Get real mr. Stone! The only way out is not magma. That's letting the volcano in. The only way out is production decrease. Nature has suffered long enough under the capitalistic hammering. — Dijkgraf

Direct contradiction is not an argument. I can only refer you to the answer I gave above.

...

It's not the energy being clean or not of course this is important insofar the atmosphere is concerned, but more important is what is done with this energy. Or even more important, the scale of use. — HKpinsky

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean, but I suggested - to various politicians and media outlets at COP26, developing magma energy as a global good, specifically to tackle the climate and ecological crisis; using the power generated initially to capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle - while building generating capacity to transition sector by economic sector starting with big energy users like mining, cement, steel, agriculture, aviation, shipping etc. In this way, I believe - huge environmental gains can be made without huge upfront infrastructure costs, or politically unpopular impositions on national economies.

Things are getting too unpleasant. — Athena

How did you notice when you've not engaged with anything I've written?

I don't think anything would convince me to believe overpopulation is not a very serious problem — Athena

...but keep insisting on de-population - while still pumping oil.

Magna energy you believe will save our asses will not fuel our cars, at least not if we don't have an energy grid for electric cars, and I don't think electric tanks are going to win wars. Another small fact, oil is sold in dollars and countries around the world hold dollars to pay for that oil and have tied their economies to the value of the dollar. — Athena

If you do not understand that it's morally wrong to blame the climate and ecological crisis on the very existence of people, while restricting viable alternate clean energy technologies to maintain a catastrophically polluting, albeit obscenely profitable fossil fuels industry, then I'll not take lessons from you on being pleasant.

What if the magma lies too deep? — Cornwell1

Most magma is beyond reach, but there are what NASA calls 'crustal magma bodies' - and I call magma chambers, within 1-2km of the surface. The deepest bore hole ever is the Kola Bore Hole in Russia - at 12km, drilled between 1965-1995. Drilling technology has continued to develop since then; as has bore lining technology. So to paraphrase NASA, I don't foresee any 'insurmountable barriers.' Not technological barriers anyway.

The real obstacles seem to be political - though it's difficult to be certian; it seems magma energy falls between two stools: right wing money grubbing fossil fuel addicted climate change denial; on the one hand, and the other, limits to resources, anti-capitalist, green commie, vegan cyclists. Maintaining capitalism with limitless clean energy, and so providing for a prosperous sustainable future is a third wheel to this dichotomy of doom, not on anyone's radar.

Most geothermal energy today is hydrothermal - tapping into underground bodies of hot water. It is not the same as magma energy. The significant passage is highlighted in bold:


Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988

Hydrothermal draws on temperatures rarely exceeding 250'C. Magma is 1200'C. Hydrothermal bodies of underground water have a "replacement rate" problem. They cool down as energy is extracted from them, and take time to heat up again. Magma energy does not have this replacement rate problem.

Astonishingly, you managed to reply without mentioning me, or anything I'd said. Without this...

that Magna energy you believe will save our asses will not fuel our cars, — Athena

I would not have known this was a response to my post. How prevelent do you imagine your mindset is; one I'd describe as "maliciously courting disaster" - to the point where you seem quite annoyed that genocide is not the only solution? Where are the better angels of your nature?

I love pictures for helping me understand. Geothermal technology is very hopeful but not the answer for everyone. — Athena

Most geothermal energy today is hydrothermal - tapping into underground bodies of hot water. It is not the same as magma energy. The significant passage is highlighted in bold:


Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988

Hydrothermal draws on temperatures rarely exceeding 250'C. Magma is 1200'C. Hydrothermal bodies of underground water have a "replacement rate" problem. They cool down as energy is extracted from them, and take time to heat up again. Magma energy does not have this replacement rate problem. Here's a picture to help you understand:

Perfect! Yes, it is a shortcut and that is what is wrong with it. What will happen to your thinking if you do not use that shortcut? What will happen to your explanation and the reader's ability to understand what you think is wrong? :wink: There is great hope for you. — Athena

If I do not use the term 'green commie' to describe the environmental movement since the 1960's - I'm unfortunately left with stupidity as an explanation for failure to understand that, the only way to secure a sustainable future is to increase prosperity. It has long been established that poor people tend toward larger families; suggested reasons for this counter intuitive phenomenon range from a lack of women's rights, via lack of access to healthcare, right through to an unconscious desire for security in old age. Consequently, reducing demand is not a viable strategy to secure sustainability - yet continues, the environmentalist mantra: pay more, have less, stop this, tax that. If it is not an attempt to undermine capitalism - then it's an intellectual deficieincy. Have it your way!

The great age is in danger of becoming extinct because of humans are reducing their territory. This does not happen when there are fewer humans. When there are few humans, nature repairs itself as fast man damages it. But as human populations increase so does the damage and today that means human activity is causing plants and animals to become extinct. — Athena

I assume you mean the great ape. Was this typed by a gorilla? Ba-na-na! How do you propose to reduce the number of humans? During the Second World War, for 8 years, the whole economies of nations were turned to the purposes of mass murder, and a mere 200 million people were killed. There are 8 thousand million people on earth. Do you think they'll just sit still and accept their fate?

We are consuming forests faster than they can reproduce and in many forest areas the soil is very poor so once the forest is gone, it is gone. I live in timber territory where timber is a large part of the economy. Besides reforestation, we have Christmas tree farms and they are no longer healthy. If these nurtured trees can not thrive, for sure all those saplings we are planting are not going to survive! I am afraid timber is no longer a renewable product. There is not enough rain for them to survive. Fire goes with this problem. Our forests are suffering from drought and fire is destroying them, while the same drought condition means saplings will not survive. Now consider all the wildlife that depends on the forest. We need to stop cutting down our forest yesterday, or at least do this cutting with more care. — Athena

Do you not understand that limitless clean energy from magma would afford humans a very different relationship to the environment? Or did you just not read my post? TL:DR? Did you get bored? Ba-na-na!

That will drive up the cost of timber up and therefore the cost of housing and already we have a serious housing problem and a huge homeless population. This includes disabled and elderly people, as well as parents with children, and this problem just keeps getting worse. We did not have that but now we do. Any growing thing can reproduce to the point of destroying its environment if nature does have a way of killing it off. That includes humans. This video may help convey the problem of overpopulation. — Athena

I could repost the posts I've already written, but I can only suppose you'd ignore them and waffle on relentlessly. What you are saying has already been said; I've acknowledged your argument by citing Malthus and Limits to Growth. I'm the one with something novel to say - so perhaps we could discuss my argument, rather than ignoring what I'm saying to restate the already stated, and very well understood dogmatic view of the stupid green movement.

Different points of view are a good thing. I don't think anything would convince me to believe overpopulation is not a very serious problem and you will not be convinced that the apes and other species seriously need their habitats or they become extinct. Name-calling is divisive and not a good thing. — Athena

I somehow missed your post. Sorry about that; and about name calling. It was merely shorthand; I was not intending to insult anyone.

I would agree that different points of view are a good thing; yet the assumption that over-population is the root cause of the environmental crisis is ubiquitous, and you adamantly refuse to entertain any counter argument.

The argument was made by Malthus in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population. He argued that because population increases geometrically - 2.4.8.16.32 etc, while agricultural land can only be added arithmetically 1.2.3.4.5. etc, population must necessarily outstrip food production and there would be mass starvation. He was wrong. Tractors and fertilizers were invented, and food production far outpaced population growth.

The Limits to Growth (LTG) 1972 report on the exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources, is essentially the same argument - and one that doesn't account for the multiplication of resources by technology. The false assumption persists even today, as the philosophical basis of all policies that lay blame with the end consumer - rather than advocating for supply side responsibility on the part of producers. Why? Because; while the right have engaged in climate change denial, the left have projected all their environmental arguments through the distorting lens of anti-capitalism.

I say again, magma is such a vast source of heavy duty clean energy, it would allow us to meet all our energy needs carbon free, capture carbon and sequester it, deslainate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation - so allowing us to develop wastelands for habitation rather than ripping into forests and depeleting rivers; and we'd have to energy to recycle all our waste. So how is overpopulation 'the' problem - and do you not see the great potential for evil inherent in such a view?

Hope for what? Not even if we had unlimited cheap energy would that make life on a finite planet unlimited. — Athena

That's a false value. The aim is 'sustainable in the foreseeable future' - not unlimited. That said, with the possible exception of helium, I don't see us running out of anything anytime soon. Given abundant clean energy, we can recycle our waste - mince it all up, strip out the metals, oils, glass, chemicals - and re-use them.

That does not mean I do not have hope. I have hope that human beings are capable of understanding reality and like many people in China realize the importance of having one child. — Athena

Demographics is complicated. A one child policy doesn't merely reduce population. It ages the population. Also, in China there was such a preference for male children (goodness knows why) female babies were left to die in the street. Years later, there's many men who can't find a wife. The very idea of population control is repugnant, and opens the door to evil - from forced abortion all the way upto genocide. If one can possibly avoid blaming the existence of people - anyone with a love of wisdom would naturally do so.

This reasoning is based on reading geology books. We have a pretty good understanding of the world's supply of essential resources, where they are, and when the demand will be greater than the supply. — Athena

Generally, literature on mining discusses resources it is economically rational to develop. The limiting factor is the availability of energy. So, as the richer deposits are mined out, deposits get deeper and further apart. Increasing amounts of rock needs to be crushed and heated to extract decreasing amounts of ore. This requires ever greater amounts of energy. With abundant clean energy, deposits that would have not been economical to develop using fossil fuels, can be developed - thus increasing supply for the foreseeable future.

The hope must be based on information and education for living with our reality. The planet can not afford dreams of no limits. And as for who must die so that others can live- who wants to live through what future generations are going to live through? Some may survive and be able to maintain civilization but I don't think this will happen if we do not work with the facts. And we must come together for these few people to have a chance. We will die but if we do things right, they have a chance of living. — Athena

That's what the left wing, anti-capitalist green commie movement have been saying for the past 50 years, and I'm saying that it's not true. Overpopulation is not a problem, and nor is limits to resources. It's an anti-capitalist green commie misrepresentation of the reality; that with limitless clean energy from magma, we can have far greater prosperity, for many more people, and do so sustainably.

I endorse much of what you have written. Good people do tend to get angry when they see the immense potency of value being wasted away. I think that your frustration with those who do not understand the need (and power) of concerted effort towards the improvement of society is justified. I think the only pertinent thing to keep in mind would be that there are hidden yet dazzling diamonds in the sand.

Yeah, I think that cooperation at the highest level is vital (that is why I had earlier alluded to the fact that micro-level action seems to be more significant right now, which is good, but not perfect). Recent announcements, such as India announcing its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, are appreciable, yet there is scope for improvement. I also agree that mixed economies are probably the best bet since imbalanced approaches do not seem to provide comprehensive solutions. Magma energy looks like an immensely interesting idea! I will surely look into this — DA671

Please do: here's a link:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract

Perhaps you'll have better luck advertising it than I - I'm not a very socialble person. I tend to hammer people with facts, and expect them to change their minds, and get frustrated when they don't. I'm not a salesman, and I don't want to stand in the way of my own ideas.

Sometimes, a mist can obscure our ability to see the light. However, I am optimistic that it exists-and it is getting stronger. I have met others like you who, instead of falling prey to unbridled pessimism, wish to contribute towards making the world a happier place for all via the careful use of technology and investment in green energy. It's particularly heartening to see many young people supporting these ideas, sometimes in defiance of the views of their elders. The change will come as long as we remember the worth of combined effort. Everybody hopes some for growth and preservation, and others for destruction. However, hope remains in all of us, and I believe therein lies the strength of true and realistic hope. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours! — DA671

Thank you, but I must point out the significant difference between my own position and the 'green' movement. I advocate for sustainable capitalism. I do not approve of the left wing 'green commie' agenda. I accept the climate and ecological crisis is a problem, but believe it's one that can be solved in such a way as to provide for a prosperous sustainable future. I'm not a vegan cyclist, envious of wealth. I believe magma energy will allow us (human beings) to raise the living standards of the 3 or 4 billion poor people - to first world standards, sustainably - and that's an enormous economic opportunity for everyone.

You keep on hammering on magma energy but is it indeed the safe answer to all our energy problems? How do you know the magma gods won't turn against us? In iceland it works, but there live only half a million of people. That's about 20 000 times less than the global population! Magma in Iceland resides under a thin surface. That's not the case for many countries, just like the Sun doesn’t shine everywhere to turn into usable energy.
Isn't the hammering too frolic? — Cornwell1

First, we need to make a distinction between the geothermal energy Iceland have developed, and magma energy. They are not the same. Iceland's deepest geothermal well - IDDP, is a hydrothermal well. The Nasa research envisages drawing energy driectly from magma. The estimated size of the US resource alone is '50,000 - to 500,000 quad.' To put that in context, 40 years later, global energy demand is only 650 quad (quadrillion btu.)

Safe? No, nothing is safe. Everything is a risk. 500 people a year die falling out of bed. There are 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire, and 1500 globally, NASA have claimed, can provide the world with an effectively limitless source of heavy duty clean energy. Here is the link:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract

Knowing which technology is right or wrong usually comes after the fact. — Cornwell1

Fair point given the history of coal, oil and gas production, but NASA researched magma energy from the mid 1970's to late 1980's - and concluded it was a viable source of virtually limitless clean energy. I think the Regan administration must have discontinued it, but then there was President Clinton - and his Vice President, Al Gore - the inconvenient truth guy. How did VP Al Gore not join the dots on the climate crisis and magma energy? Instead - frack for oil and gas with one hand, and tax consumers into poverty with the other? It's obviously wrong, and it won't work to secure the future.

That's exactly what science has almost done! — Cornwell1

On page 11 - you wrote:

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

I responded:

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. It's science used as a tool, in pursuit of ideological ends, rather than developing and applying technology for reasons rational to a scientific understanding of reality. — karl stone

I refer you to the answer I gave some time ago.

I express my profuse apologies if anything I said came off as rude/offensive. As I have said elsewhere, I do have a lot to learn, and that starts when the single-minded focus on "I" ends. — DA671

It's not you. It's me. I'm angry and despondent; not without reason, but it's nothing you've done. I'm venting, and when I'm done - no doubt I'll feel suitably ashamed.

Cooperation instead of competition, generally. At least on the micro-level, I do see it a lot where I live. Small business owners coming together to fight for their rights and locals demonstrating together for a pothole near a house isn't uncommon. Of course, more needs to be done. — DA671

I need cooperation at the highest level - to develop and apply magma energy technology, but otherwise favour competition. As an economic ideology, communism has failed everywhere it's been tried, and often resulted in genocide. That said, too much freedom is also often the cause of great suffering. Mixed economies are the reality; but mixed economies responsible to a scientific understanding of reality, would take the sustainability crisis very seriously, and cooperate to develop magma energy.

I was referring to their claim about them looking beyond themselves. I have seen people who do so, and I hope I can learn something from them. People are selfish, but there are also individuals like you who care about others and the ever-pervasive issue of myopic selfishness. I used to think that working together was a platitude, but I do not think so anymore, because it does have the capacity to bring change (such as the farmers' protest in India) and instil joy in the souls of countless people. — DA671

You've perhaps heard the story of Pandora's box - that contained all the evils of the world. When opened, they were released, but in the bottom of the box there remained hope. I'm having trouble finding it. The fact there's a limitless source of clean energy - that could be developed and built quite rapidly, and could provide the energy necessary to secure a prosperous sustainable future for all humankind, doesn't seem hopeful to anyone other than me. I'm trying to understand why; and think that perhaps, beset by all the evils of the world - it's impossible for people to believe there's hope!

Holey cow! So we all should bow to the tyranny of science? — Cornwell1

No. You should fuck everything up and become extinct!

I do not disagree with you entirely! I think that your point about many people focusing on their selfish and limited interests undoubtedly deserves attention. As I have said in my replies to Schopenhauer1, we certainly have to work together to address many of our contemporary issues. It would not be possible to do so without a change in one's mindset. No man is an island. — DA671

Work together? What on earth does that mean?

I only wanted to concur with the idea that there are good people in the world who do positive deeds, sometimes without the expectation of any fame or material wealth (which might be why they are not always known). Therefore, I think that hope for a better future continues to persist. I am sorry if my reply seemed to ignore what you had said; I did not intend to do so. Have a delectable day! — DA671

Cornwell1 didn't say 'there are many good people in the world.' You did. You're agreeing with yourself; thus proving my conjecture that human beings are profoundly selfish; and demonstrating the mendacity of your 'work together' platitude.

I agree. Despite the odds we currently face, I do think that there are many good people out there who do want to make the world a better place. — DA671

So the first time you've spoken to Cornwell1 in the past two weeks is now, to disagree with my post - when I'm right here? Why is that?

Speak for yourself... — Cornwell1

I am speaking for myself, about my general impressions of human beings. I'm wondering why, for example, national economies were turned over to the purpose of mass murder during the first and second world wars, and here we are faced with an actual existential threat, and the most that could be wrung from COP26 was an aspiration to use a little less coal someday, maybe!

Again, speak for yourself. — Cornwell1

More like - to myself. I emailed various politicians and media organisations at COP26 about Magma Energy, and got no replies. I write about it here, and on twitter - and it's like screaming into a void. So now I'm trying to understand why no one is interested in the seriousness of the threat, or the huge opportunity there is in a genuinely adequate solution.

I look beyond my own sad self, though I'm not always sad. You should show some responsibility to truth here! I wonder sometimes even about the beginning of our universe and beyond. I agree we have a cosmic potential. though lying and cheating is no vindication of non-existence. On the contrary, it is a confirmation of existence: Mentior ac fallere ergo sum. — Cornwell1

Hold a map upside down and see if you get where you wanted to go. Lies don't work. They are unjust and dysfunctional. Both cause and effect and evolution dictate - if you're wrong, you're gone. If you're lying, you're dying. Reality will not be brooked. We can't con our way into heaven. Resposnsibility to scientific truth is the only way to secure a propsperous sustainable future.

Human beings are miserable, selfish, mendacious and quite often malicious. They won't struggle to secure human existence, firstly because they themselves are mortal - so who cares, and second, because they view existence as a chore! They won't look beyond their own sad selves, recognise a responsibility to truth, and act to secure a prosperous sustainable future - nor see beyond, to the concievably cosmic potential of human intelleigence. They'll lie, cheat and steal unto oblivion; finding vindication in being entirely worthy of non existence!

We all know overpopulation is a problem that is only growing, by 2050 we will have to feed 10 billion people. — Schrödinger's cat

I do not know that. I don't believe overpopulation is the fundamental nature of the problem; but that it's a very wrongful and dangerous mode of thought. I believe the fundamental nature of the problem is the mis-application of technology, and that, applying the right technologies we could sustain a large human population indefinitely.

The key technology is magma energy, shown by nasa in 1988 to have truly vast potential; over a thousand times global energy demand just from the US alone. Lavishing this energy to meet all our energy demands carbon free, plus, capture carbon, desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, and to recycle all waste, over-population would not be a problem. We'd also have to farm fish, and protect the forests while developing wastelands for agriculture and housing - but, the real problem is not too many people. Rather it's that we have not applied the right technologies to sustain human population.

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.


Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988
Pub Date: 1987 Bibcode: 1987STIN...8820719D Keywords:
Geothermal Energy Conversion; Geothermal Energy Extraction; Magma; Wells; Energy Technology; Geochemistry; Heat Exchangers; Site Selection; Technology Assessment; Two Phase Flow; Energy Production and Conversion

p.s. quad: quadrillion btu. Global energy demand is approx. 650 quad.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract

Riiight. Let's go to a slaughterhouse or an abortion clinic where we can observe the "the miraculous nature of everyday reality". — baker

I eat meat, and I respect a woman's right to choose - if and when she commits to the economic life changing, body morphic trauma that is bringing another life into the world.

I've worked in a slaughterhouse - chickens, but still, I eat chicken. There's nothing like hot chicken breast on brown bread with mayo. It produces a transcendent, almost orgasmic pleasure in me. And it does strike me as miraculous all these ingredients can be harvested, and cooked together in various combinations, that provide endless delight to the human palate? How could evolution possibly have designed plants and animals so consistently improved by cooking, and so wonderously edible?

I think one has to respect a woman's right to choose, precisely because we are the only animals who cook, rather than simply eat. An animal killed in nature suffers a worse death by far than humane slaughter at the hands of humans; and there's a parallel to a child brought into the world unwanted - in that, your bleeding heart humanity would be the cause of greater suffering of which you'd wash your vegan pro-life hands.

Maybe one day, we'll transcend this material veil of tears; I think, hope, pray, humans have that potential, but if there's a heaven to discover, or create - it will be humans that find it, not chickens!

It would be easier for you to convince me that you know enough, if you did not begin by declaring overpopulation is not a problem. — Athena

Overpopulation is not a problem...if we apply the right technologies. Currently, population is unsustainable, but that's because we have applied the wrong technologies. It all comes down to energy. You say:

China has a very serious water supply problem, and places, where the water supply is from melting glaciers, will not be able to sustain their populations when the glaciers are gone. — Athena

It's technologically possible to desalinate water to irrigate land to produce food. The problem is the energy cost of doing so. Had we developed magma energy from the 1980's onward, we'd now have limitless clean energy to spend, and so population wouldn't be a problem. Blaming the existence of people opens the door to nightmares. It demeans us all; and is perfectly hypocritical - for surely, you assert your right to exist. So you imply someone else should sacrifice their existence for you. And just so, you say:

Where I live there is a huge homeless population and poverty is a more serious problem because rents are so high, and none of this would be so if we were not dealing with overpopulation. — Athena

Why do you suppose it's the poor who are excess to rerquirements? Surely it's you, with your two houses, each with a three car garage, jetting off on three foriegn holidays every year - that's more of a problem in terms of sustainability than some homeless guy. It's your lifestyle that's unsustainable, not his! We need to apply the technologies to sustain your lifestyle - starting with magma energy!

Do you really mind if there are less cars, less campers, less drones, less cameras, less washing machines, less kitchen aids, less stereo amplifiers, less microwave ovens, less roads, less fences, less light bulbs, less plastic bottles, less perfumes, less electricity wires, less computers, less experiments, less tools, less lasers, less production of useless stuff, etc.? — Cornwell1

Are you personally prepared to go without some or all those things, or is it other people who should not have what they want and need? I want the things I have, some of which are on your list, so I'd have to say - I do mind, yes! The things I've bought employ people, who in turn buy things. The trick is to have the energy to spend to recycle all waste - mince everything up, and then process it back into constituent elements for further manufacturing. That's why we need limitless clean energy, and the earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing so much energy it will still be hot when the sun goes supernova in about 5 billion years.

You're not impressed by the above arguments about an infinite series of big bangs? It does seem absurd that something has existed forever with no explanation. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I cannot write anything that makes sense - the idea that the universe 'came into being' seems just as crazy as the idea it exists eternally. I wish it would all just go away! But then what would there be? Nothing? How can there be nothing? How can time not pass? How can space not be space? Even empty space is space! And, if it's not empty - what is it full of? None of it makes sense!

The energy coming from a fusion reaction is higher than what you put into it. The kinetic energy of two hydrogen nuclei in a fruitful event is less than the energy coming out. So clever engineering can make it work. — Cornwell1

I don't think so. The goal is a self sustaining fusion reaction; and I think the 'free energy' of huge gravitational forces is necessary to a sustained fusion reaction. Otherwise, inevitably, you have to keep pumping energy into the system, and that's always going to be at a loss because perpetual motion machines don't work. I'll gladly admit this is but a layman's opinion; I cannot do the math to support my intuition, and may well one day be required to eat my hat. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Here I'm lost. Less production means less energy means less impact on nature. — Cornwell1

...means more people, with ever less resources to share between them!

What seems more far-fetched:
(1) something from literally nothing
(2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I usually enjoy a good polling, but this question is a choice between logical absurdities, with no good reason to favour one absurdity over another. I haven't voted yet, so I don't know what the numbers are, but my guess would be about two thirds - something from nothing, and one third, an infinite past. Neither of them make any sense. I don't know what would. The universe is weird. It's like a prison with no bars; we exist, suspended between the infinitely big and the infinitely small, with no 'edge of the map' from which we might imply the nature of existence. It's bizzarre. Forced to choose, on the basis of cosmic expansion, I'll say something from nothing. The Big Bang Theory, but that's not to say I find it satisfying.

Then why they still trying? You can make it happen in a bomb, so why not in a plant? — Cornwell1

The short answer is, I don't know why they are still trying to harness nuclear fusion. Maybe for the same reason people climb mount everest - because it's there. Maybe because of the hundreds of millions in grant money. Who can say. I also don't know how a fusion bomb works. Let's have a look. According to google, it doesn't work.

"Is a fusion bomb possible?
Despite the many millions of dollars spent by the U.S. between 1952 and 1992 to produce a pure fusion weapon, no measurable success was ever achieved."

But here's why I think fusion energy cannot work, economically, in earth gravity. Imagine the gravity of the sun, compressing hydrogen atoms together into a dense plasma. If a fusion reaction occurs, it releases energy, increasing the density of the surrounding plasma, forcing other atoms to fuse - and the result is a sustained fusion reaction.

In earth gravity, the only way to force atoms to fuse is to pump in vast amounts of energy, to reach temperatures of 150 million degrees celius - ten times hotter than the core of the sun. This plasma is so hot it will vaporise anything it touches, so must be contained with electromagnetic fields - again, using a considerable amount of energy.

When two atoms fuse under these conditions, it does not increase the probability of further fusion reactions. Every fusion of two atoms is forced by the input of energy, and is a singular event - or series of singular events; and it's like in a petrol engine - when setting off, it requires more energy to go from 0 to 5 miles an hour, than from 25 to 30.

Without the gravitational density of plasma, forcing atoms together, such that a fusion reaction increases the probability of further fusion reactions, in energy terms, they are always accelerating from zero with every singular instance of fusion. Thus, the energy input, to create and contain such high temperatures, will always exceed the energy output.

Or you can consume and produce less. — Cornwell1

No. I explained why this approach cannot secure a sustainable future. Poor people breed more. They have larger families. At the same time, less energy means it gets more expensive and harder to do everything. Society crumbles while population explodes, and that will not end well. Famine, mass migration, war. Why would prefer that to a prosperous sustainable future - based on limitless clean energy from magma?

Fusion could already have been economically if only enough effort had been put in it. — Cornwell1

No, that's not true. There have been many, very expensive attempts to develop fusion energy over the past 50 years. The latest attempt is ITER; you can read about it online. The adage regarding fusion energy is that it's been "five years away for the past 50 years." And just so, ITER is saying 'five years and we'll have cracked it' - but IMO - they never will. I do not believe fusion can work in earth gravity.

Solar cells can get more economical still. You can put them on every roof top or even in the dessert. — Cornwell1

The energy produced by wind and solar is low grade; and to transmit energy along a cable takes a lot of umph, and also degrades by about 10% per 1000 km. So you build a solar array in the desert - you can't transmit the energy anywhere, and there's not even any water to store it as hydrogen. In some circucmstances, solar is a very useful technology, but it cannot supply global energy demand. Regarding solar roofs, etc, you can look online yourself and find endless stories about people suing companies and banks over loans taken out to install solar panels that didn't deliver the promised savings.

Hydrogen can be made with the aid of that energy and truly green cars produced. On my birth island in Italy, magma heath is used for saunas. Who knows what will happen if you tap magma energy for the whole Earth? Nobody. The best solution: lower the energy consumption. — Cornwell1

If you have less energy, then everything gets more expensive. It's more expensive to do things, because everything we do requires energy. If you don;t maintain something, it falls apart. Plus, poor people breed more. Lowering energy consumption implies a spiral of poverty, driving overpopulation, driving greater poverty. That can't end well.

That sounds wonderful and I watched a show last night about Bill Nye the Science Guy and his fight to get religious leaders to accept science, We all need to picket this place at the top of the tourist season https://arkencounter.com/ . It is a theme park presenting a full-sized Noah's ark as though this were science. The people who present this park, and visit it, are the enemies of science. They are climate change deniers. Or perhaps we could find out which churches in our neighborhoods are climate deniers and ask to talk with them about global warming? — Athena

That's one way to go, but do you really want to disenchant people who believe in God as part of their identity and their purposes - but who have no power to craft energy policy? Are you going to look a little old ladies in the eyes and tell them - there's no such thing as God? And even if you are willing to be that cruel - how do you know there isn't a God? I don't know if God exists, and I know I don't know!

It is not strange to me that things are getting worse, because the ancients saw the end as a time when there was more life on earth than the earth could support. We are there. The mass of humanity has overwhelmed the earth's ability to support it. The world seriously needs population control and it would be nice to do this with reason, instead of killing the excess humans in our countries and making war on other countries. The refugee problem around the world is the reality of overpopulation. — Athena

I could not disagree more. Over-population is not a problem at all. The misapplication of technology is a problem. I live in the UK, and population density is relatively high by global statndards, but less that 2% of the UK land surface is actually built upon. Globally, it's going to be less than that. So, if humans can live sustainably - there's no lack of room. And magma energy can give us all the energy we could ever want - we could deslainate sea water, pump it inland and make the deserts bloom if we so chose. So over-population is not a real problem; it's a consequence of the scarce, expensive and polluting fossil fuel energy we continue to use. It limits what we are able to do.

Here, we're philosophers. We volunteer to have our ideas tested to destruction. Similarly, polititians and industry have a responsibility. I seek to convince you, and politics and indisutry that a prosperous sustainable future is possible - that humankind can live long term by harnessing magma energy and using that to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. If we applied those technologies, we could bring 3 or 4 billion poor people into the first world economy - sustainably. The economic opportunity is vast, and we're missing it because of an addication to fossil fuels!

You can harvest the wind too. Or solar energy. And use hydrogen to store the energy and make it portable. Only water will be waste. Not to mention fusion energy. — Cornwell1

Wind and solar are not reliable, nor heavy duty enough to meet our energy needs. The UK, where I live would need about 20,000 windmills just to meet demand for domestic energy. They cost about £25m each, and last about 20 years. You'd bankrupt the country building them, and wouldn't complete construction before that first ones built would need replacing at the same cost. Worse, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow, or blows too hard, you always need a full fossil fuel back up generating capacity.

Solar is no good where I live. It's not light enough long enough. It's dark at 3pm in winter.

Fusion will never work economically in earth gravity. I'll explain why if you want to know.

Magma energy is the right technology for a lot of sound reasons. It's heavy duty, clean, and essentially limitless.

Hydrogen storage is a good idea, but wind, solar, fusion, not so much.

Without scientific truth, economy wouldn't have grown as devastatingly as in the modern world. — Cornwell1

This is helpful. It shows me you haven't understood my premise. The 1634 trial of Galileo divorced science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. As an understanding of reality, science was suspect of heresy. As a tool, science drove the indistrial revolution - and technology was developed and applied for power and profit, not because it's true!

Yeah, well, what's more to say about it. — Cornwell1

At least, that you understood the premise. What I write makes sense to me, but I have no idea how it's recieved by others. I don't know if I'm communicating effectively without feedback on what you think I mean. From your response:

"

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

I can deduce one of two things, either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. So I explained the premise again; that it's not technology that's the problem, it's the wrong technology that's the problem. And your reply:

That's still technology. — Cornwell1

...still doesn't tell me whether I'm communicating effectively, because I don't know if you understand, but disagree, or don't understand. That's disappointing.

Now you say:

You might consider technology an art, the material expression of knowledge, and assign high value to state of the art technology, but it is embedded in a larger reality. It's a fact that if the presence of technology increases, and knowledge grows, they will reinforce each other exponentially, a fact supported by economic growth models. You might have a clean energy source, say the Sun, fusion, or magma, like on Island (where the world's first hydropen pump station opened up), you might recycle all you use, but if technology's presence grows exponentially, no technology in the world will be sufficient to restore the disturbed balance. Only a stable presence of tech can prevent disaster. Maybe a technology that doesn't grow but changes. — Cornwell1

...and, I'll tell you straight up that I don't understand what you mean by this. I understand all the words, I can read the sentences, but the idea you are seeking to express is unclear.

For my part, I'm talking about solving climate change by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, and trying to understand why we haven't done that already.

That's still technology. — Cornwell1

Your post is disappointing.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse
— karl stone

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. It's science used as a tool, in pursuit of ideological ends, rather than developing and applying technology for reasons rational to a scientific understanding of reality. For example, Trump Digs Coal, because it creates jobs and revenues, but ignores the global threat of climate change.
Magma energy technology is possible, and could supply the world's energy needs and much much more, without greenhouse gas emissions. So it's not technology per se - it's putting national economic interest ahead of scientific truth.

Hmmm...my mind is involuntarily thrown to Descartes, doubting the validity of his senses, even as he constructs propositional statements about the reality he seems to experience via the senses. Is it not implicit in the proposition 'the mouse ran behind the tree' - if my senses are not decieving me? Is not belief - different from knowledge in this regard, that belief is at the same time, supposed to be true, but uncertain? And does not the propositional nature of belief exist in this uncertainty? That so, the question devolves to one of, what is a proposition and what is a justified true belief; resolved by a series of scientifically controlled experiments to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, if in fact the mouse is behind the tree. Then saying the mouse is behind the tree is not a proposition - it's a statement of fact.

It kind of reminds me of Egypt and thinking it is the pharaoh's job to prevent chaos from destroying the harmony with nature that is essential to staying out of trouble. — Athena

I'm not sure I should be pharoah; cultural appropriation and whatnot! I'm thinking more along the lines of philosopher king of the world. But I'll settle for philosopher.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse. In my view, the chaos we see is the causal consequence of acting at odds to reality. Religious, political and economic ideological concepts do not describe reality as it really is - science does! Acting on the basis of ideological concepts we act at odds to reality, and as the disparity between our course, and 'true north' becomes ever wider, the chaos increases.

Magma energy is a viable technology. It was proven by NASA in 1982, in a series of papers entitled The Magma Energy Project. I cannot be certain the project was not developed because of the vast national and economic interests in fossil fuels, but science showed limitless clean energy is available, and it hasn't been developed. That was over 40 years ago, and in the meantime - global population and fossil fuel use have doubled.

My hope, recognising this relationship between the validity of knowledge, as a basis for human action, and the validity of the outcome - will allow us to have our cake and eat it. I'm certainly not suggesting we tear down the churches, banks and borders, to start again from scratch, making all our representations conform to strict scientific rationality. Rather, my hope is that recognising the significance of a scientific understanding of reality will create the authority to do that which is necessary to survival; namely, develop magma energy to meet all our energy needs, plus power carbon capture and storage, deslaination and irrigation, and the recycling of all waste - allowing for a prosperous sustainable future.

How about philosophy that ties into cutting edge science, like cognitive theory or perceptual psychology? As an adherent of ‘scientific method’ I would assume you try to keep up with actual research results in such cutting edge fields. — Joshs

Shockingly, no - I do not. I did read Piaget on developmental psychology, with reference to Freud and Jung, but more for an overview of the feild. Generally speaking, I take a behaviourist approach - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably thinks it's a duck!

Ha Ha... thanks for the heads up!
If what you say has any element of truth within it then perhaps, over time, I will be less concerned about being able to hold my intellectual ground during dialogue with all comers on this forum. Hopefully, I will also never ossify and always maintain an open mind towards the viewpoints of others. — universeness

There's often detectable traces of truth in what I say, and here it's the idea that in-depth knowledge of a philosopher's works can become a prison for the mind. I think that's true. So don't let people browbeat you with appeals to authority. I also believe there are, what I call 'obscurantists' - who, for a variety of reasons, seek to make things as complicated and obscure as possible.

I am so going to steal the term 'intellectual masturbation,' I don't seem to have encountered (I refuse to say 'come across it'..oh,...I just did) it before. It is a great descriptor for the smug look I have often viewed on the face of one protagonist when they think they have just scored an intellectual point against another. I think I will be using that term when I see that look in someone's face again. I think its a great counter. I admit to secretly feeling that way myself, when in debate but I have always felt a little ashamed afterward. Or at least, it makes me question my own motivations and priorities when dealing with others around me. — universeness

You seem to have an agile and enquiring mind, but come across as a bit uncertain of yourself. I just wanted you to know, in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.

This reminded me of Wittgenstein. — Joshs

I was required to read Wittgenstein at university, and loathed him almost as much as I hated Heidegger. I consider them both 'obscurantists' - whose jargonistic philosophy creates devotees. All this 'being in the world, and sein und dasein - is metaphysical hocus pocus. Any philosophy worth reading begins with epistemology; and the epitome of epistemology is scientific method.