tremendous population explosion; the lamb will lay down with the lion; there will be food, shelter, and clothing for all to live peacefully

but people will still bitch, whine, moan and complain

hurpbumpbamp

>>2924770

>>2924778

>>2924793