Its my opinion that the stated impact of Artificial intelligence and Fusion Energy by futurist is too optimistic. Even if these technologies can be invented (and there is a serious argument that they will never be) they very well may not be as efficient as the alternatives. Will Fusion plants be more cost effective than renewable energy over the course of decades? Even if a super computer could match a human brain in performance, will it ever require less energy to function?
Even by prior experiments that have successfully produced fusion energy have already demonstrated that the energy production of a nuclear fusion process yields over hundreds of times of energy in output measured in joules vs other renewables and fossil fields. Even nuclear fusion out produces its successful counterpart, nuclear fission. Nuclear power already can yield higher energy outputs that it can justify the costs. The only major technical issue with fusion is sustaining the reaction and there are global projects of nuclear fusion reactors attempting to tackle the continuous atomic collision problem to sustain the fusion reaction. The major problem point of most renewables that get overtly advertised in the markets is their backend costs heavily relies on fossil fuels as a process of extracting minerals and metals, creating explosives for mining, global transportation networks, logistics. Even more shocking is the mining operations for the renewables sector require land grazing which means that mass amounts of land pollution get generated to produce things such as batteries not to mention that arsenic and other toxic substances are byproducts of getting those renewables of the land that harm residents as well as animals nearby. Not to mention shortage of rare earth metals are a major problem that renewables are unable to address and renewables (particularly solar) require large consumption of those metals which begs the question of where are we going to get those metals if their is a shortage of them in the planet? Asteroids have abundance of those metals but energy production is needed to invest to go to space and modern renewables fail to address producing large units of energy output from any chemical exothermal reaction and even nuclear fission outperforms all those alternatives in terms of pollution reduction and energy output. Only issue with nuclear fission is the storage costs for long term maintainability and infrastructural scalability.
The quality of US migrants overall is poor - see PIAAC studies on it. The innovation rate of hispanics and afro-americans in the US is near zero. Hispanics are set to become the largest group in the US population. Taking into account immigration changes to the US and the lowering of the quality of its human capital as a result of it its GDP should be around 25 % lower than currently estimated by the end of the century. Something the usual commercial estimates do not take into account. The political risk for a majority-minority country undergoing partial third-worldisation and demographic transition away from whites is also high, as the rise of Trumpism and the 2020 race riots have shown. China will be certainly more stable than the US. The US won't be a Brazil, Mexico or South Africa but it will be a declining country, certainly not with bigger economy than China. Things have changed. This isn't the US that beated the Soviet Union. It is another country.
As someone who is half Hispanic you are absolutely correct in your assessment. The average IQ of the USA will drop and consequently with a lower quality of human capital the productive output of the country will deteriorate.
China more stable than the USA? China can’t compete with the USA geography, we have two ocean moats and two economic partners north and south. China is surrounded, and historically has been invaded and torn itself apart internally many times. The USA has the ability to fight among itself, repair and innovate. Historically speaking, the USA has done more in 250 years than Chinese civilization has done in thousands of years.
@@murray6280 Guys, Europe was surrounded too, but when everybody else had it bad, they took over the world. Which does not mean that China will take over the world, but it is an example that is worth mentioning. How will increasingly hispanic US compete, i don't know. The number of hispanic inventions in the US is near zero. That tells you all you need to know. Most importantly, Russia and China are in it together, so China's back and natural resources are secured. The northern sea route Asia - Europe is melting. China is currently securing Eurasia, Iran will join SCO, and it is Germany's biggest trading partner. Germany is not interested in any trade war with China. Ergo, game over.
@@murray6280 On Russia, i have also seen studies where they (Russia) gain from global warming, so you can have a look at them. The melting of the northern sea route is also a significant geopolitical event that benefits that country, and Eurasia in general. On the issue of demographics, some in Asia have good demographics, some bad. The total asian population by 2100 is expected to be similar in numbers to today. The Asian share in the global economy is estimated to reach peak by 2050 and to stay there, without much decrease or increase further. What is countering the demographic issues in Eurasia, or in that matter, in all poorer countries, is the catch up economic effect - that is - poorer countries generally grow faster than richer countries. Richer countries, meanwhile, run in to the wall of diminishing returns. The richer you are, the lower the growth, in general. Incidentally, i also think that the US (and China after 2050) with decline, but overall Asia will not decline, as per most estimates i have seen. They benefit from having many fast growing economies and large markets together, pumping each other and becoming the world's biggest economic cluster, estimated to account for 53 % of the global economy by 2050. During the last several thousand years, Asia was always the world largest economy, with the exception of the last 200 years. Looking from a long term perspective, it is quite logical for Asia to be the center of economic activity on the planet. It will not be a Chinese dominated world, but certainly Asia centric and multipolar world.
@@murray6280 Yes, write at Karlin sometimes. Stratfor are very good for geographic effects. On Russia i can say that they see a threat from the West, an ideological threat - liberalism and identity politics, which could implode the country if implemented there, so they are moving away towards Eurasia. They will not go back to the West, they want to stay away from it just like people stay away from diseased persons.
Mike Green.... one of the great thinkers in the United States today.
Agreed!
What a great interview, thanks to both of you.
Great question...what sources do you use?????
Great show
Subscribed!
Hardly any of this was actually addressing the title of the video.
Its my opinion that the stated impact of Artificial intelligence and Fusion Energy by futurist is too optimistic. Even if these technologies can be invented (and there is a serious argument that they will never be) they very well may not be as efficient as the alternatives. Will Fusion plants be more cost effective than renewable energy over the course of decades? Even if a super computer could match a human brain in performance, will it ever require less energy to function?
Even by prior experiments that have successfully produced fusion energy have already demonstrated that the energy production of a nuclear fusion process yields over hundreds of times of energy in output measured in joules vs other renewables and fossil fields. Even nuclear fusion out produces its successful counterpart, nuclear fission.
Nuclear power already can yield higher energy outputs that it can justify the costs. The only major technical issue with fusion is sustaining the reaction and there are global projects of nuclear fusion reactors attempting to tackle the continuous atomic collision problem to sustain the fusion reaction.
The major problem point of most renewables that get overtly advertised in the markets is their backend costs heavily relies on fossil fuels as a process of extracting minerals and metals, creating explosives for mining, global transportation networks, logistics. Even more shocking is the mining operations for the renewables sector require land grazing which means that mass amounts of land pollution get generated to produce things such as batteries not to mention that arsenic and other toxic substances are byproducts of getting those renewables of the land that harm residents as well as animals nearby. Not to mention shortage of rare earth metals are a major problem that renewables are unable to address and renewables (particularly solar) require large consumption of those metals which begs the question of where are we going to get those metals if their is a shortage of them in the planet?
Asteroids have abundance of those metals but energy production is needed to invest to go to space and modern renewables fail to address producing large units of energy output from any chemical exothermal reaction and even nuclear fission outperforms all those alternatives in terms of pollution reduction and energy output. Only issue with nuclear fission is the storage costs for long term maintainability and infrastructural scalability.
great podcast mate
Listen closely.His viewpoint has so many angles.Hard not to disagree😋
This aged like gym socks
MIke has been talking a lot about nuclear and fusion lately.
And now a team has had a breakthrough. Mike really is a visionary.
Kinda feels like we’re becoming Babylon
The quality of US migrants overall is poor - see PIAAC studies on it. The innovation rate of hispanics and afro-americans in the US is near zero. Hispanics are set to become the largest group in the US population. Taking into account immigration changes to the US and the lowering of the quality of its human capital as a result of it its GDP should be around 25 % lower than currently estimated by the end of the century. Something the usual commercial estimates do not take into account. The political risk for a majority-minority country undergoing partial third-worldisation and demographic transition away from whites is also high, as the rise of Trumpism and the 2020 race riots have shown. China will be certainly more stable than the US. The US won't be a Brazil, Mexico or South Africa but it will be a declining country, certainly not with bigger economy than China. Things have changed. This isn't the US that beated the Soviet Union. It is another country.
As someone who is half Hispanic you are absolutely correct in your assessment. The average IQ of the USA will drop and consequently with a lower quality of human capital the productive output of the country will deteriorate.
China more stable than the USA? China can’t compete with the USA geography, we have two ocean moats and two economic partners north and south. China is surrounded, and historically has been invaded and torn itself apart internally many times. The USA has the ability to fight among itself, repair and innovate. Historically speaking, the USA has done more in 250 years than Chinese civilization has done in thousands of years.
@@murray6280 Guys, Europe was surrounded too, but when everybody else had it bad, they took over the world. Which does not mean that China will take over the world, but it is an example that is worth mentioning. How will increasingly hispanic US compete, i don't know. The number of hispanic inventions in the US is near zero. That tells you all you need to know. Most importantly, Russia and China are in it together, so China's back and natural resources are secured. The northern sea route Asia - Europe is melting. China is currently securing Eurasia, Iran will join SCO, and it is Germany's biggest trading partner. Germany is not interested in any trade war with China. Ergo, game over.
@@murray6280 On Russia, i have also seen studies where they (Russia) gain from global warming, so you can have a look at them. The melting of the northern sea route is also a significant geopolitical event that benefits that country, and Eurasia in general. On the issue of demographics, some in Asia have good demographics, some bad. The total asian population by 2100 is expected to be similar in numbers to today. The Asian share in the global economy is estimated to reach peak by 2050 and to stay there, without much decrease or increase further. What is countering the demographic issues in Eurasia, or in that matter, in all poorer countries, is the catch up economic effect - that is - poorer countries generally grow faster than richer countries. Richer countries, meanwhile, run in to the wall of diminishing returns. The richer you are, the lower the growth, in general. Incidentally, i also think that the US (and China after 2050) with decline, but overall Asia will not decline, as per most estimates i have seen. They benefit from having many fast growing economies and large markets together, pumping each other and becoming the world's biggest economic cluster, estimated to account for 53 % of the global economy by 2050. During the last several thousand years, Asia was always the world largest economy, with the exception of the last 200 years. Looking from a long term perspective, it is quite logical for Asia to be the center of economic activity on the planet. It will not be a Chinese dominated world, but certainly Asia centric and multipolar world.
@@murray6280 Yes, write at Karlin sometimes. Stratfor are very good for geographic effects. On Russia i can say that they see a threat from the West, an ideological threat - liberalism and identity politics, which could implode the country if implemented there, so they are moving away towards Eurasia. They will not go back to the West, they want to stay away from it just like people stay away from diseased persons.