The core question about keeping more people alive on one planet is how good we are at dealing with and overcoming fear. Otherwise energy-abundance will only result in "the 99%" becoming "the 99.99%". Because the main challenge isn't technology, but people's tendency to give in to their fears and subsequently murder millions. Difficult to keep people alive during times of war (i.e. always). If we can overcome the fear-based power structures, we will have virtually unlimited amounts of energy available, because the technologies for those are already there. The title "inventing the impossible" would be more appropriate for things that are actually considered impossible not just by small minds. When the term "perpetuum mobile" gets thrown into the discussion, then it gets really interesting, because one of the biggest obstacles is belief-based.
One of your comments was that we claim to create for energy, but the truth is that we have many present ways to drastically reduce usage. I had a company, with 14 branches around the country, reducing electric usage. The utility company was getting money from the EPA to reduce energy usage, but in truth they don’t want to reduce energy, because it reduces their profit. So they basically stole the money. Almost every job we did around the country, we had to fight with the utility companies. One time I sent a one page email to the top 3 people at SDG&E, explaining some of the issues . My response from all of them was that my email was too long:) Here in CA every home could be self sufficient, but the utility companies are fighting that. For a long time they would not allow inverter generators to be sold in in CA, and now they have laws saying that you can’t disconnect your home from the utility company, so that they can charge you. They are also trying to get the law in effect that they can charge every home owner $50 per month to replace the money they loose when homes use solar energy. The bottom line is that big companies greed are not allowing us to reduce energy usage in almost every field
I worked with my university's radiology group in the chemistry department when I got my first BS, and I also took a class in nuclear reactor operations (Washington State University is one of the only universities to have a research-only (no power produced) nuclear reactors just off campus). I learned that nuclear "waste" is no longer usable because some of the Lanthanide and Actinide by-products of the reaction. The "waste" (the deadly sources of radiation in a used fuel rod) only weigh a few grams, but their neutron cross sections are so large that they effectively make fission impractical. The big research area for used nuclear fuel is the separation of Lanthanides and Actinide by-products (which is chemically tough). I am very curious how they did this "enrichment" of used fuel.
The food printing machine sounds neat but at the same time sounds dumb. Processing food into some kind of dehydrated preserved format would take energy. If I suppose we are using clean energy that would be good. Shipping dehydrated foods would save energy since it is lighter and more compact and also doesn't require cooling. But I still think we can find a better alternative to processing our food in such a way. Like how about local farming and eating seasonal foods instead of shipping stuff all over the world? I find it hard to imagine a machine can produce food that is nutritiously complete as nature does straight off the vine/etc. All the food that gets thrown out can be composted or used to make bio-fuel. That in my opinion is a much simpler / healthier solution that is readily available without creating a system of tech that only enriches the patent holders and investors.
Its dumb, not necessary, unless I suppose we want to make food that is so sterile and inert that it will preserve for decades without spoilage. Its basically dehydrated food, that is rehydrated and cooked with a laser. Big deal. Cooking it with a laser will definitely kill any living enzymes and pro-biotics, if they are even present any longer. We already have simpler methods of achieving the same result and actually much healthier, with living active enzymes and whole synergistic blend of compounds found in natural foods vs something that is limited to a bare bones nutritional need such as protein, sugar, & fat (modern american diet) with little or no vitamins, minerals, enzymes, probiotics etc.
How does it get out of control? :) Population only grows if there's enough food to support the growth. The reason that people on certain poor areas have shortage of food isn't actually about food shortage but the fact that the people are poor. Today there is most likely no place on earth, where you wouldn't get food right away when you have money.
autoparts321 Righto- animal pops increase and increase till they way exceed the food supply, whereupon they crash, and 90% die. With global warming droughts suddenly destroying half our food, that's coming within 10 years- 1/2-2 billion deaths at a time; explosive pandemics, and the likely end of most civilization. Course they will instantly do sulfur abatement (high altitude sulfur dosed jets) to cool the earth, but that will cause hellish acid rain, maybe damage the ozone layer, and need to be increased more and more to counteract the CO2 + methane. The future ain't gonna be pretty; I guarantee you there won't be any 11-15 billion people on Earth by 2100.
There's a lot of area's on earth that are not yet in food production use because they are too cold to be competitive / productive for that. Things like sulfur abatement should not be done, before there's more understanding of the climate system and how it actually works. IMHO Very stupid idea. Only one proper volcano eruption is enough to cause the deaths you are listing, because climate would cool down for years because of ash. And it is a 100% probability that it will happen, it's just a matter of time. Will it happen next year or after 200 000 years . . . Same fact is true for most natural catastrophes.
How To Troll with a Food Printer: Day Before: Print lemon and milk together. Next Day: Friend walks over food printer and presses: Friend's Meal. "Hmmm... looks interesting." *Drinks than instantly dies.*
I like some of his ideas but food is something that is grown, not made. I f you want to reduce waste, why not have automated food growing in people's homes, with arduino controlled hydroponic or aquaponic systems. Freshness is extremely important for health. The well off people who can afford such things are the ones wasting most of the food anyhow.
Looks like he's trying to be another steve jobs. He might not have a lick of science or engineering studies in his background, but maybe more of an idea, facilitator, visionary like steve jobs. He might not have even finished college. Just because you work with tech doesn't mean you know the science behind it or how to engineer it.
WHY?!?! My school had to shut down water for a month, and the whole bathroom smelled like piss, and the water fountain had lead in it, some parts of the ceiling has paint falling off, and you get a 3-D Printer?!?! CURSE YOU CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!
this idea is wildly imaginative. Let us think in realistic terms. People have a love and emotional connection to food, and people are moving towards more healthy and organic foods. There are ways to make food sustainable but describing this idea as putting food in "toner cartridges" is extremely off-putting. Don't get me wrong this is a big problem, but your visualization and pitch for a "food printer" is flawed.
Even though I find the topics great, what I dislike about his talks is that it's always America... and then all those others underdeveloped countries with inferior technology, garbage food etc. That's just, well, disappointing.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"Tell me why I am wrong" I love that! No fear for being wrong and desire to be proved wrong leads to much better solutions.
must watch all the Pablos Holman videos...
Whatever!
The core question about keeping more people alive on one planet is how good we are at dealing with and overcoming fear. Otherwise energy-abundance will only result in "the 99%" becoming "the 99.99%". Because the main challenge isn't technology, but people's tendency to give in to their fears and subsequently murder millions. Difficult to keep people alive during times of war (i.e. always).
If we can overcome the fear-based power structures, we will have virtually unlimited amounts of energy available, because the technologies for those are already there.
The title "inventing the impossible" would be more appropriate for things that are actually considered impossible not just by small minds. When the term "perpetuum mobile" gets thrown into the discussion, then it gets really interesting, because one of the biggest obstacles is belief-based.
amazing minds on these huge problems, alot of us on the same page but lack the skills, gonna be following
One of your comments was that we claim to create for energy, but the truth is that we have many present ways to drastically reduce usage. I had a company, with 14 branches around the country, reducing electric usage. The utility company was getting money from the EPA to reduce energy usage, but in truth they don’t want to reduce energy, because it reduces their profit. So they basically stole the money. Almost every job we did around the country, we had to fight with the utility companies. One time I sent a one page email to the top 3 people at SDG&E, explaining some of the issues . My response from all of them was that my email was too long:) Here in CA every home could be self sufficient, but the utility companies are fighting that. For a long time they would not allow inverter generators to be sold in in CA, and now they have laws saying that you can’t disconnect your home from the utility company, so that they can charge you. They are also trying to get the law in effect that they can charge every home owner $50 per month to replace the money they loose when homes use solar energy. The bottom line is that big companies greed are not allowing us to reduce energy usage in almost every field
I love innovation. Love the ideas. I will tell you what stifles human advances in our time. GREED plain and simple Human GREED !
14:53 absolutely spot on.
I worked with my university's radiology group in the chemistry department when I got my first BS, and I also took a class in nuclear reactor operations (Washington State University is one of the only universities to have a research-only (no power produced) nuclear reactors just off campus). I learned that nuclear "waste" is no longer usable because some of the Lanthanide and Actinide by-products of the reaction. The "waste" (the deadly sources of radiation in a used fuel rod) only weigh a few grams, but their neutron cross sections are so large that they effectively make fission impractical.
The big research area for used nuclear fuel is the separation of Lanthanides and Actinide by-products (which is chemically tough). I am very curious how they did this "enrichment" of used fuel.
I never really saw the Star Trek replicator (food synthesizer) being true but he's on to it.. that's amazing.
I love the subtitles on this, eg. 'Iranians have been sitting in the ground for millions of years'
The food printing machine sounds neat but at the same time sounds dumb. Processing food into some kind of dehydrated preserved format would take energy. If I suppose we are using clean energy that would be good. Shipping dehydrated foods would save energy since it is lighter and more compact and also doesn't require cooling. But I still think we can find a better alternative to processing our food in such a way. Like how about local farming and eating seasonal foods instead of shipping stuff all over the world? I find it hard to imagine a machine can produce food that is nutritiously complete as nature does straight off the vine/etc. All the food that gets thrown out can be composted or used to make bio-fuel. That in my opinion is a much simpler / healthier solution that is readily available without creating a system of tech that only enriches the patent holders and investors.
autoparts321 yea, but what's cool about that? 3 years later
Why would you need to ship anything, if you could just produce it right there, with a printer? And yes, clean energy will be the source, of course
المخترع د-أسامة احمد باهديلة - مجالات الأختراع الجزء الثاني3
I'm feeling lucky
the only downside of nuclear power plants is that people are afraid we both know that!
And now we have food printers. Even NASA is contracting a company to make one (which they have). Very good prediction.
Its dumb, not necessary, unless I suppose we want to make food that is so sterile and inert that it will preserve for decades without spoilage. Its basically dehydrated food, that is rehydrated and cooked with a laser. Big deal. Cooking it with a laser will definitely kill any living enzymes and pro-biotics, if they are even present any longer. We already have simpler methods of achieving the same result and actually much healthier, with living active enzymes and whole synergistic blend of compounds found in natural foods vs something that is limited to a bare bones nutritional need such as protein, sugar, & fat (modern american diet) with little or no vitamins, minerals, enzymes, probiotics etc.
something that has been puzzling me for a while, where and how are we going to feed everyone if the population gets out of control.
we wont... we will have food shortages, starvation, epidemic disease, and eventually wars...
How does it get out of control? :) Population only grows if there's enough food to support the growth.
The reason that people on certain poor areas have shortage of food isn't actually about food shortage but the fact that the people are poor. Today there is most likely no place on earth, where you wouldn't get food right away when you have money.
autoparts321
Righto- animal pops increase and increase till they way exceed the food supply, whereupon they crash, and 90% die. With global warming droughts suddenly destroying half our food, that's coming within 10 years- 1/2-2 billion deaths at a time; explosive pandemics, and the likely end of most civilization. Course they will instantly do sulfur abatement (high altitude sulfur dosed jets) to cool the earth, but that will cause hellish acid rain, maybe damage the ozone layer, and need to be increased more and more to counteract the CO2 + methane. The future ain't gonna be pretty; I guarantee you there won't be any 11-15 billion people on Earth by 2100.
There's plenty of food, it's about living space.
There's a lot of area's on earth that are not yet in food production use because they are too cold to be competitive / productive for that.
Things like sulfur abatement should not be done, before there's more understanding of the climate system and how it actually works. IMHO Very stupid idea.
Only one proper volcano eruption is enough to cause the deaths you are listing, because climate would cool down for years because of ash. And it is a 100% probability that it will happen, it's just a matter of time. Will it happen next year or after 200 000 years . . .
Same fact is true for most natural catastrophes.
How To Troll with a Food Printer:
Day Before: Print lemon and milk together.
Next Day: Friend walks over food printer and presses: Friend's Meal. "Hmmm... looks interesting." *Drinks than instantly dies.*
Timmy Dirtyrat interesting.....
I like some of his ideas but food is something that is grown, not made. I f you want to reduce waste, why not have automated food growing in people's homes, with arduino controlled hydroponic or aquaponic systems. Freshness is extremely important for health. The well off people who can afford such things are the ones wasting most of the food anyhow.
What I'm curious about the studies that he had.....
I'm guessing Computer Science Masters?
Looks like he's trying to be another steve jobs. He might not have a lick of science or engineering studies in his background, but maybe more of an idea, facilitator, visionary like steve jobs. He might not have even finished college. Just because you work with tech doesn't mean you know the science behind it or how to engineer it.
I sincerely hope people like Elon Musk work with guys like Pablos Holman and finance their ideas!!!
I believe he has worked with Musk on his space "stuff"
He is practically Tony Stark.
Gotham's Ultimate Criminal Mastermind nah that's Elon Musk
14:05 Really? "I'm Feeling Lucky"
my schools buying a 3d printer. im basically gonna claim it
WHY?!?! My school had to shut down water for a month, and the whole bathroom smelled like piss, and the water fountain had lead in it, some parts of the ceiling has paint falling off, and you get a 3-D Printer?!?! CURSE YOU CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!
collectively, we are retarded through insecurities. we will never be what we want to be.
10:56 I love those tools, and you are smart, but it's not "better".
this idea is wildly imaginative. Let us think in realistic terms. People have a love and emotional connection to food, and people are moving towards more healthy and organic foods. There are ways to make food sustainable but describing this idea as putting food in "toner cartridges" is extremely off-putting. Don't get me wrong this is a big problem, but your visualization and pitch for a "food printer" is flawed.
Replacing normal, healthy food with printed food. What a bullcrap!
The printed food would be healthier
Based on what certification are you saying that?
Technology. Honest programming
This is biology, not IT.
A 3d printer is tech
Even though I find the topics great, what I dislike about his talks is that it's always America... and then all those others underdeveloped countries with inferior technology, garbage food etc. That's just, well, disappointing.
You can't save everybody instantly. Great minds do the best they can to invent something gamechanging. But they can't feed all the poor single handed.
Take a shower and learn to dress and try not to make me fall asleep...
*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*
Tegan Burns exactly
Cool info, awful talk.
The defiant chill physically whip because jar phenotypically face lest a jobless james. loud, animated lake