I have solved the Fermi Paradox and found the Great Filter that no life form ever makes it through. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15287470
I find this to be very comforting. We are just doing what millions of other species of beings in the universe have already done. It is inevitable.

We are not stupid. We are not uncaring. We are not unique. We are not "fill in the blank" with your word.

The solution goes like this.
1] To reach space with self-sufficient colonies every being in the universe must have fossil fuels. Only with the concentrated energy of fossil fuel (=FF) is it possible to get out of the gravity well of your planet.
2] Once the beings have the ability to use FF, their mind set will change. If one culture doesn't maximize its use then others will out compete it and the 1st will be crushed by those who do maximize use.
3] The result on all planets is about 3% growth rate in use of FF once they discover FF.
4] This doubles the use of FF every 24 years.
5] For humans this means 3 doublings in a 72 year lifetime. Three doublings is going from 10 units used/24 years to 80 units used/24 yr.
6] Mathematically, this means that if you can keep the 3% growth going until there is none left, you will use half of the amount you started with during the last 24 yr. [For example, if you start with 64 units, then 1+1+2+4+8+16+32 = 64. Yes, I had them get off to a slow start to get 64 and not 63. No matter how much you start with you will use half of that amount in the last doubling time.]
7] At some point you will have burned enough FF to cook your planet. Your civilization will not be able to grow enough food. It will break down in food riots, and wars to survive. The use of nuclear weapons is likely. The environment will be so damaged that only hunting and gathering is possible, and only in a few select locations. Or, your species will go extinct. It will take over 100K to 500K years for nature to cool the planet. By then your advanced knowledge will have all been lost.
8] There is always cultural momentum. Some will see the end in time (like I did in 1973) to avoid it, but the rule that if we don't max. use, others will and they will replace you, still holds. So, the masses can never be convinced fast enough. In the case of humanity, even now 50 years after I saw the problem, not enough have been convinced. Worldwide we must impose rationing now to slash FF use, or the 5+ deg/ C world will happen by 2099, because of Arctic releases of methane that we can't stop. In the end it is not the CO2 we emit; it will be the CH4 that is triggered by that tipping point that gets us to 5 deg. C higher temps. So, I predict that we will not act soon AND fast enough.

The fact that we can't detect any spacefaring beings which would certainly be emitting a huge amount of radiation, pretty much, proves my conclusion.

So, I'm grateful that I lived in the best years humanity ever can have. I just wish that the 1% in America would let the younger generations live as well as possible for the last many years before TSHTF.

The link to what triggered this for me. =>


==> My final words on this are; "in the long run you will discover that there is no long run."
#15287497
Steve_American wrote:I'm grateful that I lived in the best years humanity ever can have.

I hear this from Boomers all the time. They must be so frustrated indeed by the fact that even they have to die and disappear sometime that they must comfort themselves with believing they had the best possible life a human can possibly have. They actually consider themselves the all time top of human evolution, the best that mankind has ever produced and will never produce again. So they got the best because they deserved it and the rest of the human experience is totally meaningless or even impossible after or without them. Their disappearance is literally the end of the world. I wonder if there's ever been and will ever be a more selfish and egotist generation than Boomers are. Would it be even possible, by the way? Their motto literally could be: After us, the flood. They leave a complete mess behind them while being so satisfied with their lives and themselves. In Hungary they even declared and dare call themselves the Great Generation.
#15287501
Beren wrote:I hear this from Boomers all the time. They must be so frustrated indeed by the fact that even they have to die and disappear sometime that they must comfort themselves with believing they had the best possible life a human can possibly have. They actually consider themselves the all time top of human evolution, the best that mankind has ever producedand will never produce again. So they got the best because they deserved it and the rest of the human experience is totally meaningless or even impossible after or without them. Their disappearance is literally the end of the world. I wonder if there's ever been and will ever be a more selfish and egotist generation than Boomers are. Would it be even possible, by the way? Their motto literally could be: After us, the flood. They leave a complete mess behind them while being so satisfied with their lives and themselves. In Hungary they even declared and dare call themselves the Great Generation.


This rely s totally insulting.
Did you even read my post. You certainly didn't grok it.
Exponential growth means in every doubling time you (in this case humanity as whole) will use half of all the fossil fuels there was in the ground in 1750.
At 3% growth, this is 24 years.
At 2.5%, it is 28.8 years.
Do you really think that in the next 28.8 years we will use that much fossil fuels or total energy?
If we can't, then things will get bad fast.
Energy use and GDP are linked. There is close to a 1-1 ratio. Energy is what grows GDP. If there is no growth in energy use, there can be no growth in GDP, or really GWP =gross world production. If there is no growth in GWP, the economy will stall.

In any case I'm not a typical Boomer. I did the best thing anyone can do to see that the next generations live well, which is have no kids. I also got out of the rat race and lived on a below median income. In 1973 I took to heart the lesson of the "Limits to Growth Report", that in about 2020 to 2040 TSWHTF and the world population would start to fall, to around 1 B people. Climate change is right on track to do that.
I'm telling you-all that my generation fucked up. We screwed all future humans. I tried my limited best, but the others didn't listen to me. Boomers are far from the best generation ever. In a real way, we are the worst.

I know I will die. It doesn't bother me. I accept it. I don't fear it at all. This makes me a rather rare type of person.

Get off your high horse and end your holier than thou attitude.
#15287515
Steve_American wrote:This rely s totally insulting.
Did you even read my post. You certainly didn't grok it.
Exponential growth means in every doubling time you (in this case humanity as whole) will use half of all the fossil fuels there was in the ground in 1750.
At 3% growth, this is 24 years.
At 2.5%, it is 28.8 years.
Do you really think that in the next 28.8 years we will use that much fossil fuels or total energy?
If we can't, then things will get bad fast.
Energy use and GDP are linked. There is close to a 1-1 ratio. Energy is what grows GDP. If there is no growth in energy use, there can be no growth in GDP, or really GWP =gross world production. If there is no growth in GWP, the economy will stall.

I fully understand your self-explanation as to whether how you just had to screw the planet to have the best possible life a human can possibly have in order to prevent things from getting bad fast, so you could be the most privileged generation in human history, thanks to which you can die with complete satisfaction because it just couldn't have been any better for you. You even go further and claim that every single civilisation in the universe does the same at its apex, so Boomerism is just universal and unavoidable, which is a solution to the Fermi Paradox.
#15287545
Steve_American wrote:I find this to be very comforting. We are just doing what millions of other species of beings in the universe have already done. It is inevitable.

We are not stupid. We are not uncaring. We are not unique. We are not "fill in the blank" with your word.

The solution goes like this.
1] To reach space with self-sufficient colonies every being in the universe must have fossil fuels. Only with the concentrated energy of fossil fuel (=FF) is it possible to get out of the gravity well of your planet.
2] Once the beings have the ability to use FF, their mind set will change. If one culture doesn't maximize its use then others will out compete it and the 1st will be crushed by those who do maximize use.
3] The result on all planets is about 3% growth rate in use of FF once they discover FF.
4] This doubles the use of FF every 24 years.
5] For humans this means 3 doublings in a 72 year lifetime. Three doublings is going from 10 units used/24 years to 80 units used/24 yr.
6] Mathematically, this means that if you can keep the 3% growth going until there is none left, you will use half of the amount you started with during the last 24 yr. [For example, if you start with 64 units, then 1+1+2+4+8+16+32 = 64. Yes, I had them get off to a slow start to get 64 and not 63. No matter how much you start with you will use half of that amount in the last doubling time.]
7] At some point you will have burned enough FF to cook your planet. Your civilization will not be able to grow enough food. It will break down in food riots, and wars to survive. The use of nuclear weapons is likely. The environment will be so damaged that only hunting and gathering is possible, and only in a few select locations. Or, your species will go extinct. It will take over 100K to 500K years for nature to cool the planet. By then your advanced knowledge will have all been lost.
8] There is always cultural momentum. Some will see the end in time (like I did in 1973) to avoid it, but the rule that if we don't max. use, others will and they will replace you, still holds. So, the masses can never be convinced fast enough. In the case of humanity, even now 50 years after I saw the problem, not enough have been convinced. Worldwide we must impose rationing now to slash FF use, or the 5+ deg/ C world will happen by 2099, because of Arctic releases of methane that we can't stop. In the end it is not the CO2 we emit; it will be the CH4 that is triggered by that tipping point that gets us to 5 deg. C higher temps. So, I predict that we will not act soon AND fast enough.

The fact that we can't detect any spacefaring beings which would certainly be emitting a huge amount of radiation, pretty much, proves my conclusion.

So, I'm grateful that I lived in the best years humanity ever can have. I just wish that the 1% in America would let the younger generations live as well as possible for the last many years before TSHTF.


I do like it when people use the fermi paradox to ask where all the ETs are as if they would be stupid enough to blow themselves up. Instead I just point them to the YouTube channel 'Only Real UFOs' and the documentary 'Phenomenon' and explain to them in very simple terms 'They are already here. Just open your damn eyes'.

But to address one point specifically given you made most of your argument of it, why would any civilization use fossil fuels? Yes we did, but I suspect we wouldn't be using it today if Tesla had his funding. Energy can literally be generated from thin air. There is in my opinion beyond reasonable doubt that the Pyramids were a 'Telsa Tower' which was powered by the acoustics of the water running beneath them and no combustion at all, so we must have discovered this technology once, only to have lost it. Then there is the debate of anti gravity technology and the power it harnesses. The problem with humanity is it can only make sense of the universe to what it knows or has been discovered. I suspect other civilizations didn't follow the same technological path we did and as such didn't wreak their own planet hunting for black gold.
#15287594
B0ycey wrote:I do like it when people use the fermi paradox to ask where all the ETs are as if they would be stupid enough to blow themselves up. Instead I just point them to the YouTube channel 'Only Real UFOs' and the documentary 'Phenomenon' and explain to them in very simple terms 'They are already here. Just open your damn eyes'.

But to address one point specifically given you made most of your argument of it, why would any civilization use fossil fuels? Yes we did, but I suspect we wouldn't be using it today if Tesla had his funding. Energy can literally be generated from thin air. There is in my opinion beyond reasonable doubt that the Pyramids were a 'Telsa Tower' which was powered by the acoustics of the water running beneath them and no combustion at all, so we must have discovered this technology once, only to have lost it. Then there is the debate of anti gravity technology and the power it harnesses. The problem with humanity is it can only make sense of the universe to what it knows or has been discovered. I suspect other civilizations didn't follow the same technological path we did and as such didn't wreak their own planet hunting for black gold.


Clearly, you didn't make time to watch the 1.4 hr. video.

Extradentary claims require solid evidence.
It is very unlikely that such a secret could be kept for so long, especially all over the world.
Where is the evidence that the pyramids were not made in the way shown in paintings the Egyptians left us, or that aliens are here then or now?

IMHO, the concentrated energy of fossil fuels is required to fuel all modern civilizations, at least in the beginning. Without coal and steam engines, would people ever have invented electric generators to power them with slow moving water wheels or wind mills?

The Saturn 5 rocket needed a lot of fuel. How many sq. miles of solar cells would it take to get that much energy? Also, how would we make (or get started making) solar cells, which require very high temps, without fossil fuels?

How would we make the very complicated machines to discover anti-gravity science without fossil fuels?

In the video at about the 50 min. mark, they are explaining the process where using fossil fuels is required to avoid being conquered by others who are using them. They use the earlier tech of the plow as an example.

Lurkers, I ask you this. Why does B0ycey believe that there is a "conspiracy" that can hide the aliens who walk among us? And at the same time reject the evidence of the real "conspiracy" that the rich and MS Economists have had going for 5 decades, more or less in plain sight. Google the Powell Memo to see evidence. Also, we are now seeing evidence that the rich have been bribing Repub. Justices for 2 decades at least.

Yes, I know a conspiracy can refer to illegal conspiracies, but it can also refer to legal but secret ones. Also, just 1 crime by anyone to further a legal conspiracy makes it an illegal one. So, murdering 1 person to keep it secret, and the whole conspiracy becomes illegal.
.
#15287608
Steve_American wrote:Clearly, you didn't make time to watch the 1.4 hr. video.

Extradentary claims require solid evidence.
It is very unlikely that such a secret could be kept for so long, especially all over the world.
Where is the evidence that the pyramids were not made in the way shown in paintings the Egyptians left us, or that aliens are here then or now?

IMHO, the concentrated energy of fossil fuels is required to fuel all modern civilizations, at least in the beginning. Without coal and steam engines, would people ever have invented electric generators to power them with slow moving water wheels or wind mills?

The Saturn 5 rocket needed a lot of fuel. How many sq. miles of solar cells would it take to get that much energy? Also, how would we make (or get started making) solar cells, which require very high temps, without fossil fuels?

How would we make the very complicated machines to discover anti-gravity science without fossil fuels?

In the video at about the 50 min. mark, they are explaining the process where using fossil fuels is required to avoid being conquered by others who are using them. They use the earlier tech of the plow as an example.

Lurkers, I ask you this. Why does B0ycey believe that there is a "conspiracy" that can hide the aliens who walk among us? And at the same time reject the evidence of the real "conspiracy" that the rich and MS Economists have had going for 5 decades, more or less in plain sight. Google the Powell Memo to see evidence. Also, we are now seeing evidence that the rich have been bribing Repub. Justices for 2 decades at least.

Yes, I know a conspiracy can refer to illegal conspiracies, but it can also refer to legal but secret ones. Also, just 1 crime by anyone to further a legal conspiracy makes it an illegal one. So, murdering 1 person to keep it secret, and the whole conspiracy becomes illegal.
.


Well there is solid evidence for both the Pyramids being a power plant and the UFO phenomenon FYI. Even the US acknowledges UFOs but they won't associate them with ETs. But even if you are a skeptic it doesn't make any difference. I don't need to watch a 90 minute video to know that -

One, fossil fuels are carbon based and who is to say that intelligent life is carbon based?

Two, fossil fuels need the right conditions to occur and that it is unlikely to be a universal phenomenon on all planets with life.

Three, it is extremely unlikely that intelligent life would follow the same technological advancement stages as humans.

Four, you are assuming humans have a full understanding of the principles of energy.

And five, fossil fuels as an energy source is actually very inefficient. E=MC2 gives you an idea of just how much energy is stored in a single atom. Why would intelligent life not harness that energy than pollute the planet with a fuel source that is crap?

I always use Tesla as an example because to be frank had JP Morgan gave him the investment for free energy, I am more than sure we would have been off fossil fuels over a century ago. And that's humans. I doubt ET would "suffer" from bourgeois self interest and as such reach milestones in energy that Capitalism holds us back on very quickly. I also don't buy the notion that ET would just blow themselves up which is the example people who talk about the paradox claim. There is no evolution benefit in being primal in a civilised society. ET might have reached their technological achievement without even having such instinct.
#15287617
B0ycey wrote:0] Well there is solid evidence for both the Pyramids being a power plant and the UFO phenomenon FYI. Even the US acknowledges UFOs but they won't associate them with ETs. But even if you are a skeptic it doesn't make any difference. I don't need to watch a 90 minute video to know that -

One, fossil fuels are carbon based and who is to say that intelligent life is carbon based?

Two, fossil fuels need the right conditions to occur and that it is unlikely to be a universal phenomenon on all planets with life.

Three, it is extremely unlikely that intelligent life would follow the same technological advancement stages as humans.

Four, you are assuming humans have a full understanding of the principles of energy.

And five, fossil fuels as an energy source is actually very inefficient. E=MC2 gives you an idea of just how much energy is stored in a single atom. Why would intelligent life not harness that energy than pollute the planet with a fuel source that is crap?

6] I always use Tesla as an example because to be frank had JP Morgan gave him the investment for free energy, I am more than sure we would have been off fossil fuels over a century ago. And that's humans. I doubt ET would "suffer" from bourgeois self interest and as such reach milestones in energy that Capitalism holds us back on very quickly. I also don't buy the notion that ET would just blow themselves up which is the example people who talk about the paradox claim. There is no evolution benefit in being primal in a civilised society. ET might have reached their technological achievement without even having such instinct.


0] Your idea of "solid evidence" differs widely from Egyptologist's, historian's, and mine.

1] Carbon is very good chemically for making compounds that make life possible. It is very common. I think, therefore, that 99.99% of life forms will be carbon based. However, you're right Silicon based life would not be the same. OTOH, CO2 has kept the world at about the right temp. I have no idea how well SiO2 could do this because it is a solid at temps where water is a liquid.

2] Well, I said that if no fossil fuels formed on a planet, then its beings would not reach space. I still think that.

3] There is no evidence for this one way or the other. So, it is impossible to scientifically say what the probabilities are of other beings following roughly the same path we did.

4] No, I'm not. I am assuming some things. For example, that spaceships in space glow in infrared. They are easy to detect as a result, unless shielded somehow. We have looked at a lot of nearby planets, and have not seen traces of advanced civilizations. Are you asserting that they are there but are hiding behind planetary size shields? If aliens can cruise around in space well enough to come here and leave then they should also be on nearby planets.
If we get to the asteroid belt, then if aliens have been here they will have mined out the minerals there. It will be obvious.

5] Like I asserted in my OP, in order to mine the Uranium to use it and to build the machines before you can use nuclear power, you need concentrated energy on a huge scale. No fossil fuels, no nuclear power. You are showing your ignorance. The Manhattan project used a huge amount of energy. Concrete is made with fossil fuels, no fossil fuels, no Hoover dams to make electricity. Solar cells are made with fossil fuels to heat the silicon very hot. Wood fires are not hot enough. No fossil fuels, no solar cells.

6] So, there was another secret conspiracy to keep Teslaa's great discovery from being implemented for 100 years, and no other nation like Nazi Germany used it. Any nation that turns down free energy at scale when some other nation could develop it 1st, is being stupid. In the video they explained all this. Not this exact examole, obviously, but how the general rule works.
.
#15287631
Steve_American wrote:0] Your idea of "solid evidence" differs widely from Egyptologist's, historian's, and mine.

1] Carbon is very good chemically for making compounds that make life possible. It is very common. I think, therefore, that 99.99% of life forms will be carbon based. However, you're right Silicon based life would not be the same. OTOH, CO2 has kept the world at about the right temp. I have no idea how well SiO2 could do this because it is a solid at temps where water is a liquid.

2] Well, I said that if no fossil fuels formed on a planet, then its beings would not reach space. I still think that.

3] There is no evidence for this one way or the other. So, it is impossible to scientifically say what the probabilities are of other beings following roughly the same path we did.

4] No, I'm not. I am assuming some things. For example, that spaceships in space glow in infrared. They are easy to detect as a result, unless shielded somehow. We have looked at a lot of nearby planets, and have not seen traces of advanced civilizations. Are you asserting that they are there but are hiding behind planetary size shields? If aliens can cruise around in space well enough to come here and leave then they should also be on nearby planets.
If we get to the asteroid belt, then if aliens have been here they will have mined out the minerals there. It will be obvious.

5] Like I asserted in my OP, in order to mine the Uranium to use it and to build the machines before you can use nuclear power, you need concentrated energy on a huge scale. No fossil fuels, no nuclear power. You are showing your ignorance. The Manhattan project used a huge amount of energy. Concrete is made with fossil fuels, no fossil fuels, no Hoover dams to make electricity. Solar cells are made with fossil fuels to heat the silicon very hot. Wood fires are not hot enough. No fossil fuels, no solar cells.

6] So, there was another secret conspiracy to keep Teslaa's great discovery from being implemented for 100 years, and no other nation like Nazi Germany used it. Any nation that turns down free energy at scale when some other nation could develop it 1st, is being stupid. In the video they explained all this. Not this exact examole, obviously, but how the general rule works.
.


Actually, I would claim that it is you who is ignorant by suggesting the only way a civilization can become civilised is by fossil fuel alone. I would also say that all of your points are even subjective given you won't entertain another form of energy. But even so, what do you make of this?

https://scitechdaily.com/new-chemical-r ... restrials/

We may have even detected other life, an assumption you could have already been proven wrong about in your response previously. I maintain that given the inefficientness of fossil fuels that even if planets somehow had the conditions for it to form, that it would be unlikely that it would be used as a fuel source for space exploration in any case. I also would say it is ignorance to suggest that we have a full understanding of energy or more importantly that fossil fuels are needed for their potential anyway. I can appreciate that I have a different opinion on the pyramids to Egyptologists or archaeologists. However I have read the alternative view and I have to say the argument is so much stronger. There is ZERO evidence of the pyramids being a tomb, but loads for it being a power plant. And we haven't even addressed the obvious problem the Eygptologists have that today we could not create them with the same precession they did in the past nor the even bigger issue that there has been no construction material or evidence on how they lifted mega tonne blocks into position. We can argue over this if you like, but I doubt you have done the research. So sure, you can disagree but I do believe we have already learnt more about energy potential in the past and we have lost that science. Given that, I disagree with your argument completely whether you think it is conspiracy or not.
#15287665
B0ycey wrote:Actually, I would claim that it is you who is ignorant by suggesting the only way a civilization can become civilised is by fossil fuel alone. I would also say that all of your points are even subjective given you won't entertain another form of energy. But even so, what do you make of this?

https://scitechdaily.com/new-chemical-r ... restrials/

We may have even detected other life, an assumption you could have already been proven wrong about in your response previously. I maintain that given the inefficientness of fossil fuels that even if planets somehow had the conditions for it to form, that it would be unlikely that it would be used as a fuel source for space exploration in any case. I also would say it is ignorance to suggest that we have a full understanding of energy or more importantly that fossil fuels are needed for their potential anyway. I can appreciate that I have a different opinion on the pyramids to Egyptologists or archaeologists. However I have read the alternative view and I have to say the argument is so much stronger. There is ZERO evidence of the pyramids being a tomb, but loads for it being a power plant. And we haven't even addressed the obvious problem the Eygptologists have that today we could not create them with the same precession they did in the past nor the even bigger issue that there has been no construction material or evidence on how they lifted mega tonne blocks into position. We can argue over this if you like, but I doubt you have done the research. So sure, you can disagree but I do believe we have already learnt more about energy potential in the past and we have lost that science. Given that, I disagree with your argument completely whether you think it is conspiracy or not.


Reread what I wrote. I thought I said that intelligent beings can only reach space is with fossil fuels. I also didn't say that they would use fossil fuels to reach space. That is, they could use fossil fuels to discover and build at scale some other tech.
I didn't say they need fossil fuels to be civilized.

I saw a report about the signs of life on some planet. However, signs of life is not the same as signs of a civilization that has reached space.

I read the linked article. It didn't say anything useful. There were no details, none.
.
#15287733
Steve_American wrote:Reread what I wrote. I thought I said that intelligent beings can only reach space is with fossil fuels. I also didn't say that they would use fossil fuels to reach space. That is, they could use fossil fuels to discover and build at scale some other tech.
I didn't say they need fossil fuels to be civilized.

I saw a report about the signs of life on some planet. However, signs of life is not the same as signs of a civilization that has reached space.

I read the linked article. It didn't say anything useful. There were no details, none.
.


There are other articles to read. But to be frank it would naive to think that there isn't intelligence out there that can reach space even without this story due to the vastness of space.

Nonetheless given your argument is now that fossil fuels are not needed to be a 'civilised' society or is needed to 'reach space', then what on earth is this thread about? Your whole argument was you were glad to be a 'Boomer' because society, as the fermi paradox suggests, is basically going to pollute itself to death. I would argue that no fossil fuels are needed to make 'technological advancements' actually given it was the age of steam that began the industrial revolution. But even if I am to play devil advocate and pretend that fossil fuels were needed to built machines or whatever your argument is, to suggest that ET would destroy itself before it could discover another more efficient and clean energy is still far fetched EVEN IF IT DID BEGIN ITS ADVANCEMENT WITH FOSSIL FUELS.
#15287867
B0ycey wrote:There are other articles to read. But to be frank it would naive to think that there isn't intelligence out there that can reach space even without this story due to the vastness of space.

Nonetheless given your argument is now that fossil fuels are not needed to be a 'civilised' society or is needed to 'reach space', then what on earth is this thread about? Your whole argument was you were glad to be a 'Boomer' because society, as the fermi paradox suggests, is basically going to pollute itself to death. I would argue that no fossil fuels are needed to make 'technological advancements' actually given it was the age of steam that began the industrial revolution. But even if I am to play devil advocate and pretend that fossil fuels were needed to built machines or whatever your argument is, to suggest that ET would destroy itself before it could discover another more efficient and clean energy is still far fetched EVEN IF IT DID BEGIN ITS ADVANCEMENT WITH FOSSIL FUELS.


You didn't watch the video. If you do, it will seem much less "farfetched". IIRC you can start at about the 50 min. mark.

The Fermi Paradox is that the universe is 13 B years old. Earth is 4.5 B years old. The 1st generation of stars would burn out into supernovas in less than 20 M years. So, the Sun is not a 2nd generation star. It must be a 3rd or 4th generation star.

This means that some aliens had a 1 to 4 B year head start on us. In 1 B years any alien civilization could colonize the whole galaxy. No aliens did that.

Therefore, there must be some Great Filter that keeps almost every single alien species from reaching other stars.

The filter I outlined seems like a good candidate.

If I'm right, then humans are not stupid. We blundered into the trap that many, many alien civilizations have fallen into.

However, Boomers didn't blunder into the trap. Humanity was already in the trap when the 1st Boomer was born. We had to be 40 years old before we had enough political power to be held responsible, instead of the older generations who held the political power. Yes, we didn't escape the trap, because we didn't see it soon enough to be able to turn the culture away from the inevitable end game. I tried in my small way starting in 1973. The Unabomber tried in a different way. Dr. Hannsen, et all, tried by testifying (in 1978) to Congress, etc. We all failed. The cultural imperative to "feed the addiction" we had to FF, esp. oil, was just too strong. It was easy for the oil corps (starting in 1977 when the oldest Boomers were just 31) to spread disinformation and so doubt, and they won.

I have told the younger generations what they must do now to turn humanity away from the end game. Yes, it is so radical that @Goldstud calls it politically unrealistic (or some such thing). It is rationing fossil fuel use. We'd need to start with deep cuts and each year make them deeper.
It is not possible to cut too much as long as the people don't die in mass as a result. MMT and covid has shown that the Gov. can institute a UBI program and give the poor enough money to buy a basic ration. The min. ration in America will seem very generous to a poor African.
To let the rich and super-rich get out of the way and let this happen, I propose that they have a ration of 3 times more for the rich and 4 times more for the super-rich than the basic ration. I'm proposing that the middle class get 2 times more. I suppose they'd need to buy their extra ration coupons. They could also buy more from others. [But, money would lose its value. What good is money when you need coupons to spend it on most things?]
.
.
#15287873
Steve_American wrote:You didn't watch the video. If you do, it will seem much less "farfetched". IIRC you can start at about the 50 min. mark.

The Fermi Paradox is that the universe is 13 B years old. Earth is 4.5 B years old. The 1st generation of stars would burn out into supernovas in less than 20 M years. So, the Sun is not a 2nd generation star. It must be a 3rd or 4th generation star.

This means that some aliens had a 1 to 4 B year head start on us. In 1 B years any alien civilization could colonize the whole galaxy. No aliens did that.

Therefore, there must be some Great Filter that keeps almost every single alien species from reaching other stars.

The filter I outlined seems like a good candidate.

If I'm right, then humans are not stupid. We blundered into the trap that many, many alien civilizations have fallen into.

However, Boomers didn't blunder into the trap. Humanity was already in the trap when the 1st Boomer was born. We had to be 40 years old before we had enough political power to be held responsible, instead of the older generations who held the political power. Yes, we didn't escape the trap, because we didn't see it soon enough to be able to turn the culture away from the inevitable end game. I tried in my small way starting in 1973. The Unabomber tried in a different way. Dr. Hannsen, et all, tried by testifying (in 1978) to Congress, etc. We all failed. The cultural imperative to "feed the addiction" we had to FF, esp. oil, was just too strong. It was easy for the oil corps (starting in 1977 when the oldest Boomers were just 31) to spread disinformation and so doubt, and they won.

I have told the younger generations what they must do now to turn humanity away from the end game. Yes, it is so radical that @Goldstud calls it politically unrealistic (or some such thing). It is rationing fossil fuel use. We'd need to start with deep cuts and each year make them deeper.
It is not possible to cut too much as long as the people don't die in mass as a result. MMT and covid has shown that the Gov. can institute a UBI program and give the poor enough money to buy a basic ration. The min. ration in America will seem very generous to a poor African.
To let the rich and super-rich get out of the way and let this happen, I propose that they have a ration of 3 times more for the rich and 4 times more for the super-rich than the basic ration. I'm proposing that the middle class get 2 times more. I suppose they'd need to buy their extra ration coupons. They could also buy more from others. [But, money would lose its value. What good is money when you need coupons to spend it on most things?]
.
.


Even your age of the universe is out of date my friend...

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astrop ... years-old/

Not that I accept time as linear in any case. Its just something our minds can understand. But that's a whole different thread.

Nonetheless again on fossil fuels, we have the ability - even with the lack of fully understanding of energy - to get off fossil fuels now in theory. But we are restricted by capitalism. If money wasn't a factor, we could build as many nuclear plants, wind farms, tidal plants etc as we need. The truth is capitalism restricted Tesla and his pursuit for free energy and it is also restricting many other things the world needs to go green as nations want to out compete each other. The West could do so much more to transition but it doesn't as it sees the Global South having an unfair advantage. Given that capitalism is a social construct, I highly doubt other intelligent life adopted it and that as a benefit that would speed up technological advancement also.

And finally MMT. You cannot just give out free money and not expect inflation. And what I mean from that is if you 'print money' to give the poor a ration, that ration instantly will go up in monetary value because you are putting more currency in the market, which then means you need to print more money again (and over and over again). It's the Water diamond paradox. The only way to help the poor is increase supply of the things they need and that requires global corporation.
#15287891
B0ycey wrote:Even your age of the universe is out of date my friend...

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astrop ... years-old/

Not that I accept time as linear in any case. Its just something our minds can understand. But that's a whole different thread.

Nonetheless again on fossil fuels, we have the 1] ability - even with the lack of fully understanding of energy - to get off fossil fuels now in theory. 2] But we are restricted by capitalism. If money wasn't a factor, we could build as many nuclear plants, wind farms, tidal plants etc as we need. The truth is capitalism restricted Tesla and his pursuit for free energy and it is also restricting many other things the world needs to go green as nations want to out compete each other. The West could do so much more to transition but it doesn't as it sees the Global South having an unfair advantage. Given that capitalism is a social construct, I highly doubt other intelligent life adopted it and that as a benefit that would speed up technological advancement also.

And finally MMT. 3] You cannot just give out free money and not expect inflation. And what I mean from that is if you 'print money' to give the poor a ration, that ration instantly will go up in monetary value because you are putting more currency in the market, which then means you need to print more money again (and over and over again). It's the Water diamond paradox. The only way to help the poor is increase supply of the things they need and that requires global corporation.


1] There are good sources that have studied it and they say that there are not enough minerals to go green and still keep growing the economy of the current advanced nations.
They also say that doing the same from all the global south would require a large reduction in the GDP of the advanced nations.
. . It would also mean a 12 fold increase in the mining industry that would destroy many locations' environment and pollute the oceans. Fossil fuels would provide most of the energy to do it.
. . IT IS A PIPE DREAM.

2] So, it isn't just capitalism that is stopping us. We could have done it when there were just 2 B people back around 1973 when I learned about all this.

3] We will have to disagree on inflation with MMT. You are assuming that I would not impose price controls.

Look, as long as we are assuming that I can impose a rationing system that slashes the consumption of fossil fuels, why would you think I would not also be able to impose price controls? Ot at least controls on profits. Or, impose a 99.9% tax on profits over 3%, for example.
.
#15287894
Steve_American wrote:1] There are good sources that have studied it and they say that there are not enough minerals to go green and still keep growing the economy of the current advanced nations.
They also say that doing the same from all the global south would require a large reduction in the GDP of the advanced nations.
. . It would also mean a 12 fold increase in the mining industry that would destroy many locations' environment and pollute the oceans. Fossil fuels would provide most of the energy to do it.
. . IT IS A PIPE DREAM.

2] So, it isn't just capitalism that is stopping us. We could have done it when there were just 2 B people back around 1973 when I learned about all this.

3] We will have to disagree on inflation with MMT. You are assuming that I would not impose price controls.

Look, as long as we are assuming that I can impose a rationing system that slashes the consumption of fossil fuels, why would you think I would not also be able to impose price controls? Ot at least controls on profits. Or, impose a 99.9% tax on profits over 3%, for example.
.


In one thread you say we should go green and the next you say we haven't got enough minerals to go green! :lol:

I don't know whether we have enough minerals on the planet to go green but I am going to say (assume) theoretically there will be but more investment would needed to get if from under the ground and more investment would be needed to make things more energy efficient.

Also capitalism did prevent investment in Telsas work FYI and capitalism is also preventing oil companies who have all the green patents from investing massively in green technology today. In fact if the oil was going to run out next year, I bet renewable technology would have more innovation and construction in that one year than the three decades before that. So yeah capitalism is holding it back. It is holding it back due to self interest.

Also on your argument about MMT, how would you have price controls in a world economy? Especially when your economy is a consumer based economy not an industrial one? You would be penalising US business and promoting overseas business and then sending investment and factories over seas. You could apply tariffs but tariffs in reality are paid by the consumer which then affects inflation. Don't know how you square that one.
#15287923
B0ycey wrote:1] In one thread you say we should go green and the next you say we haven't got enough minerals to go green! :lol:

2] I don't know whether we have enough minerals on the planet to go green but I am going to say (assume) theoretically there will be but more investment would needed to get if from under the ground and more investment would be needed to make things more energy efficient.

Also capitalism did prevent investment in Telsas work FYI and capitalism is also preventing oil companies who have all the green patents from investing massively in green technology today. In fact if the oil was going to run out next year, I bet renewable technology would have more innovation and construction in that one year than the three decades before that. So yeah capitalism is holding it back. It is holding it back due to self interest.

3] Also on your argument about MMT, how would you have price controls in a world economy? Especially when your economy is a consumer based economy not an industrial one? You would be penalising US business and promoting overseas business and then sending investment and factories over seas. You could apply tariffs but tariffs in reality are paid by the consumer which then affects inflation. Don't know how you square that one.


1] AFAIK, in this thread, I never said that we ought to go green. My point is that we are not going to act soon or decisively enough to save civilization. You must be thinking of some other thread.

2] I said that the study said that we (humanity as a whole) would have to mine 12 times more tons of minerals than we are mining now. They would also be different minerals. You ignored that. I said that we would b using energy from fossil fuels to increase it 12 fold. This is on top of the FF we already use for everything. Conservatives like to call for a balanced budget, i.e., cut here to increase over there. I doubt that we can cut enough here to increase FF use as we extract 12 times more minerals, even if we could find them.

3] You bring up a good point about world trade. I have no answer.

OYOH, that is my point in this thread. There is no answer. Any answer that might work is going to be totally unethical, IMHO with my Christian values.
.
#15287935
Steve_American wrote:1] AFAIK, in this thread, I never said that we ought to go green. My point is that we are not going to act soon or decisively enough to save civilization. You must be thinking of some other thread.

2] I said that the study said that we (humanity as a whole) would have to mine 12 times more tons of minerals than we are mining now. They would also be different minerals. You ignored that. I said that we would b using energy from fossil fuels to increase it 12 fold. This is on top of the FF we already use for everything. Conservatives like to call for a balanced budget, i.e., cut here to increase over there. I doubt that we can cut enough here to increase FF use as we extract 12 times more minerals, even if we could find them.

3] You bring up a good point about world trade. I have no answer.

OYOH, that is my point in this thread. There is no answer. Any answer that might work is going to be totally unethical, IMHO with my Christian values.
.


FYI, it was the other thread you said we should go green. You wanted us to work together with China on this remember. This one you say we don't have the minerals to do so. Or that we need to use more fossil fuels by 12 fold to do which is counter productive. Either way, it is a contradiction.

But in any case our discussion seems to be based on one thing, you think we need fossil fuels to reach space even if its indirectly and I am saying that if a civilization doesn't have access to fossil fuels they could have taken a different technological route due to other potential energy harnessing methods so still been able to. We have both made our case, I think your argument is weak, but whatever. Nonetheless until ET comes down and explains the best path, everything either of us write is going to be an assumption at best wouldn't you say.
#15287980
B0ycey wrote:FYI, it was the other thread you said we should go green. You wanted us to work together with China on this remember. This one you say we don't have the minerals to do so. Or that we need to use more fossil fuels by 12 fold to do which is counter productive. Either way, it is a contradiction.

But in any case our discussion seems to be based on one thing, you think we need fossil fuels to reach space even if its indirectly and I am saying that if a civilization doesn't have access to fossil fuels they could have taken a different technological route due to other potential energy harnessing methods so still been able to. We have both made our case, I think your argument is weak, but whatever. Nonetheless until ET comes down and explains the best path, everything either of us write is going to be an assumption at best wouldn't you say.


OK, yes, I can agree that I'm making some assumptions. The conclusion matches the data point that we can't detect any advanced civilizations on nearby planets or in space near our planet.

OTOH. you assume that the Ancient Egyptians had a way to make, convert, or gather large amounts of energy using piles of rocks.

In any case, 3% growth in energy use will stop someday. It might as well be now.
It will stop because civilization is a heat engine and all the energy eventually becomes waste heat that heats the air. Even the energy to make iron ore into steel will become heat when the steel rusts.
I recently saw a report that a study calculated that in about 400 years the earth would be so hot the oceans would be boiling. This is if we use fusion reactors, your magic rock pile method, or any method. of "generating" energy or converting mass into energy.

This is the result of exponential growth. It must always stop. This is usually because the earth is finite, even if we mine the asteroids, the solar system is still finite. Even the creation of new songs can't keep growing, because we can't keep track of if they are new and would have so many trillions that we would not be able to create the required billions more every year.


Edit to add this.
Wherever I have called for rationing and green energy, I am not assuming we will still use as much as we do now. I'm calling for a slashing of energy use to 1/2 to 1/4 of what we use now in the advanced nations. And very slow or no growth by them. The global south can grow until they reach us.
We might as well stop now, before all the birds and wild mammals are extinct.

Also, I really doubt that either I'm wrong about the threat or that we will act soon enough to save civilization. After 30 years of IPCC reports and Govs. promising to reduce emissions, the curve of GHGs in the air shows concentrations increasing faster now than 30 years ago. So, basically nothing useful has been done.
#15288004
Steve_American wrote:OK, yes, I can agree that I'm making some assumptions. The conclusion matches the data point that we can't detect any advanced civilizations on nearby planets or in space near our planet.

OTOH. you assume that the Ancient Egyptians had a way to make, convert, or gather large amounts of energy using piles of rocks.


I do because it is clear it was a power plant. It isn't an assumption without evidence.

In any case, 3% growth in energy use will stop someday. It might as well be now.
It will stop because civilization is a heat engine and all the energy eventually becomes waste heat that heats the air. Even the energy to make iron ore into steel will become heat when the steel rusts.
I recently saw a report that a study calculated that in about 400 years the earth would be so hot the oceans would be boiling. This is if we use fusion reactors, your magic rock pile method, or any method. of "generating" energy or converting mass into energy.


Yes yes, and covid was going to kill billions and the world was going to end in 2023 as Greta says. I am not a climate denier but I do not trust models that predict things. Those models always turn out to be wrong. Not to mention we had significantly more CO2 in the air in earth's past and guess what? Oceans still here.

This is the result of exponential growth. It must always stop. This is usually because the earth is finite, even if we mine the asteroids, the solar system is still finite. Even the creation of new songs can't keep growing, because we can't keep track of if they are new and would have so many trillions that we would not be able to create the required billions more every year.


It is indeed true all energy is finite however there are many ways to capture energy. It most definitely doesn't need to just come from earths crust. There is an idea called a Dyson sphere, hypothetical I know but gives you an impression on how you can get a lot of energy without doing anything that is unnatural. I guess what I am saying is as long as stars shine, the wind blows and the waves move, there is energy even on a finite planet.

Edit to add this.
Wherever I have called for rationing and green energy, I am not assuming we will still use as much as we do now. I'm calling for a slashing of energy use to 1/2 to 1/4 of what we use now in the advanced nations. And very slow or no growth by them. The global south can grow until they reach us.
We might as well stop now, before all the birds and wild mammals are extinct.

Also, I really doubt that either I'm wrong about the threat or that we will act soon enough to save civilization. After 30 years of IPCC reports and Govs. promising to reduce emissions, the curve of GHGs in the air shows concentrations increasing faster now than 30 years ago. So, basically nothing useful has been done.


Even if what you write is true, isn't my argument that it is unlikely intelligent civilised societies used fossil fuels as they may not have them? I can appreciate the earth is all you know, but we know fossil fuels are not efficient for energy compared to other ways we know anyway such as nuclear. Let alone the ways we don't. It is arrogant to suggest humans have an full understanding of energy.
#15288017
B0ycey wrote:1] I do because it is clear it was a power plant. It isn't an assumption without evidence.


2] Yes yes, and covid was going to kill billions and the world was going to end in 2023 as Greta says. I am not a climate denier but I do not trust models that predict things. Those models always turn out to be wrong. Not to mention we had significantly more CO2 in the air in earth's past and guess what? Oceans still here.


3] It is indeed true all energy is finite however there are many ways to capture energy. It most definitely doesn't need to just come from earths crust. There is an idea called a Dyson sphere, hypothetical I know but gives you an impression on how you can get a lot of energy without doing anything that is unnatural. I guess what I am saying is as long as stars shine, the wind blows and the waves move, there is energy even on a finite planet.


4] Even if what you write is true, isn't my argument that it is unlikely intelligent civilized societies used fossil fuels as they may not have them? I can appreciate the earth is all you know, but we know fossil fuels are not efficient for energy compared to other ways we know anyway such as nuclear. Let alone the ways we don't. It is arrogant to suggest humans have a full understanding of energy.


1] The Egyptian pyramids are just piles of big rocks. It is impossible for me to accept without any evidence that they could be used as a source of energy on a large scale.
Privide a link and I'll scan it.

2] You failed to make clear what model you didn't believe could make an accurate prediction.
I'm going to assume it is the one that in about 400 years, assuming exponential growth in energy use of about 3%/year. This is not a model. It is a simple calculation. Like I said, all energy use ends up as waste heat, right? This is a proven well known fact.
We know how much we use now, we assumed 3%/yr growth, so we can easily calculate how much we will be using after 400 years. So, 3% growth is a doubling time of 72/3 = 24 or 25 years. 400/25 =16 doublings. So, that means in 400 years our energy use will equal 2 to the 16th power. This is 65,536 times more than we are using now.
From goggle, "The “power” of a number indicates how many times the base would be multiplied by itself to reach the correct value. Therefore, 2 to the power of 16 is 65536."

Why in the world would you not believe that this is enough waste heat to start to boil the oceans?
Of course, it is not a prediction. Who knows what crazy tech may be discovered by then.
OTOH, energy is pretty well understood. I'd bet my life that we will not discover a way to avoid waste heat being a problem in that scenario.

What can I say to a claim that CO2 levels were higher in the deep past and the oceans did not boil? Sir, are you math challenged?
OK, I'll explain. I'll be very generous and assume the CO2 levels in the past generated energy flows 10 times more than we see on earth now. However, compared to a 65,536 times larger energy flow, they seem very small.

3] Of course, there will be energy as long as the sun shines. You are showing how terrible you are at picking out the key point. Here the key point is not in energy will arrive from the sun. The key point is about continuous growth in energy use. The key point is GROWTH.

4] First, 'efficient' is not the right word. I think you mean 'concentrated'.
2nd, nuclear fission or fusion are the only known sources of energy that are more concentrated than fossil fuels.
. . There are other chemical reactions that are more concentrated, but they are not a source of energy. They are a form of energy. It is like electricity is not a source of energy, it is a form of energy. Lightening is a source of energy, it's just not very useful.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 22 Sep 2023 16:43, edited 1 time in total.

If the Gaza government wasn't intent on attacking[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So it seems the Ukrainians have retaken full cont[…]

Death by famine, in Gaza

"These children are not suffering from drough[…]

Unless the court decides something that the Lef[…]