cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
jbneb
Contributor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

Interesting post elcheapo, makes a guy think a little bit about some not so comfy topics. I thought the U.S. getting out of the climate summit was, I'll say not smart to put it nicely. Seems like as a world leader in general and a world leader in agriculture, maybe we should be there listening and giving our input. There are a lot of very intelligent people in our country and that seems like a subject that should be on the important list. Hawking happens to be one of those smart people, one of the smartest in the world and in history. Now hopefully in our lifetime we don't see that asteroid and robots don't kill us all, but this is his long view of things, so none of us can say he isn't right. BA Deere, I like a lot of what you say on here, but your thoughts on this made me shake my head for humanity. Discounting what a paralyzed genius says bc he can't carry feed bags might be the least thought out opinion that I've ever heard. Also climate change isn't all warming all the time, it's larger extremes in the weather as I understand it. As precipitation goes I think most of us in the Midwest will say extremes are the new norm. As temp goes, the now bitterly cold winter that you pointed out coming off a another record warm growing season also seems to be extreme. Like I said, I'm not expecting to be replaced by a robot next year on my farm, but having a longer view of our world good or bad doesn't seem like a terrible idea. Especially if that longer view can lead to changes that help keep earth habitable for a longer amount of time. Hope everyone has a happy New Year and that all the asteroids stay away haha.
cmilligan1958g
Senior Contributor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

Only stupid people will be gone. Only those unprepared will vanish. 

Hawking is only regurgitating the propaganda that he is fed.   Also, if he said anything that displeased his leftist caretakers, they would simply turn his speaking devices to the "off" position. 

My brother has a higher I Q than Hawking by more than ten points, and he says that he is full of digested food material. 

One hundred years from now, new cyborgs and artificial intelligence will be common. Enough to vanquish the useless Leftists into a nonexistent condition. 

One hundred years ago, many said that humans would be extinct by now. They were wrong, weren't they?

cmilligan1958g
Senior Contributor

Re: Thorium, energy of the future 30,000 years

Thorium fuel cycles offer attractive features, including lower levels of waste generation, less transuranic elements in that waste, and providing a diversification option for nuclear fuel supply. Also, the use of thorium in most reactor types leads to extra safety margins. Despite these merits, the commercialization of thorium fuels faces some significant hurdles in terms of building an economic case to undertake the necessary development work.A great deal of testing, analysis and licensing and qualification work is required before any thorium fuel can enter into service. This is expensive and will not eventuate without a clear business case and government support. Also, uranium is abundant and cheap and forms only a small part of the cost of nuclear electricity generation, so there are no real incentives for investment in a new fuel type that may save uranium resources.Other impediments to the development of thorium fuel cycle are the higher cost of fuel fabrication and the cost of reprocessing to provide the fissile plutonium driver material. The high cost of fuel fabrication (for solid fuel) is due partly to the high level of radioactivity that builds up in U-233 chemically separated from the irradiated thorium fuel. Separated U-233 is always contaminated with traces of U-232 which decays (with a 69-year half-life) to daughter nuclides such as thallium-208 that are high-energy gamma emitters. Although this confers proliferation resistance to the fuel cycle by making U-233 hard to handle and easy to detect, it results in increased costs. There are similar problems in recycling thorium itself due to highly radioactive Th-228 (an alpha emitter with two-year half life) present. Some of these problems are overcome in the LFTR or other molten salt reactor and fuel cycle designs, rather than solid fuel.Particularly in a molten salt reactor, the equilibrium fuel cycle is expected to have relatively low radiotoxicity, being fission products only plus short-lived Pa-233, without transuranics. These are continually removed in on-line reprocessing, though this is more complex than for the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle.Nevertheless, the thorium fuel cycle offers energy security benefits in the long-term – due to its potential for being a self-sustaining fuel without the need for fast neutron reactors. It is therefore an important and potentially viable technology that seems able to contribute to building credible, long-term nuclear energy scenarios.

rsbs
Advisor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

newsweek was sold for $1 a few years ago, and the buyer overpaid. They gave me a free subscription at my office, along with businessweek (now Bloomberg something or other) and I finally told both to stop sending the free magazines as they were too expensive.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

The climate has changed since The Almighty said let there be light and will continue to change until He says not to. IA was once buried by a mile of ice and the sahara dessert was once tropic.

cmilligan1958g
Senior Contributor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

The tectonic plates of the Earth are always moving around and always will. 

 

This will change ocean currents and, thus, the climates. Taxing people of their money to give to Leftist causes will NOT change any climates, whatsoever. 

wehav
Senior Contributor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

I believe two unfortunate things.

 

First America and the world is going to face declining prosperity.

 

Second there is a real possibility that humanity will disappear.

 

 

The first because we've seen the best and brightest having 1 on none offspring while the worst and dumbest have many children.  We've saved far too many people here and around the world that contribute nothing to the world.  They vote, they riot and they create wars to obtain that which they believe they deserve without any effort beyond existing.

 

The second because of an asteroid or because the earth itself will erupt a huge volcanic event.  Possibly even because of the same people who keep trying to stop global warming set some event in motion that causes global freezing and thus global starvation.

 

 

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

BA; what you posted was weather.

 

This is climate change.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Mankind to be gone in 100 years ?

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers. - Robert Kennedy JR. - September 24 - 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

Wolf wolf I see a wolf!!!!