The big idea worth spreading (such as it is) is that we can solve big problems with technology. In fact, we must. But big problems are hard. To solve a big problem through technology requires, minimally, four things: 1). We must make a political decision to solve the problem; 2). Our institutions must fully support that decision; 3). The problem must really be technological; 4). We must understand the problem.
most of the problems can be solved using technology if there is concerted effort from all the stake holders! Alleviating hunger is not an issue if all mind
You state a truth so self evident seen by so few from the time of THE CRUSADES and long before. We do so well spending money , motivation, and initiative to cause and create death and so little to share things of life and things needed for living throughout the world. Your statement " What might we have achieved if we could marshal that sort of effort for advancing the human condition? " is so very true and profound !
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The big idea worth spreading is that we can solve big problems with technology. In fact, we must. But big problems are hard. To solve a big problem through technology requires, minimally, four things: 1). We must make a popular political decision to solve the problem; 2). Our institutions must fully support that decision; 3). The problem must really be technological; 4). We must understand the problem.
I agree with him. humanity has reached the limit of what can be accomplished with government. It is time to seriously examine how to eliminate the institution of coercion so that people can live in peace instead of war.
All these things he mentions as being not as good as Mars colonies: cell phones, the internet, Facebook, etc. are far more valuable to most people's real lives than having a few dozen people doing science on Mars rather than on Earth. It may not have the glamour or the drama of a Mars colony, but as far as enriching human life goes, I know which one I'd pick. And I *love* astronomy.
Technological progress and global efforts are driving significant improvements worldwide. Solar energy costs have plummeted over 80% since 2009, now cheaper than coal at just 2.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This renewable shift is revolutionizing our energy landscape. Simultaneously, global famine deaths have decreased by over 85%, dropping from about 3 million (2000-2010) to 400,000-500,000 (2010-2020), showcasing improved crisis responses. In healthcare, U.S. cancer mortality rates have seen a substantial 27.5% decline from 2000 to 2021. These advancements in energy, food security, and healthcare demonstrate how technology and better planning are in fact rapidly improving the world. Much more could be done, but don't let anybody tell you that improvements are not being made.
Lately, I am also been thinking... What are my works for? Why I am so much passionate about technology that won't even solve my own problem? Why we are solving big organization problems ignoring major problems like war, education, poverty, health and much more.
This talk really reflects the situation quite well. In the states if you look at the number of people getting physics degrees it pretty much coincides with the problem's he's outlined.
Correct me if I'm wrong. So basically he is saying that even if you have the resources (technologies), if you don't know how to manage it (political involvement), you can't even solve a problem (like in the famine situation).
I think his point was that the political situation is different now, he was not trying to say that we need competition. In fact, if anything, he argues for the same thing as you: cooperation.
it doesnt matter what they say when theyll have it. each time more information is researched and the propability that itll be done soon gets higher and higher obviously
I see your argument, but the same thing is happening with burning fuels, huge concentration of heat at the power plants + the heat when the energy is being used in appliances. So essentially burning fuels is create more heat increasing the overall temperature of the planet, while solar transfers the heat from one region to another like the ocean currents are doing, basically we've created a 'current' without water. Which would you say is better?
And what is wrong with taking incremental steps towards a goal? For whether you climb stairs one or two at a time, you will spend just as long climbing them.
Also you can tinker with the absorption coefficient such as using black materials and no reflective coating, therefore keeping the local heat constant, while transferring the 'extra' absorbed energy through power lines. Our planet has coped with regional temperature changes by adjusting the surrounding water currents, while essentially covering the planet with a blanket (CO2) and adding an electric blanket (burning fuels) will prove much more problematic.
I took it as a debunk of the idea that technological change is slowing down. Technological change is chugging along as fast as it always has, or faster. The reason that life for most hasn't changed much in the last 30 years is because of the socioeconomic structure of our society.
Interesting talk, it is true there are many hard problems to solve. I think energy storage and transportation is one of the biggest scientific problems we have at the moment. Battery tech has gotten better but unlike other areas of technology that are growing exponentially energy storage solutions are still growing at a snails pace. There are many places (deserts, ocean tides, etc) that can generate large amounts of natural energy if only we could store it efficiently and move it without loss.
main theme: take risk, think big, embrace hard.. however, it could be narrated much better with more awakening stories such as what the new big challenges would awaken for the humanity
That's why I mentioned changing the name of Africa to McGoogle. That would be the biggest marketing move that the world has ever seen and ensure global recognition of those companies for many centuries to come.
So many people are hooked on talking about space travel. That wasn't his point. His point was we could be better/completely solving the biggest problems mankind faces but commercialisation & politics run above & halt getting the solutions out there. It's sad but true that although we grew on this planet at no cost & no ruling now everything comes at a price or under law & slows the chance of a better future for us all
You're right. The rocket which sent the Apollo crews to the Moon was designed by former Nazi engineers whom the US government helped escape the Nuremberg Trials through Operation Paperclip. The first head of NASA's largest center (MSFC) was a former SS officer, Wernher von Braun.
What I meant was that the recreational technology is what's ruining society and children. We keep believing that were not animals, and so we do all these unnatural things throughout the day. Honestly, I would have loved to live in the 1930's where there wasn't really any recreational technology, but only had USEFUL technology. And even guns ruined how war should be, no one fights face to face anymore, which is why we have very few men now a day's without any courage or discipline
Technology is a tool to be used to solve our problems, and the reason why we mostly fail to use technology for solving our issues is that we just know the problem but never understands them. And the people who knows much about technology is using it for their own purposes ,which seems to be the worst of all.
i don't want to start an argument and I am certainly not anti science or ethically opposed to genetic engineering, but genetic engineering has done nothing to solve famine. If anything it has done the opposite. More calories can be produced per acre using ecological farming methods than any other system. And remember we don't have a food problem (there is plenty of food for everyone in the world), we have a distribution problem, which GE does nothing to solve.
We already can fix our big problems, if not for our single biggest issue, the complete and total failure to do what is necessary for political and financial concerns. We're our own biggest problem and we don't have a technology yet to fix that.
May I ask how does solar power affect climate? CO2 basically acting as a blanket over the planet, trapping heat within the atmosphere. From my understanding, currently radiant energy from the rays of the sun hits the ground, some of it is absorbed and some reflected. This heat then 'transfers' the thermal energy into the atmosphere by conduction and convection. Panels is essentially building a platform over the ground which does more or less the same thing with the right reflective coat.
No. As I say, "Landing on the moon occurred in the context of a long series of technological triumphs. The first half of the 20th century produced the assembly line and the aeroplane, penicillin and a vaccine for tuberculosis. In the middle years of the century, polio was eradicated and smallpox eliminated. During most of history, human beings could go no faster than a horse or a boat with a sail; but by 1969, the crew of Apollo 10 had flown at 25,000 miles an hour."
Yes, we don't have to hunt with our bare hands anymore and keep watch all day for predators, we have become quite a lazy species :D. As for children having less social interaction being a problem you're completely right. My concern is with homeschooled children and how they could get a proper amount of social interaction at a young age without having to attend a very inefficient education facility. Maybe an education system based on group projects and teamwork, not writing what the teacher says.
It does seem self evident doesn't it? But I guess primal urges are still too strong in many people. It seems to me that the best thing we could do for our economy, national security, and world peace would be to do a "Manhattan Project" devoted to developing clean, renewable, cheap energy sources for the world, but instead we spend more on our military than the next 20 some countries combined.
It seems that the problem is that our gov't funding, at least in the US has followed one generation: baby boomers. When this population boom was young and needed jobs we had massive public projects like the Apollo program, when they were the experienced workers we had massive tax cuts, and now that they're retiring we're getting a large focus on healthcare and retirement benefits. In order to get our politicians to invest in these large projects again, we need to have a young population again.
Nuclear energy is basically an advanced method of boiling water just as burning fuels, the difference is the waste created. Boiling huge pots of water around the northern states will release more heat to the atmosphere overall than redistribution of the sun's energy. Also I repeat, changing the reflection coefficient on the panels solves the less heat in the equator problem!
"New Wind Energy Resource Potential Estimates for the United States" (2011) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the Department of Energy shows: The US has the (conservative) potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power, or an annual generation of 37 petawatt-hours, which is nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. There's also 4,150 GW of offshore capacity. As for solar energy, the Earth annually receives 274,000,000 GW from the Sun.
What i mentioned are long term goals and of course i don't expect them to become reality in a blink of an eye. But lets put some numbers into perspective. US 2011 military budget: $680 billion, entire Apollo programme budget (1959-1973 including 6 landings) $109 billion in 2010 dollars. War on drugs this year already caused costs of around $30 billion. I have no idea how much it would cost to get to Mars but based on how US spends it's money it seems like a legit investment already.
Here's some things we have done since 1969: We have made almost all information known to humanity available to anyone with an internet connection We have made it possible to communicate, for next to no cost, with anyone around the world. We are on the brink of understanding huge amounts about the human mind We have built super-powered computers we can carry everywhere, essentially turning the (wealthy) population into a vast network of connected minds.
I cannot find a list of the state-by-state *potentials* of solar energy. What I have are lists of the state-by-state *capacities* of the installed solar power modules/plants. Since cross-state transmission of the power is possible, the "state-by-state" potentials aren't that much relevant here. Even less so when the collectively harnessable solar energy is so immensely abundant as to offset the extra energy cost for the long-distance transmissions.
Conservation of energy, we are not releasing heat into the atmosphere more that we otherwise would have if we get the absorption and reflection coefficient right. The planet will adjust by changing ocean currents as it as done. I cannot comment on the feasibility in the large scale, that I personally believe is a economic problem. But from my point of view the only not 'clean' aspect is in the production of solar panels.
Bottom line - if we put half the resources we put into wars and interventions to keep oil flowing steadily in the middle east into clean energy, we wouldn't recognize the energy economy. Trillions of dollars down the toilet that have gained us almost nothing. What might we have achieved if we could marshal that sort of effort for advancing the human condition?
You forgot to add they can make perspiration sensors right now, along with 32 other things, but why put it all in one when you can space it out evenly for $200+
While renewable Energy may become true, a treatment for cancer in general is rather unlikely. Cancer isn't a specific disease but simply a random "accident" in a cell of the respective tissue. We may be able to reduce the risk, treat specific variants etc.. But I seriously doubt we will soon be able to "treat" it like an "ordinary" disease, caused by a specific pathogen.
Why have we taken a path away from our earth? Greed and more like power, I believe!...much like we all lost a simple thing as otr television which was perfectly fine, but through military greed, we all must lose and pay.
Removing poverty world wide is our biggest problem. When we have achieved that and allowed world population to increase, then everyone can contribute to funding space exploration and travel.
I think like to him, it's not neccessary come again to Luna. That opportunity, it was start for the technology development but, to the real problems of our planet. Nothing would have happend in terms of techonlogy development if the human didn't go to the moon
But we can still go to space right? I mean that would be awesome and a new space race will drive innovation so I think space and his main point do go well together.
Yeah, i don't know him personally, I fault him for his industry. TBH the problem of sensationalism is even becomming a standing problem in scientific research (ie: at universities). If your work isn't "wow!" - it can be difficult to court journals to get your work published, or attract funding. But that's not how science is supposed to work. More routine unexciting duplication of previous studies needs to be supported and expected. Don't let journalists tell you what problems "really matter".
You can't get around creating heat with energy consumption, solar is as clean as you will get in the operational phase. Nuclear is great until you have accidents, contaminated water in Japan is a huge problem, even if you build it in the ocean, you will get fish and currents carry radioactive material to shore.
I've already said that in the long run the benefits from having a Mars colony can be enormous and obviously there is risk involved. Sounds like any other big investment to me. I don't know the specifics, we haven't even surveyed the planet properly! It seems that people nowdays are incapable of considering any investment that doesn't bring immediate results and yet they have no problem with throwing billions at immediate solutions that bring no results.
I wasn't saying we should capture all the solar radiation coming to Earth. The energy is so immense that only 0.07% (16 TW-yr, terawatt-year) is enough to meet the global energy demand. It would be even less if we used the other renewable sources as well. The global wind energy potential is 70 TW-yr -- we need only up to 23%. Biomass is 20 TW-yr, Geothermal 15, OTEC 11, Hydro 4, Wave 2. No need to rely on one source to a destructive extent.
But maybe technology will help us provide cheap, accessible, high quality education , which will make the next generations more aware of the real problems and more willing and more able to solve them.
CO2 levels of Earth's atmosphere have been on the level of ~1800 for many thousands of years. When mankind started to get their hands on big amounts of fossil fuels, they've gone up about 30%. Don't mistake absolute concentration for gas emission. Most life makes CO2 - trees, animals, humans. So do wild fires. If normal earth processes would have been the cause, the concentration wouldn't have been that stable. The biosphere absorbs about as much CO2 as it produces.
The only possibility to solve our social and mindset problems is to look at them at different perspectives. Technology is a tool that helps us to achieve it.
There is so much truth in this talk! The truth is, we need another moon landing. An accomplishment that will put a bright spark of inspiration in the eyes of all humans. I believe this accomplishment might be Kickstarter. Or rather what will be accomplished with Kickstarter. Kickstarter will probably just grow and grow with every new realized Kickstarter campaign, and one day become a major crowdfunding movement of unimaginable proportions.
Why is not having mars colonies a big problem? There are much bigger problem like social inequalities, inhumane intensive mass animal farming, wars, child labour or climate change. Not having visisted mars intensively yet isn´t a very fitting example.
+Myren Eario Because none of those issues will matter the slightest if everything is dead on Earth from an asteroid impact. Visiting Mars isn't just for lols, the the colonisation of Mars isn't science fiction, but the closest thing we have to a backup plan. If human is a species that exist on a self sustaining manner on more than just one planet, its chance to exist on the long term will be much greater. The problems you mention, in comparison, would be tiny when viewed from the lens of the specie's history. There's no reason why some resources shouldn't be allocated to work towards space exploration and transport, while also working on other issues on Earth.
Really, we can easily go to Mar is we care to. The estimated round trip cost is about $30B, which is 1/6 of what we spent getting to the moon. Really, as a country, is just isn't a priority. We literally spend this amount every 3 months just on Apple products. Technology gives us the ability to do great things, but it is still up to us to do them.
Nice list man, but sorry have to disagree with the fusion and commercial asteroid mining. Its unsure if the fusion challenges can be overcome in that time frame, the Americans said they would have had the fusion problem sorted by the 80's. Its always 10 to 30 years away. As for mining man, only Elon Musk would be the best bet, as the other three agencies are seriously lagging.
If you agree that we can change the panel absorption and reflection than the temp at the desserts can remain the same. We are releasing a lot of heat there already! BURNING fuels + heat used when you turn on your heater etc... You can't say by burning fossil fuels, the heat created in the northern states will be less!! here is the problem with your train of thought! You can't get around releasing heat when you use electricity! This is compounded by BURNING fuels near northern cities!
change needs to start by the people that force government. i bought my self into renewable energy so 100% of spend energy in my house is now generated by local wind mill's. i had to invest some cash to own a tiny piece of this windmill but i see it as an investment. if more people are willing to share this opinion we can make a chance locally. companies will follow if they see money is to be earned because of it.
About 50% of all food in the USA goes to waste and ends up in land fills. Stores would much rather toss their unsold products than donate to those who need. Same for house holds. Think about how much food we thoe out. Consumerism!
So if going to the moon wasn't such a big deal after all, then can't we just conclude that we are as good today in solving big problems as we were ever before?
Beg to disagree. The scarce of resources has been always the origin of basically all problems, causing social problems. Economy prioritizes resources in order for human to survive. If one day (and I believe that day will come) technology helps human resolve the problem of resource scarce, our social and mindset problems will ultimately be solved.
You promised me Mars colonies. Instead, I got Facebook. This pretty much sums our feelings. Right now, if it wasn't for the military (and the odd billionaire) pushing big concepts, all we'd have to look forward to in our lifetimes would be minor advancements in consumer technology. Iphone 38, now with perspiration sensors!
Yes, technology is a tool, the sad thing is there are few people in power with the means or interest to use it for much more than short term self enrichment.
Well if you want to live like in the 1930's you can do so (while respecting the current laws), I think you can even find communities of people that think exactly like you and live like that. Recreational tech does waste a huge chunk of many peoples time, but on the other hand the huge demand of recreational tech has brought many advances in technology both recreational and "useful". As for how war should be, my opinion is that it just shouldn't be. But we're a long way away from a peaceful world
What are the priorities of the problems we have? We don't really want to have cheap energy, free health care, or clean water as then someone won't make a profit or have a job. We don't want to reduce the population as the economy depends on growth. So let's just make expensive toys.
Writting to those in the year 2024 who are witnessing or are close to witnessing humans going to Mars. Hi from the year 2017 :) Greetings from an uncertain year... The past.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by 30% or so since the industrial revolution. That's not a few percent of the natural level. Same with nitrous oxide and methane - levels increased in a steep curve. That's not evidence for human influence, but looks kinda right.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงบ่าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0S_ReCIkxg/mqdefault.jpg)
![MV วิถีชีวิตใต้ - ผา อัยย๊ะ [Official MV HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nODlkOUu9B0/mqdefault.jpg)
The big idea worth spreading (such as it is) is that we can solve big problems with technology. In fact, we must. But big problems are hard.
To solve a big problem through technology requires, minimally, four things: 1). We must make a political decision to solve the problem; 2). Our institutions must fully support that decision; 3). The problem must really be technological; 4). We must understand the problem.
This is the voice we need for the world. Western people should be glad that people still can post video and have the lecture like this.
most of the problems can be solved using technology if there is concerted effort from all the stake holders! Alleviating hunger is not an issue if all mind
You state a truth so self evident seen by so few from the time of THE CRUSADES and long before. We do so well spending money , motivation, and initiative to cause and create death and so little to share things of life and things needed for living throughout the world.
Your statement
" What might we have achieved if we could marshal that sort of effort for advancing the human condition? "
is so very true and profound !
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
The big idea worth spreading is that we can solve big problems with technology. In fact, we must. But big problems are hard.
To solve a big problem through technology requires, minimally, four things: 1). We must make a popular political decision to solve the problem; 2). Our institutions must fully support that decision; 3). The problem must really be technological; 4). We must understand the problem.
I agree with him. humanity has reached the limit of what can be accomplished with government. It is time to seriously examine how to eliminate the institution of coercion so that people can live in peace instead of war.
All these things he mentions as being not as good as Mars colonies: cell phones, the internet, Facebook, etc. are far more valuable to most people's real lives than having a few dozen people doing science on Mars rather than on Earth. It may not have the glamour or the drama of a Mars colony, but as far as enriching human life goes, I know which one I'd pick. And I *love* astronomy.
زۆر ڕاستەکەی ، مرۆڤەکان لەجیاتی ئەوەی بیر لە پێشکەوتنی مرۆڤایەتی بکەنەوە بیر لە لە پێگەی ولاتەکانیان دەکەنەوە ، بەلام ئیلۆن مەسک پێچەوانەی کەسانی ترە ، ئەو و ستیڤن هاوکینگ تاکە کەس بوون بیر لە هەموو مرۆۆڤایەتی دەکەنەوە نەک ولاتەکانیان
Technological progress and global efforts are driving significant improvements worldwide. Solar energy costs have plummeted over 80% since 2009, now cheaper than coal at just 2.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This renewable shift is revolutionizing our energy landscape. Simultaneously, global famine deaths have decreased by over 85%, dropping from about 3 million (2000-2010) to 400,000-500,000 (2010-2020), showcasing improved crisis responses. In healthcare, U.S. cancer mortality rates have seen a substantial 27.5% decline from 2000 to 2021. These advancements in energy, food security, and healthcare demonstrate how technology and better planning are in fact rapidly improving the world. Much more could be done, but don't let anybody tell you that improvements are not being made.
probably the best TED talk iv ever seen
Lately, I am also been thinking... What are my works for? Why I am so much passionate about technology that won't even solve my own problem? Why we are solving big organization problems ignoring major problems like war, education, poverty, health and much more.
One of the best ted talks I`ve seen..
The point is that many people don't realize the obvious importance of a right focus for technological development.
This talk really reflects the situation quite well. In the states if you look at the number of people getting physics degrees it pretty much coincides with the problem's he's outlined.
Correct me if I'm wrong. So basically he is saying that even if you have the resources (technologies), if you don't know how to manage it (political involvement), you can't even solve a problem (like in the famine situation).
I think his point was that the political situation is different now, he was not trying to say that we need competition. In fact, if anything, he argues for the same thing as you: cooperation.
it doesnt matter what they say when theyll have it. each time more information is researched and the propability that itll be done soon gets higher and higher obviously
I see your argument, but the same thing is happening with burning fuels, huge concentration of heat at the power plants + the heat when the energy is being used in appliances.
So essentially burning fuels is create more heat increasing the overall temperature of the planet, while solar transfers the heat from one region to another like the ocean currents are doing, basically we've created a 'current' without water.
Which would you say is better?
And what is wrong with taking incremental steps towards a goal? For whether you climb stairs one or two at a time, you will spend just as long climbing them.
Also you can tinker with the absorption coefficient such as using black materials and no reflective coating, therefore keeping the local heat constant, while transferring the 'extra' absorbed energy through power lines.
Our planet has coped with regional temperature changes by adjusting the surrounding water currents, while essentially covering the planet with a blanket (CO2) and adding an electric blanket (burning fuels) will prove much more problematic.
I took it as a debunk of the idea that technological change is slowing down.
Technological change is chugging along as fast as it always has, or faster. The reason that life for most hasn't changed much in the last 30 years is because of the socioeconomic structure of our society.
Interesting talk, it is true there are many hard problems to solve. I think energy storage and transportation is one of the biggest scientific problems we have at the moment. Battery tech has gotten better but unlike other areas of technology that are growing exponentially energy storage solutions are still growing at a snails pace. There are many places (deserts, ocean tides, etc) that can generate large amounts of natural energy if only we could store it efficiently and move it without loss.
main theme: take risk, think big, embrace hard.. however, it could be narrated much better with more awakening stories such as what the new big challenges would awaken for the humanity
Science can solve our big problems. TED should focus on these issues.
Going to the moon was a technological race. That was the use. The fact that we, you know, learned stuff, is icing on the cake.
That's why I mentioned changing the name of Africa to McGoogle. That would be the biggest marketing move that the world has ever seen and ensure global recognition of those companies for many centuries to come.
So many people are hooked on talking about space travel. That wasn't his point. His point was we could be better/completely solving the biggest problems mankind faces but commercialisation & politics run above & halt getting the solutions out there. It's sad but true that although we grew on this planet at no cost & no ruling now everything comes at a price or under law & slows the chance of a better future for us all
You're right. The rocket which sent the Apollo crews to the Moon was designed by former Nazi engineers whom the US government helped escape the Nuremberg Trials through Operation Paperclip. The first head of NASA's largest center (MSFC) was a former SS officer, Wernher von Braun.
What I meant was that the recreational technology is what's ruining society and children. We keep believing that were not animals, and so we do all these unnatural things throughout the day. Honestly, I would have loved to live in the 1930's where there wasn't really any recreational technology, but only had USEFUL technology. And even guns ruined how war should be, no one fights face to face anymore, which is why we have very few men now a day's without any courage or discipline
Patience good sir. Patience. We've only just begun to reach the explosion point on the exponential curve of technological improvement.
Absolutely agree with him 😮
Such an idea existed and I just know this ? Is this my fault ?
Thank you old man Jason !
Technology is a tool to be used to solve our problems, and the reason why we mostly fail to use technology for solving our issues is that we just know the problem but never understands them. And the people who knows much about technology is using it for their own purposes ,which seems to be the worst of all.
Going to the moon WAS solving a problem. It may not have needed to be solved, but it was one HELL of a big problem.
i don't want to start an argument and I am certainly not anti science or ethically opposed to genetic engineering, but genetic engineering has done nothing to solve famine. If anything it has done the opposite. More calories can be produced per acre using ecological farming methods than any other system. And remember we don't have a food problem (there is plenty of food for everyone in the world), we have a distribution problem, which GE does nothing to solve.
We already can fix our big problems, if not for our single biggest issue, the complete and total failure to do what is necessary for political and financial concerns. We're our own biggest problem and we don't have a technology yet to fix that.
May I ask how does solar power affect climate?
CO2 basically acting as a blanket over the planet, trapping heat within the atmosphere.
From my understanding, currently radiant energy from the rays of the sun hits the ground, some of it is absorbed and some reflected. This heat then 'transfers' the thermal energy into the atmosphere by conduction and convection.
Panels is essentially building a platform over the ground which does more or less the same thing with the right reflective coat.
No. As I say, "Landing on the moon occurred in the context of a long series of technological triumphs. The first half of the 20th century produced the assembly line and the aeroplane, penicillin and a vaccine for tuberculosis. In the middle years of the century, polio was eradicated and smallpox eliminated. During most of history, human beings could go no faster than a horse or a boat with a sail; but by 1969, the crew of Apollo 10 had flown at 25,000 miles an hour."
Yes, we don't have to hunt with our bare hands anymore and keep watch all day for predators, we have become quite a lazy species :D. As for children having less social interaction being a problem you're completely right. My concern is with homeschooled children and how they could get a proper amount of social interaction at a young age without having to attend a very inefficient education facility. Maybe an education system based on group projects and teamwork, not writing what the teacher says.
It does seem self evident doesn't it? But I guess primal urges are still too strong in many people. It seems to me that the best thing we could do for our economy, national security, and world peace would be to do a "Manhattan Project" devoted to developing clean, renewable, cheap energy sources for the world, but instead we spend more on our military than the next 20 some countries combined.
It seems that the problem is that our gov't funding, at least in the US has followed one generation: baby boomers. When this population boom was young and needed jobs we had massive public projects like the Apollo program, when they were the experienced workers we had massive tax cuts, and now that they're retiring we're getting a large focus on healthcare and retirement benefits. In order to get our politicians to invest in these large projects again, we need to have a young population again.
Nuclear energy is basically an advanced method of boiling water just as burning fuels, the difference is the waste created. Boiling huge pots of water around the northern states will release more heat to the atmosphere overall than redistribution of the sun's energy.
Also I repeat, changing the reflection coefficient on the panels solves the less heat in the equator problem!
"New Wind Energy Resource Potential
Estimates for the United States" (2011) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the Department of Energy shows:
The US has the (conservative) potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power, or an annual generation of 37 petawatt-hours, which is nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. There's also 4,150 GW of offshore capacity.
As for solar energy, the Earth annually receives 274,000,000 GW from the Sun.
It's not the politicians, it's more the military, corporations and the bureaucrats.
Do you mean the capacity (what can be provided by existing facilities) or the potential (what could be provided by existing & additional facilities)?
And what would that be, in your mind? If you could design a more sustainable system, how would it work?
What i mentioned are long term goals and of course i don't expect them to become reality in a blink of an eye. But lets put some numbers into perspective. US 2011 military budget: $680 billion, entire Apollo programme budget (1959-1973 including 6 landings) $109 billion in 2010 dollars. War on drugs this year already caused costs of around $30 billion. I have no idea how much it would cost to get to Mars but based on how US spends it's money it seems like a legit investment already.
I want to say congratulations to Jason Pontin for finally going through puberty. Better late than ever!
Here's some things we have done since 1969:
We have made almost all information known to humanity available to anyone with an internet connection
We have made it possible to communicate, for next to no cost, with anyone around the world.
We are on the brink of understanding huge amounts about the human mind
We have built super-powered computers we can carry everywhere, essentially turning the (wealthy) population into a vast network of connected minds.
I cannot find a list of the state-by-state *potentials* of solar energy. What I have are lists of the state-by-state *capacities* of the installed solar power modules/plants.
Since cross-state transmission of the power is possible, the "state-by-state" potentials aren't that much relevant here. Even less so when the collectively harnessable solar energy is so immensely abundant as to offset the extra energy cost for the long-distance transmissions.
Conservation of energy, we are not releasing heat into the atmosphere more that we otherwise would have if we get the absorption and reflection coefficient right. The planet will adjust by changing ocean currents as it as done.
I cannot comment on the feasibility in the large scale, that I personally believe is a economic problem. But from my point of view the only not 'clean' aspect is in the production of solar panels.
Bottom line - if we put half the resources we put into wars and interventions to keep oil flowing steadily in the middle east into clean energy, we wouldn't recognize the energy economy. Trillions of dollars down the toilet that have gained us almost nothing. What might we have achieved if we could marshal that sort of effort for advancing the human condition?
One day we'll all solve these problems, and new ones will rise... When we venture to the stars.
You forgot to add they can make perspiration sensors right now, along with 32 other things, but why put it all in one when you can space it out evenly for $200+
While renewable Energy may become true, a treatment for cancer in general is rather unlikely.
Cancer isn't a specific disease but simply a random "accident" in a cell of the respective tissue.
We may be able to reduce the risk, treat specific variants etc.. But I seriously doubt we will soon be able to "treat" it like an "ordinary" disease, caused by a specific pathogen.
Why have we taken a path away from our earth? Greed and more like power, I believe!...much like we all lost a simple thing as otr television which was perfectly fine, but through military greed, we all must lose and pay.
He says that in the video besides the actual cost.
Removing poverty world wide is our biggest problem. When we have achieved that and allowed world population to increase, then everyone can contribute to funding space exploration and travel.
I think like to him, it's not neccessary come again to Luna. That opportunity, it was start for the technology development but, to the real problems of our planet. Nothing would have happend in terms of techonlogy development if the human didn't go to the moon
But we can still go to space right? I mean that would be awesome and a new space race will drive innovation so I think space and his main point do go well together.
Yeah, i don't know him personally, I fault him for his industry.
TBH the problem of sensationalism is even becomming a standing problem in scientific research (ie: at universities). If your work isn't "wow!" - it can be difficult to court journals to get your work published, or attract funding. But that's not how science is supposed to work. More routine unexciting duplication of previous studies needs to be supported and expected.
Don't let journalists tell you what problems "really matter".
You can't get around creating heat with energy consumption, solar is as clean as you will get in the operational phase.
Nuclear is great until you have accidents, contaminated water in Japan is a huge problem, even if you build it in the ocean, you will get fish and currents carry radioactive material to shore.
I've already said that in the long run the benefits from having a Mars colony can be enormous and obviously there is risk involved. Sounds like any other big investment to me. I don't know the specifics, we haven't even surveyed the planet properly! It seems that people nowdays are incapable of considering any investment that doesn't bring immediate results and yet they have no problem with throwing billions at immediate solutions that bring no results.
Why dont we have plasma rifles yet? I want a rifle that can one shot a tank goddammit!
That's not how guns work
Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project are 40 years ahead on this topic.
I wasn't saying we should capture all the solar radiation coming to Earth. The energy is so immense that only 0.07% (16 TW-yr, terawatt-year) is enough to meet the global energy demand. It would be even less if we used the other renewable sources as well.
The global wind energy potential is 70 TW-yr -- we need only up to 23%. Biomass is 20 TW-yr, Geothermal 15, OTEC 11, Hydro 4, Wave 2. No need to rely on one source to a destructive extent.
is alleviating hunger an issue if there is a concerted effort?
But maybe technology will help us provide cheap, accessible, high quality education , which will make the next generations more aware of the real problems and more willing and more able to solve them.
CO2 levels of Earth's atmosphere have been on the level of ~1800 for many thousands of years. When mankind started to get their hands on big amounts of fossil fuels, they've gone up about 30%.
Don't mistake absolute concentration for gas emission. Most life makes CO2 - trees, animals, humans. So do wild fires.
If normal earth processes would have been the cause, the concentration wouldn't have been that stable. The biosphere absorbs about as much CO2 as it produces.
There is more to say about this, of course, but I could not agree with you more.
The only possibility to solve our social and mindset problems is to look at them at different perspectives. Technology is a tool that helps us to achieve it.
Nothing can help us except for us.
9:48 God Knows, We don't lack for the challenges
There is so much truth in this talk!
The truth is, we need another moon landing. An accomplishment that will put a bright spark of inspiration in the eyes of all humans. I believe this accomplishment might be Kickstarter. Or rather what will be accomplished with Kickstarter. Kickstarter will probably just grow and grow with every new realized Kickstarter campaign, and one day become a major crowdfunding movement of unimaginable proportions.
Why is not having mars colonies a big problem? There are much bigger problem like social inequalities, inhumane intensive mass animal farming, wars, child labour or climate change. Not having visisted mars intensively yet isn´t a very fitting example.
+Myren Eario Because none of those issues will matter the slightest if everything is dead on Earth from an asteroid impact. Visiting Mars isn't just for lols, the the colonisation of Mars isn't science fiction, but the closest thing we have to a backup plan. If human is a species that exist on a self sustaining manner on more than just one planet, its chance to exist on the long term will be much greater. The problems you mention, in comparison, would be tiny when viewed from the lens of the specie's history. There's no reason why some resources shouldn't be allocated to work towards space exploration and transport, while also working on other issues on Earth.
No vision, lame comment
Agreed.
Right, and I said only 0.07% is enough to meet the global energy demand. (And I'm not saying we should rely solely on the solar energy.)
I agree
The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project!
Science and technology for human and ecological balance and sustainability :)
the moon landings program....the best comedy you can find anywhere.
Really, we can easily go to Mar is we care to. The estimated round trip cost is about $30B, which is 1/6 of what we spent getting to the moon. Really, as a country, is just isn't a priority. We literally spend this amount every 3 months just on Apple products. Technology gives us the ability to do great things, but it is still up to us to do them.
Someone please cheer up this bitter and disappointed man on a stage.
Nice list man, but sorry have to disagree with the fusion and commercial asteroid mining. Its unsure if the fusion challenges can be overcome in that time frame, the Americans said they would have had the fusion problem sorted by the 80's. Its always 10 to 30 years away. As for mining man, only Elon Musk would be the best bet, as the other three agencies are seriously lagging.
If you agree that we can change the panel absorption and reflection than the temp at the desserts can remain the same.
We are releasing a lot of heat there already! BURNING fuels + heat used when you turn on your heater etc...
You can't say by burning fossil fuels, the heat created in the northern states will be less!! here is the problem with your train of thought!
You can't get around releasing heat when you use electricity! This is compounded by BURNING fuels near northern cities!
change needs to start by the people that force government. i bought my self into renewable energy so 100% of spend energy in my house is now generated by local wind mill's. i had to invest some cash to own a tiny piece of this windmill but i see it as an investment. if more people are willing to share this opinion we can make a chance locally. companies will follow if they see money is to be earned because of it.
Yep
About 50% of all food in the USA goes to waste and ends up in land fills. Stores would much rather toss their unsold products than donate to those who need. Same for house holds. Think about how much food we thoe out. Consumerism!
So if going to the moon wasn't such a big deal after all, then can't we just conclude that we are as good today in solving big problems as we were ever before?
Instead of the dark cold and lonely cosmos/space, people prefer to "travel" through cyberspace. It's cheaper, safer, and much more entertaining.
Beg to disagree. The scarce of resources has been always the origin of basically all problems, causing social problems. Economy prioritizes resources in order for human to survive. If one day (and I believe that day will come) technology helps human resolve the problem of resource scarce, our social and mindset problems will ultimately be solved.
Saw that. Zeitgest movies tend to over exaggerate some points.
You promised me Mars colonies.
Instead, I got Facebook.
This pretty much sums our feelings. Right now, if it wasn't for the military (and the odd billionaire) pushing big concepts, all we'd have to look forward to in our lifetimes would be minor advancements in consumer technology. Iphone 38, now with perspiration sensors!
That is a problem, it's true. My feet are big. Also, grotesquely arched.
Yes, technology is a tool, the sad thing is there are few people in power with the means or interest to use it for much more than short term self enrichment.
Well if you want to live like in the 1930's you can do so (while respecting the current laws), I think you can even find communities of people that think exactly like you and live like that. Recreational tech does waste a huge chunk of many peoples time, but on the other hand the huge demand of recreational tech has brought many advances in technology both recreational and "useful". As for how war should be, my opinion is that it just shouldn't be. But we're a long way away from a peaceful world
What are the priorities of the problems we have? We don't really want to have cheap energy, free health care, or clean water as then someone won't make a profit or have a job. We don't want to reduce the population as the economy depends on growth. So let's just make expensive toys.
Only a Science Based Global Resource Based Economy will allow us to do those sorts of things.
Writting to those in the year 2024 who are witnessing or are close to witnessing humans going to Mars. Hi from the year 2017 :) Greetings from an uncertain year... The past.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by 30% or so since the industrial revolution. That's not a few percent of the natural level. Same with nitrous oxide and methane - levels increased in a steep curve. That's not evidence for human influence, but looks kinda right.
I did, it's pretty fluffy. I mean eventually, there's going to be organizations that resemble the government, the military and some sort of commerce.