Electrical generation has to be sized to handle peak demand. The best use of the generation plants would be at some constant level. It is more efficient than having production idle at low demand times. Structured pricing will tend to level out demand.
I don’t care if Musk gets subsidies or is BFF with environazis. He is doing more to advance space exploration than NASA or anyone else. A “New Frontier” might well be the only thing to save civilization.
Oh wait. Do you believe that man is “destroying the earth” and the only solution is to colonize Mars or a planet around some distant star?
Mars is cold, there’s no life there, no food, almost no water and doesn’t have enough gravity for healthy human life. And it’s the best alternate option. Is earth really that bad by comparison?
If we do find an earth-like planet light-years away, it would cost all of earth’s GDP to make an inter-generational ship to go there, with no guarantee that anyone would survive. Is it worth the gamble?
Liberals’ heads are really really screwed up, not the earth. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It’s needed for the beautiful cycle of life. More CO2 means more plant life, which is more food. Coal, oil and gas are fuel gifts from God, as is the sunshine.
I enjoy space-colonization novels too. But they’re just opera. Enjoy them and enjoy the sunshine.
I am not talking about any climate change nonsense “destroying the earth”. I am talking about cultural and political “pollution” destroying liberty and civilization. Many will say “fix the problems on Earth first” but the best attitude is to get moving before a new Dark Ages makes it impossible. If not now, when? There is also the looming possibilities of extinction level events: super-plagues, asteroids etc.
I’ll not go into details here but there are realistic terraforming plans to address the issues you’ve raised. “The Case for Mars” by Zurbin is a good place to start and “Mars, a Wetter, Warmer Planet” by Kargel thoroughly explores the scientific details of the climate and atmosphere. Permanent settlements are possible today but a really habitable self-sustaining planet will take much, much longer.
Oh! Interesting. I haven’t heard that take before. But I don’t think it will work.
In the 1700’s and 1800’s, Europeans seeking freedom from oppressive governments bought a ticket to the New York, and kept going until they found a spot of land that wasn’t polluted with government control and settled there. That seems to be the romantic model of fleeing persecution. But space is different.
No one is going to build a private interstellar space ship. It will have to be done with government funds under government control. And not just a small program, but a monumental program, probably requiring multiple countries’ governments. Maybe a few billionaires will be able to buy a ticket, but most seats will be filled by people picked by governments and given roles to fill by those governments. Politicians will require maximum glory for themselves for their votes.
But it’s politicians that do the oppressing, so how will any oppressed peoples make it onto the space ship?
There’s another issue too. Many people believe that the universe must be teaming with planets on which life has evolved just like (so the thinking goes) on Earth. They assume that eventually, one of those fancy telescopes that our taxes are paying for will find an earth-sized planet with greenery.
But I’m pretty sure we will never find life anywhere off of earth. Abiogenesis is a myth. Evolution works a little bit on the fringes, but no new protein was ever produced by evolution. No, life was clearly designed and created. Sure, God could choose to create life all over the place. Why wouldn’t he? Because If we find life anywhere else, it will confuse atheists into thinking life evolved. Instead of glorifying God, it will confuse and distract.
So wherever that interstellar ship lands, there won’t be any plants to eat or deerskins to be harvested. Everything will have to be brought with them. And there will be no guarantee that they can get a crop to grow before they starve.
It makes great novels. I loved Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy and numerous others. But they’re just for fun.
Who’s talking interstellar? Interstellar versus inter planetary is like Project Apollo versus Viking longboats.
Quite a different animal from interplanetary which, factually, is possible for non-governmental exploration and exploitation. It isn’t going to begin with buying a ticket and then 40 acres and a mule to escape the Czar. Common folks won’t be going for a while and the first ones will be going for jobs, predominantly in construction and mining. Eventually cities, permanent residents and natural born Martians. Any sort of independence movement will come well after the planet is effectively self sufficient.
This is not a quick fix to escape terrestrial tyranny. The Pilgrims came after more than a century of exploration of the New World.
I will be the first to admit that I do not know the origin of life. Neither does anyone else. Many believe one way or another but that is different from knowing. The time and space measures of the universe are incomprehensibly large. I would be careful using words like never or impossible. As one famous mathematician once said “complete disorder is impossible”.
How sweet that you don’t want to confuse the atheists (I am not one of them). In point of fact there will be as many confused religious people. I have never understood how the truth of falsity of abiogenesis has any bearing on the existence of a supreme being. I’m not knocking The Bible but it ain’t a science book and was never intended to be one.
Well it doesn’t in reality, but the foundational fundamental belief of all atheists is that there is no God. But since there clearly is life, then it had to have come about somehow, so to be an atheist, you must believe in abiogenesis, even though there’s no evidence and no plausible theory for it.
Amen. My point didn’t depend on any Biblical science credentials, but on the nature of God.
I think I need to point out; having an issue with abiogensis, is not a denial that life can change overtime.
These are not the same issue. And in your case, considering we’ve observed Epigenetics change the genome overtime, and can create new organs & structures animals didn’t have before, you can’t look past this.
With this system in organisms, not only can they change, they are in fact meant to when put under consistent stress. Just like you have other reactive systems in your body (like sympathetic and parasympathetic stimulation) that change your chemical makeup, and will even change you physiologically if activated for long enough periods.
At some point, you have to ask yourself if you’re thinking is paralleling that of the Muslims, insisting birds are all being uplifted by the hand of God, instead of Bernoulli’s principle.
Ergo, if you’re viewpoint is just a microcosmic expression of Occasionalism.
Again, we only had about 6-8 proteins to start with, and yet have 20 today. That change allowed life to become more complicated, and more specialized.
I still haven’t started studying epigenetics, though eventually I will. But any natural process that supposedly came up with a new protein (not just a tweaking) is hokum. And a new organ would almost definitely need new proteins.
It was the Lord God which created Bernoulli’s principle, why would I reject it? Science is the study of what God has created.
You mean amino acids, not proteins. Still, you state that like it’s a fact when it’s just a theory with no evidence.
Well you finally said something I agree with. But believing that abiogenesis is necessary since you don’t believe in God is different from inferring God’s nonexistence in the event that you can demonstrate abiogenesis.
Similarly, atheists must believe in Strong AI that is self-aware. Personally, I think Strong AI is less tenable than abiogenesis. I doubt either one will be settled in my lifetime.
Evidence suggests otherwise; not only could the natural conditions of prehistoric Earth produce it, it could also produce alternatives, like peptides making PNA.
Then God also created Epigenetics, and denying its function, doesn’t follow.
Ah, my error; but this is observed:
And if we apply implications of this; there’s nothing stopping a species from becoming something radically different, as their environment and diet changes.
As it’s not just one change, it’s consistent changes piled on top of each other. Meaning by the 10th order change, you likely have an animal that’s radically different than the one you started with. Nothing prevents this.
I know; ion propulsion has been examined because (with solar power to eject the ions) it gives a lot of total impulse for the amount of reaction mass. But reaction mass propulsion is always going to be limited. Indeed, the concept of ion propulsion has been known about for probably the better part of a century; and yet it’s go nowhere of any real practicality (the Soviets did an ion-powered Halley’s comet probe, but it was more novelty than practicality); and at that, it still can’t even begin to approach relativistic speeds. The fastest unmanned probes (which are the fastest objects made by man) were all chemical-combustion propelled, and their speed is on the order of .0001 times the speed of light. And that’s before you factor in the mass necessary for a man-carrying starship, the unknowns about survival aboard a starship, the impact dangers in unmapped space even at _non-_relativistic velocities, and the fact that you have to have enough fuel to slow that booger down when you get to your destination.
People like to say: “But look how far we’ve come just since the industrial revolution!” Yeah, but as the complexity of the technology grows, so does the cost, and the speed of development radically slows. That’s in part why the F-15 Eagle is still the mainstay of the Air Force (Obama cancelling future orders of the F-22 is the rest). We don’t even have a proven concept for relativistic-speed space drive, and FTL is nothing but speculation.
Combine something like this, with a LEO or moon-based laser, and you have it.
So of course, you don’t reject Epigenetics, since it’s an observed phenomenon, just like Bernoulli’s principle.
And one that was discovered, not theorized, for the purposes of trying to understand how disease moves through family history.