Creative Evolution - So.. What Comes Next.. ?

Post Reply New Topic

I couldn't agree more.

What the world seems to lack.. in general.. is REAL leadership..

We are sailing along in a boat without a captain.. and heading straight for the rocks.

Population is increasing far too rapidly.. while food is become more scarcer..

Climate change will affect our food supply.. as crops rot in the fields because of too much rain.. or wilt because we don't have enough water.. in the dry spells.

Bees are already dying mysteriously.. which will affect our food supply further..

Not to mention we are over-fishing.. with boats that often damage life on the ocean floor.

When the perma frost melts.. which has already begun.. it will release methan into the atmostphere.. that will accelerate global warming even faster.

People either don't seem to realise the danger we're in.. or they are ignoring it.

It's like standing on a railway track.. when a train is coming.

We're all doomed.. unless some comes up with a brillient idea.. to save our planet.

I hope so.. but somehow I doubt it.

Anyway back to the topic..

Even if it does turn out to be only a pleasant fantasy..

That we - actually - still have a future.

--------

"Civilization in its present form has not got long. Climatologists are all agreed that we'd be lucky to see the end of this century without the world being a totally different place, and being 8 or 9 degrees hotter on average."

"All the modelling we do shows that the climate is poised on the jump up to a new hot state. It is accelerating so fast that you could say that we are already in it."

"A billion could live off the earth; 6 billion living as we do is far too many, and you run out of planet in no time."

James Lovelock
-

as far as coming up with brilliant ideas to save the planet goes- thats not that hard.
-----------
ENERGY

1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.

6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.

7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.

8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.

9. The pros of oil are that ;

a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.

10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.

11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.

12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.

13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.

14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.

15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.

16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.

17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where
geothermal power would be too expensive.

18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.

19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats

20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.

21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.

22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.


23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.
_________________
The opposite of bravery is not cowardice but conformity.

I would post links to my site for more information, and to all sorts of information about geothermal power-

but this site has it DOUBLE LAME rule that i have to be here for five days before i can post a link.

What comes next.. ?
----------
What comes next is simply new levels of organization of the current components- namely us. Evolution is still at play,
and when we finally realize it, we can form socially a new meta organism which will make us as individuals look comparatively like single cells.
-----------

Has evolution ground to a halt.. ?
-------------
Absolutely not, in fact theres evidence to suggest that IQ goes up a standard deviation every 20 -30 years.
-----------

Or could something else evolve.. out of us.. ?
-------------
that IS happening, we are evolving into different kinds of social units.
-------

If so.. what form would it take.. ?
-----------
Consciousness of the non local and probably telepathic sort, creating a macro organism where any given human is just a single cell in that organism.
we are perched at the cusp of this. All it takes is for us to awaken to untapped human potentials, such as the non locality of consciousness and the simple fact that we are already all of us telepathic- but that this is subliminal currently.

If we were to awaken and make telepathy conscious rather than subliminal, a new organism would be born between all of us. It is already true that the main nodes in the collective unconscious are parasites which feed by gaining collective human attention.

This may seem outlandish to some, so lets look at a half step. currently our society IS a meta organism- operating with a collective IQ LESS than the IQ of any one individual.

This is true because repugnicon propaganda and corporatism likes us stupid and dumbed down, and because the fight to keep us stupid and dumbed down wastes and dissipates all potential social intelligence.

All that would be required to change this is for people to wake up from the zombie sleep, focus on real world problem solving process, and collaboration instead of competition, and a new meta organism would be born which would bring mass intelligence into phase and which would have an IQ which would be some fractional multiple of the IQ of the participants. That may not sound so smart until you realize that a 100 IQ multiplied by 1 millionth of six billion is still
six hundred million.

Last edited by prometheuspann on 28 Aug 2008, 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

So, do you really believe any of that?

So, do you really believe any of that?


why would i post it if i didn't believe it?

More importantly, why would i post it if i didn't think i could rationally defend it?

I haven't a clue. It could be a parody of something. Sounds a lot like Starship Troopers...

... which only happens if you are not very good at sums.

hmm. yes. add two zeros.

... assuming you were a stick-in-the mud Englishman, and insisted that a billion is the square of a million, and you were not talking in "modern usage" (spit, spit) where 6.6e9 was the population of the world last year.

no doubt. sloppy silly me.

Interesting site.. I just checked it out.

I'll post a link for you...

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/index.php

Maybe I'll drop by and discuss my Primary Field Theory with you.. it's still a long way from being finished.. it is still in many parts.. that need to be connected together. I'm not such a good writer.. no real schooling to speak of.. just read a lot of books.

http://www.apocatastasis.net/God/Primar ... heory.html

I could do with some help on the physics.. and how best to get it across to people.. in a way that is easy to understand.

I've been reading though a lot of your writings..

Not that I can understand everything you are saying.. some of it is a bit over my head.

Nevertheless.. you come across as being on the same wave-length..

Walking that thin line between madness and genius..

-----

“It is the nature of man to include
genius with insanity.”

Willliam Blake


I really do intend to get back to some of the other responses on this thread too..

But first I need some rest and food.

-

Last edited by Accelerator on 28 Aug 2008, 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That sounds awesome. Theres 4 different forums on quantum mechanics and one for plain old physics.
(the admin hostess started it all with "quantum thought." So I made sure to leave plenty of room when I inflated the boards design for my own purposes.)

I am also in need of sleep..

nite nite...



-----------
quick edit. Just checked your link.
I'm thinking, you and i are definitely on the same wavelength here...
will definitely come look it over closer and hope you post it all over at my place for the rest of the folks,...

I'm still working on getting my theory onto my site.. it's still a mess right now because I am having difficulty figuring out how to write every thing down.. my head is exploding with ideas.. but I'm struggling to explain them.

The reason I'm posting in forums is to learn how to write better.. and to discover the best way to get my ideas across.

If you are interested.. I could link your forum to every page on my site.. about 500 pages so far.. and many more to come in the future.

I did have a message board.. but just couldn't find the energy to keep up with it.. I get periods of depression when I don't do anything. I suspect I may have a manic depressive form of autism.. I have read that there is such a condition.

Anyway.. I get an average of 80 hits a day.. which is an average of 2'400 hits per month.. so having your forum linked would be good for both of us.. I guess.

Let me know how you feel.

Sorry.. really tired now too.

-------

“The universe on a very basic level could be a vast web of particles which remain in contact with one another over distance, and in no time.”

R. Nadeau and M. Kafatos
-

Well, it sounds like you and i could really explore this stuff together. If you are having trouble organizing your thoughts and ideas, maybe you need a collaborator to help you expand on them and organize them.

All 500 pages at once might not be the best idea, but a good 20 threads or so to start, so that we could discuss your ideas
would be great.

I'd love to host such a discussion, its right up my alley. If you wanted to offer a link on your site to mine for those who wished to discuss the ideas, that would be great 2.

Eventually yes, I think that theres room for all 500 pages of material over there. Depending on how it relates internally to itself, you might try a good 10 or 20 threads with 3-5 posts per.

Alternately, I suppose I could peruse and snag stuff for discussion- tho i would prefer you do it since its your ideas and since
you could pick better than i where to start.

My site is interested in applications of such ideas, and this is pretty out there stuff,
so I'd be driving at bringing it home to those applications.

Something which My site offers which this site clearly doesn't is that I demand a pretty grown up perspective over there.
Mockery and trolling and such will just be moved to forums for that, so the conversations will be kept pure.

All in all, I'm an information service, and you have some interesting information and it sounds like you need my services.

I can be very good at organizing things and at fleshing ideas out, between us i'll bet we could pull together a book form at twice the current number of pages.

When the Wiki goes up, all 500 pages could go over as soon as you can get them over there, tho we would want to talk about how to title and organize the articles.

This would mean that your ideas would then become the basis for a continued and continuing collaborative exploration.

Thank you.. I would appreciate that. I have already posted something i wrote this evening.. so any time you are ready.

I don’t have anywhere for visitors to my site to go and comment.. or discuss my ideas.. at present… I did try to start a forum.. but my mind is too chaotic to manage it.

Of course.. I would like to hear any feed-back from them..

From your point of view it should increase your traffic.

BTW.. I meant I have 500 web-pages (a vast wealth of topics) on which I can place a link to your forum..

Seeing as I can’t manage to run a forum myself.. I could redirect my visitors to yours and discuss with them in your forum.. If you are agreed.

I have no doubts at all that a primary field exists because I have already come across a lot of evidence to support it. The evidence is one of the things I would like to get organized so I can present it logically.. and because there is evidence.. I call it a theory.

For me.. it is self-evident.. in the form of consciousness.. this is the most obvious evidence.. right under our noses.

The beauty of the idea is its simplicity.. although trying to explain what I mean is complicated.. and that's where I get my head tied in knots.. and I’m not good at finishing things off. I have it written down.. a bit here a bit there.. all over the place.. apart from some of the things I’m still stuck on.

It is simple insomuch as it links many existing ideas together.. not only science and philosophy.. but also religion.. especially Buddhism.. Not to mention the mystics also refer to it poetically.

But as far as I know.. no one has explained it in terms of physics yet.

----------

"Today there is a wide measure of agreement that the stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."

Sir James Jeans

-

If anyone wishes to discuss a Primary Field Theory..

I have written something new on it today..

And posted it here..

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewto ... =53&t=1051

_

I am loving our communication and am very excited to have you post all sorts of stuff over there.
I feel like we are really very close and this is very exciting to me because with most people its often very hard.
After your post today over there, i feel pretty confident that we will mesh very nicely and have a great dynamic together.
I do so hop you feel the same after you read what i wrote.




I agree, i find that it must exist via deductive reasoning.



Well, I find that your approach should be a lot easier for most other people to digest. My approach is probably information
overload for most people. The net effect is incidentally like you write the intro and i provide a new level of details.
Such a chemistry could be really effective.



"Bohm" +, have you heard of the "holographic principle" and the "holographic universe"? theres some ideas out there
but you have to fish outside of mainstream physics ideas.

It just so happens i have the time and energy to do that kind of fishing-

Thanks again, this is really wonderfully exciting and envigorating!!