Let's say we have the discussion and worse case scenario we conclude we don't know, and are pretty much playing it by ear. There remains a possibility that science is so powerfully true in any respect the piecemeal approach wins out, regardless of our somewhat backward application of technology!

I'm not an anti-natalist because I don't accept the central plank in their platform that "having children under any and all circumstances guarantees continued suffering". I have no desire to see our species vanish.

By "resting place" I merely meant that you have gone as far as you can in the logic of promoting H production at sea by solar power. Once you've proved that 2+2=4, people have to either accept the fact or ignore it. There are quite a few examples of 2+2=4 that people seem quite capable of ignoring. Just a simple example here:

The city of Minneapolis, where I live, collects trash, recyclable material (single stream) and compostable material. All that is a plus. We have found that it is very difficult, apparently, for many people to figure out what the difference is between trash, recyclable, and compostable. Signs with words, signs with pictures, signs with actual examples, someone standing behind the bins telling people where the stuff goes -- none of this seems to work with a certain percentage of the population. I think it should be obvious even to morons that a bin with potato peelings, left-over food from plates, moldy bread, carrot tops, spoiled oranges, etc. IS NOT the right bin for plastic cups and aluminum cans. None the less, some otherwise not apparently too-stupid-to-breathe people still don't get it.

If we can't get people to figure out the difference between rotten oranges and aluminum cans...

Seven tenths of the earth's surface is still as rich in metals as when the earth was new. — karl stone

I would imagine that better than 99.9% of the metals that were ever in the earth are still on earth--somewhere. That doesn't mean that it is even remotely possible (in the imaginable future) to get at these metals for a bearable cost.

How will we overcome the problem of metals becoming harder to find in large, accessible quantities?

Take iron, for example. Iron wasn't extruded by magma or volcanoes. 2 billion years ago iron was mostly suspended in water. As cyanobacteria produced oxygen, the O combined with Fe producing an oxide which settled on the sea floors and, in certain places, was concentrated. Other metal deposits were formed by other geological processes. Other metal deposits are formed more directly by geologic activity, plus precipitation and concentration processes. Large deposits just don't occur everywhere.

True, there may be tiny bits of gold, tin, zinc, silver, rare earths, aluminum, nickel, and so on scattered around the globe, but if they were not concentrated a billion years or two ago (or more) then the chances of us getting our hot little hands on lots of it are exceeding small. We aren't going to run out of iron or aluminum tomorrow, but the reachable supply is by no stretch of the imagination inexhaustible.

Take Uranium as an example of a metal with a limited supply: the available unmined reserves of uranium are reported in "millions of pounds" not millions of tons. Were the world to use nuclear fuel heavily, we would find the supply far short of needs.

Change isn’t always comfortable, Jake, but it is inevitable. — praxis

And it is you, fellow members of this thread, and most of the society who are resisting that inevitable change. Most of the culture, led by the cultural elites, is determined to cling blindly to a relationship with knowledge straight out of the 19th century.

This is a philosophy forum. I'm arguing that our philosophy needs to be updated to match the technological environment, that we need to adapt philosophically to the new reality. And the group consensus says, "No, no, no and no, we're intent on staying in the past!".

I'm not an anti-natalist because I don't accept the central plank in their platform that "having children under any and all circumstances guarantees continued suffering". I have no desire to see our species vanish. — Bitter Crank

Anti-natalism unto extinction? That's extreme. If the argument were we should have less children - I don't agree we should seek to force that conclusion as a matter of policy, but it's an understandable position. Rather, I would argue, we can expect population to decline from a peak of 10-12 billion in 2100, as a consequence of the noted tendency of populations to limit family sizes in wealthier and healthier conditions. That's happening anyway. The challenge is to sustain that trend.

By "resting place" I merely meant that you have gone as far as you can in the logic of promoting H production at sea by solar power. Once you've proved that 2+2=4, people have to either accept the fact or ignore it. There are quite a few examples of 2+2=4 that people seem quite capable of ignoring. Just a simple example here: — Bitter Crank

It's not that I'm wedded in an absolute sense to this particular application of technology. I would yield to genuine expertise seeking to address the same issue on an adequate scale. However, it is necessary for me to demonstrate in a convincing way that it's possible to apply renewable energy technology in such a way as to meet world needs. That requires overcoming a number of technical problems, I would argue solar/hydrogen is more than able to account for.

Take Uranium as an example of a metal with a limited supply: the available unmined reserves of uranium are reported in "millions of pounds" not millions of tons. Were the world to use nuclear fuel heavily, we would find the supply far short of needs. — Bitter Crank

Beyond the fact a nuclear power station uses about half the energy it ever produces in the construction phase, in the form of fossil fuels, and putting aside the terrifically toxic waste we have to store forever afterward, a nuclear power station produces massive temperatures to boil water, to drive a turbine. That's a huge thermodynamic inefficiency - that from a scientific point of view, raises a large red flag.

It's quite difficult to explain, but it's an example of how - for ideological reasons, we cut across the grain of nature. I express the argument very poorly, but solar/hydrogen is implied by the grain of nature in a way that nuclear power is not. Hydrogen is the second most abundant element in the universe, and the energy reaction with oxygen is chemically simple and clean. Thus, we can have, and use enough solar/hydrogen energy to overcome the problem inherent in ever decreasing concentrations of minerals.

It's quite difficult to explain, but it's an example of how - for ideological reasons, we cut across the grain of nature. I express the argument very poorly, but solar/hydrogen is implied by the grain of nature in a way that nuclear power is not. — karl stone

The opposition to nuclear energy is exactly that: an ideology. And this ideology can drive us to worse energy policies than otherwise.

The real people killer is coal. Just in China annually coal power plants kill about 300 000 people. Yet somehow the facts and especially the magnitude of difference on the impact is many times not understood. The simple fact is that we have been using for ages coal ...and firewood. How dangerous smoke from fire can be isn't something that rattles peoples minds like the "invisible death" from radiation. And who understands radiation? Simply when nuclear power is discussed, the first image that comes to many peoples mind is Hiroshima. Unfortunately the misinformation (or basically disinformation) has taken root in this area, hence people believe whatever fictional statistic on the perils of nuclear energy.

Globally we get roughly 40% of electricity from coal and in places like China it's still roughly 60%, which has come down from 80% in 2010. Their plan has it's problems: even if China is making a huge investment in alternative energy resources, it is basically using energy from coal (and other fossil fuels) to catch up the industrialized West. The idea simply is to use the coal now to transform to other energy resources. That's the idea. Yet the reality is that coal power plants are still built (see Satellite intelligence shows China in a vast rollout of coal-fired power stations) and what better thing is to sell the coal power plants to other countries when they come to be too dirty in China (see here and here).



However much we build solar and wind power, it's still problematic. For example in 2016 in Germany (one of the leaders in Photovoltaic Power) increased solar power production as it has done year after year, yet the actually gigawatts produced fell. There was a natural reason: it wasn't so sunny as the year before. And the main point is the following. The real danger is that if we run down nuclear energy, we in the end and out of the media limelight, replace nuclear with fossil fuels and especially coal. The ugly fact seems to be that Germany in it's Energiewende, of going off nuclear, has exactly done this.

Germany’s plan is to shutter all of its nuclear units by 2022 and to have renewable energy provide 40 to 45 percent of its generation by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050[ii]—up from 30 percent in 2025. Replacing nuclear power with renewable energy has proven difficult, however, mainly due to the intermittency of wind and solar power. When wind and solar are not available to generate electricity, German power buyers turn to coal. In fact, Germany opened over 10 gigawatts of new coal fired power plants over the past 5 years.

(See article)

In 1980 after a referendum Sweden made a policy decision to go off nuclear by the year 2010. In 2010 they were producing more energy from nuclear power than in 1980 and the government had silently withdrawn from the planned target. Hence many times energy policy isn't in the end what you wanted.

True, there may be tiny bits of gold, tin, zinc, silver, rare earths, aluminum, nickel, and so on scattered around the globe, but if they were not concentrated a billion years or two ago (or more) then the chances of us getting our hot little hands on lots of it are exceeding small. We aren't going to run out of iron or aluminum tomorrow, but the reachable supply is by no stretch of the imagination inexhaustible. — Bitter Crank

Don't forget the sea floor. There are quite a lot of raw materials there too. I can just imagine how a big of a ecodisaster we can make to ocean life once we start to mine the ocean floors at an industrial pace.

Most of the culture, led by the cultural elites, is determined to cling blindly to a relationship with knowledge straight out of the 19th century.

This is a philosophy forum. I'm arguing that our philosophy needs to be updated to match the technological environment, that we need to adapt philosophically to the new reality. And the group consensus says, "No, no, no and no, we're intent on staying in the past!". — Jake

Knowledge is a valuable resource. That fact hasn't changed over the years. Similarly, fat and sugar are still valuable resources today, although not as valuable as they were through most of human evolution. It would be beneficial to human flourishing if our appetite for sugar and fat were in sync with its current abundance, or if we all had the discipline to suppress our appetite for them. But it's common knowledge that our relationship with fat and sugar is unhealthy, for the most part at least.

Cultural elites didn't make fat, sugar, or knowledge valuable to anyone. They're naturally valuable to us. Many people have 'adapted philosophically' and regulate their consumption of fat, sugar, and knowledge to healthy amounts.

I think what you may have been trying to say is that cultural elites in Western society promote a materialistic value system and that knowledge can be a valuable aid in developing a materialistic lifestyle. However you put it, the underlying problem isn't knowledge but the values that utilize it. Knowledge can be used for human flourishing or selfish and unsustainable hoarding of wealth and power, depending on the underlying values of the users.

Knowledge can be used for human flourishing or selfish and unsustainable hoarding of wealth and power, depending on the underlying values of the users. — praxis

And what thousands of years of human history clearly shows is that knowledge, and the power that flows it, will always be used for both noble and selfish ends. And sometimes the law of unintended consequences will convert noble efforts in to problem situations.

And so there is no escaping the question, how much power do we want to be available when people have bad motives, or fail to fully think through the consequences of well intended uses? More is better, as much as possible, delivered as soon as possible?

And so there is no escaping the question, how much power do we want to be available when people have bad motives, or fail to fully think through the consequences of well intended uses? — Jake

The question is moot because enough power to ruin the world is already available to people with bad motives or those who are too shortsighted. Our Western materialistic lifestyle is unsustainable. Obstructing scientific research won't stop that. Even if it were possible to restrict scientific research globally, one result could be hampering research that might help with the many challenges that future generations will face because of our bad motives and shortsightedness.

No one would say that progress doesn't have risks, but what is the alternative? Stagnation in a globally locked-down police state? Security may be that important to you but I don't think it is for most people.

I'm arguing that our philosophy needs to be updated to match the technological environment, that we need to adapt philosophically to the new reality. — Jake

Say more about that, would you, please.

The question is moot because enough power to ruin the world is already available to people with bad motives or those who are too shortsighted. — praxis

And so we should build even MORE such power, as fast as possible. That is the logic, or rather illogic, of the group consensus.

Say more about that, would you, please. — Bitter Crank

As example, Professor Crank has a "more is better" relationship with my posts on this topic. That's so wrong, we're all gonna die if we hear any more! :smile:

The opposition to nuclear energy is exactly that: an ideology. And this ideology can drive us to worse energy policies than otherwise. — ssu

Only if one continues with an ideologically dictated, backward and piecemeal application of technology - I identify as the real underlying problem. By ideology, I mean the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of societies - not just some unsubstantiated belief, but ideas in terms of which we parse the world, construe our identities, derive our purposes, and make moral judgments.
An ideology is rather more than a misbegotten belief - its a misbegotten conception of reality. Its lenses cover both eyes completely, which is what makes science a stranger.

The real people killer is coal. Just in China annually coal power plants kill about 300 000 people. Yet somehow the facts and especially the magnitude of difference on the impact is many times not understood. The simple fact is that we have been using for ages coal ...and firewood. How dangerous smoke from fire can be isn't something that rattles peoples minds like the "invisible death" from radiation. And who understands radiation? Simply when nuclear power is discussed, the first image that comes to many peoples mind is Hiroshima. Unfortunately the misinformation (or basically disinformation) has taken root in this area, hence people believe whatever fictional statistic on the perils of nuclear energy. — ssu

I'd agree there's widespread ignorance and fear - but that fear is not entirely baseless. Radiation is dangerous, and in the event of a nuclear accident - can be carried a long way by the wind, contaminating vast swathes of land with a toxin that continues to be hazardous for a long time. Particles of radioactive material can be breathed in, and cause cancer. It can get into the food chain, and be passed on and on.

Globally we get roughly 40% of electricity from coal and in places like China it's still roughly 60%, which has come down from 80% in 2010. Their plan has it's problems: even if China is making a huge investment in alternative energy resources, it is basically using energy from coal (and other fossil fuels) to catch up the industrialized West. The idea simply is to use the coal now to transform to other energy resources. That's the idea. Yet the reality is that coal power plants are still built (see Satellite intelligence shows China in a vast rollout of coal-fired power stations) and what better thing is to sell the coal power plants to other countries when they come to be too dirty in China (see here and here). — ssu

It's not just China. 75% of India's electricity production is from fossil fuels - that's almost 3 billion people in total, dependent on coal for power. The only saving grace is that they are as yet, relatively poor. In terms of energy consumption, the average Chinese person uses approximately one third of the energy an American uses. The average Indian person, uses less than one tenth of the energy an American uses. And this disparity, between a rich country like the US, and poorer countries but with much larger populations - is at the heart of disagreements about how to tackle climate change. That's always going to be a problem with a "pain up front" strategy.

However much we build solar and wind power, it's still problematic. For example in 2016 in Germany (one of the leaders in Photovoltaic Power) increased solar power production as it has done year after year, yet the actually gigawatts produced fell. There was a natural reason: it wasn't so sunny as the year before. And the main point is the following. The real danger is that if we run down nuclear energy, we in the end and out of the media limelight, replace nuclear with fossil fuels and especially coal. The ugly fact seems to be that Germany in it's Energiewende, of going off nuclear, has exactly done this. — ssu

I disagree. In Germany, the share of renewable electricity rose from just 3.4% of gross electricity consumption in 1990 to exceed 10% by 2005, 20% by 2011 and 30% by 2015, reaching 36.2% of consumption by year end 2017. They are not reverting to coal. Further, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident was coincidental with regard to the policy. There was no fear driven rejection of nuclear on the part of Germany. If you look at the sector, it has proved hugely costly, as well as potentially very dangerous - on the rare occasions things go wrong, they can go very wrong. Germany rejected nuclear on its own merits, quite some time before the accident in Japan.

It's in consideration of all this, and a lot more like this - I've proposed a global scale approach based on a common agreement that science is true, and therefore authoritative - particularly on a subject like this, which is:

1) an existential necessity - i.e. if we don't solve this problem humankind will be rendered extinct.
2) a global scale problem, that throws partisan ideological approaches into conflict.
3) is a purely technical problem - entirely subject to a technological solution.

And I'm not the first to propose it:

The hydrogen economy is a proposed system of delivering energy using hydrogen. The term hydrogen economy was coined by John Bockris during a talk he gave in 1970 at General Motors (GM) Technical Center.[1] The concept was proposed earlier by geneticist J.B.S. Haldane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

50 years ago!

I've proposed a global scale approach based on a common agreement that science is true, and therefore authoritative - — karl stone

It may be helpful if you can distinguish between science, and science culture, ie. the group consensus of the scientific community regarding their relationship with science. A fact developed by science can be reasonably declared authoritative, while at the same time the culture which decided to develop that fact can be declared misguided.

As example, it's scientifically true that the atom can be split. That's an entirely different matter than leading scientists agreeing to work on the Manhattan project, and agreeing to further develop these weapons etc.

Repeatedly chanting "science is truth" doesn't really solve much.

3) is a purely technical problem - entirely subject to a technological solution. — karl stone

Apologies, but this is actually argument with your own position. As example, if I've understood you've argued that nuclear weapons arise from a philosophical problem.

It may be helpful if you can distinguish between science, and science culture, i.e. the group consensus of the scientific community regarding their relationship with science. A fact developed by science can be reasonably declared authoritative, while at the same time the culture which decided to develop that fact can be declared misguided.

As example, it's scientifically true that the atom can be split. That's an entirely different matter than leading scientists agreeing to work on the Manhattan project, and agreeing to further develop these weapons etc. Repeatedly chanting "science is truth" doesn't really solve much. — Jake

You are approaching upon the idea central to my thesis, but keep slipping past it.

Consider humankind, developing from animal ignorance into human knowledge over time. We developed the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of societies first - long before science was discovered. Because science contradicted ideology - science as an understanding of reality was suppressed, even while science provided technology to be used as directed by primitive ideologies.

Thus, the Manhattan Project is not a truly scientific endeavor. The motives are purely ideological. The scientists were employees of ideological interests. The was no scientific rationale for developing nuclear weapons - less yet spending the massive resources to build over 70,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War.

It is the difference between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. We've used the tools, but failed to read the instructions. That's what's wrong - with everything! It's why we're burning rain-forests to clear land for palm oil production, and cattle ranching. It makes sense ideologically - but in terms of a scientific conception of reality, it's insane, unnecessary, and ultimately fatal behavior.

Thus, the Manhattan Project is not a truly scientific endeavor. The motives are purely ideological. The scientists were employees of ideological interests. — karl stone

Right. The Manhattan Project was very "scientish" but was essentially a tremendous technological nuts and bolts project. There was, of course, an ideological goal. The Manhattan Project was intended to build an atomic weapon before Germany did. Germany could have, maybe, built an atomic weapon, but they decided they couldn't produce conventional weapons and atomic weapons at the same time. We didn't know that in 1942 (when the project was conceived). By the time the Manhattan Project was finished, Germany was no longer a threat.

"Saving lives by not invading the home islands of Japan" is a claim undermined by the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were spared heavy bombing--something most Japanese cities were not spared. The were left in a "pristine" state so they could better serve as a test site to measure the destructiveness of the new weapon.

Having achieved the initial goal, it was decided that we needed to go forward with plutonium/U235 bombs and to build a hydrogen bomb (Edward Teller's favorite project) and achieve world dominance in nuclear weapons. So we did. Our monopoly on nukes was very short. Tens of thousands of bombs later...

It is the difference between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. We've used the tools, but failed to read the instructions. That's what's wrong - with everything! It's why we're burning rain-forests to clear land for palm oil production, and cattle ranching. It makes sense ideologically - but in terms of a scientific conception of reality, it's insane, unnecessary, and ultimately fatal behavior. — karl stone

Exactly.

"Read the instructions as a last resort". Now that we have made a colossal mess of things, we've opened the manual and discovered the really bad news.

The question is moot because enough power to ruin the world is already available to people with bad motives or those who are too shortsighted.
— praxis

And so we should build even MORE such power, as fast as possible. That is the logic, or rather illogic, of the group consensus. — Jake

What you’re apparently failing to see is that the “more is better” impulse applies to any valuable resource and not just knowledge. You can’t cure the disease by treating a symptom, and knowledge or research may aid in finding a cure. That’s the logic.

Right. The Manhattan Project was very "scientish" but was essentially a tremendous technological nuts and bolts project. There was, of course, an ideological goal. The Manhattan Project was intended to build an atomic weapon before Germany did. Germany could have, maybe, built an atomic weapon, but they decided they couldn't produce conventional weapons and atomic weapons at the same time. We didn't know that in 1942 (when the project was conceived). By the time the Manhattan Project was finished, Germany was no longer a threat. — Bitter Crank

There's a indirect, but definite relationship between the Manhattan Project, and the mistake made by the Church in relation to the discovery of scientific method by Galileo in 1630. That seems like a crazy idea on the surface of it - but Galileo's arrest, imprisonment and trial set a precedent that's never been overturned. Not even by the so-called Enlightenment. It's a blind-spot that's been carried forward for 400 years - and has led us to the brink of extinction.

Consider Mendel - the monk who did the work on genetic inheritance using pea plants, long before Darwin. That mechanism was the one thing missing from Darwin's Origin of Species. Had the statistics of inheritance been understood earlier, the racial element of Nazism might not have occurred. And subsequently, the Second World War, the Manhattan Project, and the Cold War might also have been averted.

It is the difference between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. We've used the tools, but failed to read the instructions. That's what's wrong - with everything! It's why we're burning rain-forests to clear land for palm oil production, and cattle ranching. It makes sense ideologically - but in terms of a scientific conception of reality, it's insane, unnecessary, and ultimately fatal behavior.
— karl stone

Exactly.

"Read the instructions as a last resort". Now that we have made a colossal mess of things, we've opened the manual and discovered the really bad news. — Bitter Crank

First, sorry for quoting my own quote. Second, I'm delighted you agree. But thirdly, it's not all bad news. We're actually pretty well situated if we can recognize the mistake now, and very carefully - begin to correct it. It begins with energy and water - and results in sustainable markets, and a garden paradise of a world by 2100. It's either that, or we'll go through Hell - before we all, eventually die out.

I'd agree there's widespread ignorance and fear - but that fear is not entirely baseless. Radiation is dangerous, and in the event of a nuclear accident - can be carried a long way by the wind, contaminating vast swathes of land with a toxin that continues to be hazardous for a long time. — karl stone

And how many people have been killed due to nuclear accidents compared to the hundreds of thousands being killed every year by coal power plants and fossil fuels? Fukushima? 0 deaths. Chernobyl? Here's the conclusions that the United Nations, WHO and IAEA among other came to:

A total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

See from UN homepages, CHERNOBYL: THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT

How can 4000 deaths in all compare to hundreds of thousands killed annually? After all, with Chernobul you did have radiation equivalent of hundreds of nuclear weapons detonated. But then of course you have the anti-nuclear claiming totally other kind of figures (that basically put the worst accident to be in it's entirety equivalent to a scale of deaths in one year in China by coal power). But here alternative facts are cherished and hence I'm not convinced that scientific facts will win in the end. Yet the fact is that even if we take the WORST estimates that surely are propaganda, the simple fact is that nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions (which actually not many do know), and still is far safer than coal.

I disagree. In Germany, the share of renewable electricity rose from just 3.4% of gross electricity consumption in 1990 to exceed 10% by 2005, 20% by 2011 and 30% by 2015, reaching 36.2% of consumption by year end 2017. They are not reverting to coal. — karl stone

Wrong. They are building new coal power stations. Period. That the share renewable electricity has grown doesn't at all refute this fact. See from June of 2018 this article: Germany still constructing new coal power stations. Naturally the German government and it's media doesn't want to highlight this. And of course one thing they have turned to is to import electricity from Poland. Germany still has alongside Poland a huge coal power plant infrastructure and some of the biggest polluting coal power plants in Europe, that can be seen from the emissions.

CO2 emissions value=gCO2eq/kwh. (Data extracted January 8 2017. Source: electricitymap.tmrow.co)
Belgium 174
Bulgaria 438
Czech Republic 518
Denmark 399
Germany 597
Estonia 664
Ireland 477
Greece 464
Spain 254
France 105
Italy 325
Latvia 289
Lithuania 251
Hungary 289
Austria 358
Poland 746
Portugal 385
Romania 347
Slovenia 329
Slovakia 389
Finland 189
Sweden 60
United Kingdom 388
(Btw, the electricity map is interesting to see from the above link)

Or as one article puts it:

Wind, solar and other forms of green energy now regularly fulfill over a third or more of Germany’s electricity demand. However, the country remains the world’s largest lignite (brown coal) miner and burner. Overall, coal produces some 40% of the nation’s electricity while employing around 30,000 workers. Moreover, this cheap, domestically sourced lignite also produces 20% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. If Germany is serious about its pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to half of what they were in 1990 by 2030, then lignite simply has to be phased out. That’s not politics, economics or wishful thinking: it’s simply physics.

See article "Mixed Mandate: Germany’s new coal commission struggles to balance environment and jobs" from June 2018.

See from UN homepages, CHERNOBYL: THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT — ssu

I grew up in the upper midwestern part of the US during the entire period of atmospheric nuclear bomb testing Of course fall out from the tests drifted across the continent given prevailing westerly winds. The Soviets were also doing atmospheric nuclear bomb testing during the same period.

As I recollect, people worried about radiation, but we didn't think we were doomed, and no one was getting sick from radiation. We didn't drink less milk (strontium-90 or not). Minnesota has the best overall health outcomes of all the other states, except Hawaii and Massachusetts, with whom we trade off first place position. Good health outcomes are not owing to more radiation, of course, but to social policies and community norms which have brought about less smoking, less drinking, less fried food, better dentistry and better health care.

As annoying as the facts are, animals do seem to be able to tolerate more radiation than I thought. There are some adverse effects on animals living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, but nothing approaching catastrophic consequences. Wolves--the top predator--seem to be doing well there, despite feeding at the top of the food chain. Some birds have, if I remember correctly, developed a mal-aligned beak, not a beneficial mutation. The wolves may not be attaining the same upper age as they would elsewhere.

I wouldn't for a minute suggest that we should be blasé about radiation. Most mass radiation exposure results from sloppy, incompetent, or "public be damned" behavior in the nuclear plants. A good example is a fire at the Rocky Flats plutonium plant near Denver (maybe 30 years ago). The fire spread to the roof and burnt up a number of big filters which were supposed to capture plutonium dust. The fire resulted in quite a bit of plutonium being scattered over much of the Denver area.

And how many people have been killed due to nuclear accidents compared to the hundreds of thousands being killed every year by coal power plants and fossil fuels? Fukushima? 0 deaths. Chernobyl? Here's the conclusions that the United Nations, WHO and IAEA among other came to: — ssu

Statistical comparisons like this can be misleading. For example, did you know far more people die in hospital than in McDonald's. But if I fell ill - my first thought wouldn't be, I've got to get myself a happy meal. In that sense, I'd be willing to bet more people are killed by solar than nuclear energy, installers falling off roofs. I'm not defending fossil fuels, but rather pointing out that total number of deaths is no indication of the inherent dangers associated with any technology.

Yet the fact is that even if we take the WORST estimates that surely are propaganda, the simple fact is that nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions (which actually not many do know), and still is far safer than coal. — ssu

Nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions, but it takes half the energy a nuclear power station will ever produce - to build a nuclear power station. All that concrete and steel is incredibly energy intensive to produce, and that's almost certainly going to be fossil fuel energy. Further, nuclear power stations create massive amounts of heat - they have to shed, or explode. This is far more difficult in hot weather - and power output drops in relation to the heat that can be shed into the environment. Climate change is therefore an obstacle to nuclear power.

"We're going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists."
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/20iht-nuke.1.5788480.html

On the whole however, I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I agree fossil fuels are a massive problem. I just don't believe nuclear power is the answer, and designed my solar/hydrogen approach with these ideas in mind; not some overblown fear of radiation, but environmental costs of construction, running costs, and nuclear waste storage costs - against the type, amount and utility of the energy it produces. Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution.

Thus, the Manhattan Project is not a truly scientific endeavor. The motives are purely ideological. The scientists were employees of ideological interests. The was no scientific rationale for developing nuclear weapons — karl stone

Ok, true enough, but the Manhattan Project was possible because somebody doing pure science discovered that the atom could be split, right? Could we say that the pure science was hijacked by ideological interests? Would that work for you?

If yes, then before we rush headlong in to more and more and more pure science shouldn't we be figuring how to prevent such ideological hijackings from occurring? And if we can't come up with a reliable mechanism for preventing such hijackings is it not logical that we should therefore at least slow down on the pure science research?

Nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions, but it takes half the energy a nuclear power station will ever produce - to build a nuclear power station. All that concrete and steel is incredibly energy intensive to produce, and that's almost certainly going to be fossil fuel energy. — karl stone

This is part of the problem that James Howard Kunstler points out: a lot of chemicals go into making solar and wind power and all the associated equipment--chemicals derived from petroleum. Once petroleum becomes too scarce and expensive to obtain, it will be very difficult to replace all the infrastructure that was made from and with petroleum: plastics, lubricants, solvents, raw chemicals, finishes, and so on. Things wear out, break, burn up, are smashed, and so forth.

It isn't that nothing will or can be done in the future; it's just that manufacturing will have to re-invented for many products (if it can be).

Making the essential ingredients of concrete, like calcium obtained by heating limestone to a high temperature -- are very energy intensive and extensive. I don't see making the large amounts of portland cement with solar or wind.

There is a reason why we used so much coal and oil: It takes a hell of a lot of energy to build all the infrastructure you see around you. We can not rebuild all of it, or even half of it, on a meagre energy budget. We'll get along, but it will be on much different terms than we operate with now.

Could we say that the pure science was hijacked by ideological interests? — Jake

You probably know this story already:

We could say that the pure science took place in a setting that was inherently ideological: Academic physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn discovered the principle of fission in 1939. Meitner fled Germany in 1938 to escape the murderous anti-Jewish Nazi regime. Meitner and Hahn met secretly once after she fled Germany to plan the experiments that Hahn carried out in Berlin proving the theory. It was Meitner who identified and named the process 'nuclear fission'.

Once the results of Meitner and Hahn's experiments were published, a committee of physicists alerted Roosevelt to the discovery.

Who would make the bomb that Germany, Britain, USA, and USSR now knew was possible?

Some research was conducted beginning in 1939 on nuclear fission. But the US was not at war with the Axis powers, and the mood in the country was still isolationist. After Pearl Harbor, the situation changed, of course. There was some evidence (the business with heavy water from Norsk Hydro, for instance) that Germany was seriously pursuing a bomb. In 1942, when the Manhattan Project was conceived, it was not clear that the Allies would be victorious.

Further, not all of the scientists that were asked were willing to work on the project (several guessed what it was probably about), and quite a few of the scientists who did work on it were quite unhappy about it by the end of the war.

General Groves, the superintendent of the project, insisted on very tight partitions of information about the project. Each participant -- top scientist or lowly lab tech -- was only told as much as they needed to know to perform their job. (This was an anti espionage strategy). Quite a few of the scientists did not know exactly what they were working on till late in the game. For instance, the polonium team in Ohio who were working on making the "trigger" for the bomb, a ping pong sized ball of purified polonium, did not know what the little ball was for. A very few of the managing scientists at Los Alamos knew about the ball, and what it was for. Most of the scientists didn't know until the winter of 1945, when they were closing in on the construction of the two bombs.

Well before the first two bombs were ready, it became apparent that Japan would be the target for the nuclear bombs. This was entirely ideological. Initially, a German atomic weapon was an existential threat. By 1945, neither Japan nor Germany posed existential threats to the Allies.

Ok, true enough, but the Manhattan Project was possible because somebody doing pure science discovered that the atom could be split, right? Could we say that the pure science was hijacked by ideological interests? Would that work for you? — Jake

If we were trying to explain what happened very simply - we could say that, but the reality is far more complex. I have construed the Church's reaction to Galileo's 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' - in which he set out the first formal statement of scientific method, as instrumental in the divorce of science as a tool - from science as an understanding of reality.

Science could have been welcomed by the Church as the true word of God; i.e. in the beginning there was the word. Pursued in a worshipful manner - and integrated into religion, politics and economics on an ongoing basis - it would have been as if a red carpet unfurled at our feet. There's a strong sense somehow, that's what should have happened, and certainly, at that moment - the Church had the power to make that happen. But then - one has to ask, why was that mistake not rectified by anyone else?

For instance, America effectively had a clean slate - once they threw off British rule. They wrote the Constitution in 1776, on a blank page - from an enlightenment perspective, and still didn't address the question of the priority of scientific knowledge, relative to religious, political and economic ideology. What we can say, is that the Manhattan Project in itself, wasn't where this mistaken relationship began. It merely repeated a pattern that has far deeper roots. So they didn't hijack science and use it for illegitimate ends as such, but rather, employed science - divorced from its meaningful implications, within an ideological context. In effect, they gave a rocket launcher to a caveman - i.e. they put advanced technology in the hands of the ideologically primitive.

Sorry about going on so long.

If yes, then before we rush headlong in to more and more and more pure science shouldn't we be figuring how to prevent such ideological hijackings from occurring? And if we can't come up with a reliable mechanism for preventing such hijackings is it not logical that we should therefore at least slow down on the pure science research? — Jake

As a philosopher, I'm driven by my subject. I couldn't shut up if I tried. I imagine research scientists are similarly driven by their specialist interests - to discover the truth. So the question would be - how do you put a cork in that kind of intellectual curiosity? The Church tried to control intellectual curiosity - and the consequences bring humankind to the brink of extinction, and you'd repeat the same failed strategy? No!

We need to do now what we should have done 400 years ago - and that is, accept that science is the means to establish true knowledge of reality, and honor that knowledge - particularly as a rationale for the application of technology.

This is part of the problem that James Howard Kunstler points out: a lot of chemicals go into making solar and wind power and all the associated equipment--chemicals derived from petroleum. Once petroleum becomes too scarce and expensive to obtain, it will be very difficult to replace all the infrastructure that was made from and with petroleum: plastics, lubricants, solvents, raw chemicals, finishes, and so on. Things wear out, break, burn up, are smashed, and so forth.

It isn't that nothing will or can be done in the future; it's just that manufacturing will have to re-invented for many products (if it can be).

Making the essential ingredients of concrete, like calcium obtained by heating limestone to a high temperature -- are very energy intensive and extensive. I don't see making the large amounts of portland cement with solar or wind.

There is a reason why we used so much coal and oil: It takes a hell of a lot of energy to build all the infrastructure you see around you. We can not rebuild all of it, or even half of it, on a meagre energy budget. We'll get along, but it will be on much different terms than we operate with now. — Bitter Crank

Your view of solar/wind energy seems to me colored by the piecemeal application of technology you see around you - but the full potential of the technology is yet to be realized. The entire world's total energy needs can be met from a solar farm 350 miles square - which is about the size of Switzerland. That's approximately 17.5 TW of electrical energy.

We could build that - and phase it in over time, such that we could combat climate change while allowing for sensible divestment from fossil fuels. And then build another one the same. In that case, I don't see scarcity of oil as a basis for other products becoming a problem in the foreseeable future. Even if oil were all gone somehow, there's no shortage of hydrocarbons. We could mine the frozen tundra of the Russian steppes for methane - or the anaerobic sludge that sits on the sea floor, and make plastics with that. The only thing we absolutely can't do is burn it for fuel.

There's no problem powering energy intensive processes with renewable energy. As a liquefied gas, hydrogen contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum per kilo - such that it can power industrial processes. For example:

Swedish steel boss: 'Our pilot plant will only emit water vapour' - EurActiv
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/hybrit-ceo-our-pilot-steel-plant-will-only-emit-water-vapour/

"A new pilot facility under construction in northern Sweden will produce steel using hydrogen from renewable electricity. The only emissions will be water vapour, explains Mårten Görnerup, CEO of Hybrit, the company behind the process, which seeks to revolutionise steelmaking."

The world needs to follow that man's example.

We need to do now what we should have done 400 years ago - and that is, accept that science is the means to establish true knowledge of reality, and honor that knowledge - particularly as a rationale for the application of technology. — karl stone

Where is the evidence that this utopian vision is possible?

To me, this part of your message is equivalent to the utopian vision "once we all become good Christians then we will live in peace". These utopian visions might be true IN THEORY, but it's not going to happen, so...

Whatever new rocket launchers which emerge from the quest for knowledge are going to be given to we cave men...

...just has always been true for thousands of years, since long before the emergence of science and the church.

Good history lesson Crank, thanks for adding that.

We could say that the pure science took place in a setting that was inherently ideological: — Bitter Crank

Yes, and isn't this true of any science which reveals new powers? That is, at the point some research uncovers a power which gives somebody an advantage over somebody else, the process automatically becomes inherently ideological.

So the question would be - how do you put a cork in that kind of intellectual curiosity? — karl stone

Yes, that would be a good question.

The first essential step in that process would be to understand that such a thing is necessary. There's no point is asking "how to do it" until we grasp that it has to be done. If we don't grasp that it has to be done, like it or not, then we'll never get around to aiming our intelligence at working out how it is to be done.

It seems clear that reason alone will not be sufficient to bring us to the understanding that the power available to human beings has to be limited for the simple reason that human judgment and maturity are limited.

So my guess is that we are racing towards some kind of technology driven calamity and that only when the pain reaches a high enough threshold will we be ready to address your question in a serious manner. As example...

The Europeans engaged in pointless wars for centuries, even though Europe was home to the great philosophers, high culture etc. It was only when the pain of those wars reached a near existential level in WWII that the Europeans changed course and gave up the pattern of repetitive warring. Intelligence wasn't enough, reason wasn't enough, common sense wasn't enough, it took pain at a high level to bring the Europeans to their senses.

The best way to debunk my posts is to point to the fact that no amount of reasoning is going to be sufficient to wean us off of the outdated "more is better" relationship with knowledge. Thus, as the evidence clearly suggests, all my typing on the subject is basically a waste of time.

Where is the evidence that this utopian vision is possible? To me, this part of your message is equivalent to the utopian vision "once we all become good Christians then we will live in peace". These utopian visions might be true IN THEORY, but it's not going to happen, so... — Jake

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time - all human beings were hunter-gatherers, living in tribal groups of about 40-120 individuals. Ruled by an alpha male and one or two lieutenants, who ruled the tribe by threat and use of violence, they monopolized food and mating opportunities within the tribe.

For tens of thousands of years after human beings had achieved the kind of intellectual awareness evidenced in improved tools, burial of the dead, cave art, jewelry - they continued living as hunter gatherers, until approximately 15,000 years ago - when they joined together to form multi-tribal society, leading to civilization.

The question is - how? This is not a trivial question. They went against millions of years of evolutionary habit, and the power structure of tribal society - to form multi-tribal society, with no idea of the relative utopia they would thus create. They did this by agreeing to God as an objective authority for law. Similarly, I would argue - a scientific understanding of reality is objective with respect to all ideological interests. So, it has happened before. It is something of which human beings are capable.