Leaving the "Age of Fire". When?
Discussion
Since the earliest days of Humans on our planet, some 40,000 years ago, humans have been relying on Fire as there primary energy converter. As our understanding of science and technology improved, we were able to harness that power, in ever more efficient and creative ways. Through the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages, we started to use Heat to improve our lives, and further our knowledge.
From the late 1600's onwards, science started on an ever steepening learning curve, and in the late 1800's we developed Heat Engines to harness that power. At the same time, Scientists, and writers began to consider, theorise, and write about other, higher sources of energy, those based on the very energy within matter itself. In the Late 1940s we first learnt how to crudely release that energy, moving humanity into the nuclear age, and by the late 1960's we learn't to extract that energy in a more controlled, and peaceful manner.
Here, in 2014, the limitations of our futures seem to be more economic and political than purely technological. We are however, starting to move from a basic "fire" based economy to one that is begining to leverage both renewable and more fundamental energy sources.
So, are we living at the moment we move out of the "Fire Age" and into the next chapter of the evolution of the species? It's actually quite exciting to think that we might be living at a turning point in our evolution!
From the late 1600's onwards, science started on an ever steepening learning curve, and in the late 1800's we developed Heat Engines to harness that power. At the same time, Scientists, and writers began to consider, theorise, and write about other, higher sources of energy, those based on the very energy within matter itself. In the Late 1940s we first learnt how to crudely release that energy, moving humanity into the nuclear age, and by the late 1960's we learn't to extract that energy in a more controlled, and peaceful manner.
Here, in 2014, the limitations of our futures seem to be more economic and political than purely technological. We are however, starting to move from a basic "fire" based economy to one that is begining to leverage both renewable and more fundamental energy sources.
So, are we living at the moment we move out of the "Fire Age" and into the next chapter of the evolution of the species? It's actually quite exciting to think that we might be living at a turning point in our evolution!
Max_Torque said:
We are however, starting to move from a basic "fire" based economy to one that is begining to leverage both renewable and more fundamental energy sources.
Does leverage mean 'use' or is it cleverer than that?We may be able to split the atom but almost everything we do is still fire-based, ie chemical burning in oxygen.
Simpo Two said:
Does leverage mean 'use' or is it cleverer than that?
We may be able to split the atom but almost everything we do is still fire-based, ie chemical burning in oxygen.
"leverage" is really to use something to increase the force, or rate of application. So we have used exothermic chemical reactions for hundreds of years now, for example, dynamite to blast out hundreds of tonnes of rock from a quarry, that would have taken men with pickaxes months to do!We may be able to split the atom but almost everything we do is still fire-based, ie chemical burning in oxygen.
Indeed, we are still in the Age of fire, but i think we are on the edge of moving out of it. In fact, for the continued existance of man at our current population density, we MUST move out of it.........
Its a slow step up in terms of exploiting increasingly concentrated forms of stored energy. We've already "leveraged" the energy from mass conversion via atomic power, and hopefully fusion in the next few generations. The "ages" of fire and mass-energy should overlap for some time.
Then comes anti-matter or some other as yet unforeseen technology
Then comes anti-matter or some other as yet unforeseen technology
Rod Adam postulates that 'Fission is the new fire'; I think he's right, but luddism, cold war secrecy, diversion of effort to weapons proliferation and regulation based more on fear than fact have stymied development. Fusion will be great if we ever get it to work, but in the mean time fission is the best long term energy prospect we have.
So essentially you're saying we need to get most/all our energy from nuclear power.
I don't see that happening, not least because the greenies and retards will scream the house down. So they get fossil fuels and carbons instead, and vent their screaming that way.
I think fusion is the real step-change future, if it can be done. Or dilithium crystals...
I don't see that happening, not least because the greenies and retards will scream the house down. So they get fossil fuels and carbons instead, and vent their screaming that way.
I think fusion is the real step-change future, if it can be done. Or dilithium crystals...
Simpo Two said:
So essentially you're saying we need to get most/all our energy from nuclear power.
I don't see that happening, not least because the greenies and retards will scream the house down. So they get fossil fuels and carbons instead, and vent their screaming that way.
Fusion, that's the future. Or dilithium crystals.
We don't 'need' to do anything, but the easiest and fastest path to cheap energy for all is making fission cheaper; the fact stupid people are incapable of assessing facts and reaching this conclusion is sad. The greenwash path is making energy more expensive, which is madness and is quite rightly being rejected by India and China.I don't see that happening, not least because the greenies and retards will scream the house down. So they get fossil fuels and carbons instead, and vent their screaming that way.
Fusion, that's the future. Or dilithium crystals.
V8FGO said:
We have, 2nd December 1942.
Sadly, it may well be the case - serious development will need a war, little else provides such an immediate incentive develop. The first use of fire was probably hurling it at enemies.Given what we now have, a proper war seems even more undesirable than normal. Maybe we'll find some way to have it in space. Asteroid mining is a potential thing, no?
Simpo Two said:
hidetheelephants said:
The greenwash path is making energy more expensive, which is madness and is quite rightly being rejected by India and China.
Greens etc deliberately make things they don't like more expensive. They call it 'social engineering' and are quite proud of it.Simpo Two said:
Indeed, it's a disease of the West who have the luxury of being able to carry these people. But we seem to be straying OT.
I don't see that it is OT; the green movement is deliberately opposing the advancement of the human race beyond chemical fire. They've kept fission in stasis for 30 years, hopefully the Chinese will expedite their work on molten salt and move the paradigm on from where we are, treading water technologically.Max_Torque said:
Since the earliest days of Humans on our planet, some 40,000 years ago, humans have been relying on Fire as there primary energy converter. As our understanding of science and technology improved, we were able to harness that power, in ever more efficient and creative ways. Through the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages, we started to use Heat to improve our lives, and further our knowledge.
Not sure I buy that. I'd recon for most of history the majority of work was performed by other means - windmills have been around for over a thousand years, water wheels even longer. Sails for transport, animals and man power. I'd have said that until the steam engine fire was a fairly specialised resource, other than general heating and cooking (not to imply they aren't important).My guess would be that for most of history our biggest energy converter was the human body - eat food, do work.
Although it would be nice to get back onto that nuclear train to the future.
hidetheelephants said:
I don't see that it is OT; the green movement is deliberately opposing the advancement of the human race beyond chemical fire. They've kept fission in stasis for 30 years, hopefully the Chinese will expedite their work on molten salt and move the paradigm on from where we are, treading water technologically.
Have you ever considered that nobody wants to listen to your idiotic ranting here?I should be going into the nuclear industry soon, and I might vote Green (or at least Labour) at the next election just to piss you off. This is an interesting discussion, keep your damn ideology out of it.
paranoid airbag said:
Have you ever considered that nobody wants to listen to your idiotic ranting here?
I should be going into the nuclear industry soon, and I might vote Green (or at least Labour) at the next election just to piss you off. This is an interesting discussion, keep your damn ideology out of it.
Where have I ranted and where's the ideology? I'm arguing from fact; Green interests succeeded in killing nuclear power in the UK by dragging every build through an inquiry, so Sizewell was the last the government could be bothered to build.I should be going into the nuclear industry soon, and I might vote Green (or at least Labour) at the next election just to piss you off. This is an interesting discussion, keep your damn ideology out of it.
Who you vote for is a matter of complete indifference to me; the Green party don't like nuclear very much, despite the possibility of nuclear power reducing carbon output making this policy a bit of a logic fail.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 21st November 11:21
i seem to recall Neil deGrasse Tyson saying on a programme (i think his version of cosmos) that we can replicate photosynthesis in the lab, if we could make it workable our energy needs would be satisfied for good, is anyone actively researching it?
surely the greens would get behind that?
found some info
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/04/13/breakt...
surely the greens would get behind that?
found some info
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/04/13/breakt...
Edited by jesta1865 on Friday 21st November 12:01
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff