An inability to think strategically is unbecoming. More nukes decades earlier would have raised the issue of fissile material decades earlier which would have led to increased research on finding sources of said fuel... decades earlier.
And you base this speculation on what evidence exactly? A lot of technological developments happen as a result of innovation and research in other fields. Moreover, this will help us now.... how exactly? You know, rather than you being able to cast blame on someone.
Jetliners do not fly on electricity. Sunlight does not self-assemble into plastic.
And uranium does not magically precipitate out of sea water.
The worlds population cannot afford to toss out their existing cars and buy all-new expensive electric cars.
Of course not. We need to transition to those over the course of a decade or so. Provide tax incentives to buy them, raise minimum fuel efficiency standards new internal combustion engine cars etc.
Do you think i believe in magic or something?
Once again, you need to learn to think in more than one dimension. *Any* hydrocarbon can be used in the TDP process. The first plant used blood and bits of turkeys for Bogs sake. This means virtually any plant or animal product will work. Pond scum to weeds. Instead of plants that are hard to grow and/or only produce little seeds that we'd squeeze oil out of, plants that we now see as useless, fast-growing *pests* will work just fine. Send former supertankers out into the Gulf to scoop up algae blooms. Lawn clippings. Old houses. Dead bodies, human and otherwise. Genetically engineered fast-growing versions of bamboo. Whatever can scrape carbon out of the air will work just fine for this.
And you failed basic thermodynamics. No matter what route you take with it, how fast the plants grow. You will need to burn more plants with each subsequent cycle of this than you did before.
We have the amount of petroleum we do because nature has been pressure-cooking (essentially) dead plant matter for hundreds of millions of years. We now consume 23.4 trillion grams (weighed for ease of comparison) of it per day just to run our vehicles.
The primary productivity (added biomass per year) of the the amazonian rainforest that still exists is about 12.5 billion grams per YEAR.
Wind and solar power (barring space based) are nice, but are certainly incapable of providing a growing worlds needs.
No. Which is why I never said they should be the sole sources now did I numbnuts?
Because it's defeatist and leads to decay. Grow or die. Efficiency is good for cost-savings and starships, but it's a bad way to run a society.
Where did I say economies needed to stop growing? We need to reduce consumption of natural resources, not stop economic growth. For example, GM crops are awesome. We can use less water and nitrogen rich fertilizer if we adopt them.
That having been said, there is this thing called a carrying capacity in biology. It is the point when resources can no longer sustain further growth. We are quickly reaching ours. Just because a population stops growing (and this can analogized to an economy as well) does not mean that it is going to collapse. It means it asymptotes toward a limit. I fail to see, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate, why a condition like this is necessarily bad.
Your sad little insults might pack a bit more of a sting if you learned how to use a "comma."
I have an odd writing style when I am not being formal (IE. writing protocols for experiments, grants that sort of thing). It does not give you free reign on this forum to ignore the argument laid out in said strange writing style. That is a subset of the ad hominem fallacy known as the style over substance fallacy. Now, that is not the same as insulting someone. Ad hominem attacks are an insult in place of rather than in addition to an argument.
Which makes you a prime target, it would seem.
Not when I am the one who actually responds logically to arguments.
)
