Polywell Visions: Food

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

cksantos
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 6:18 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby cksantos » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:09 pm

MSimon wrote:
I think this ties into another implication for the social environment. I think that, in general, people don't trust technology, and view it as a force for evil in the world.


Until they need a doctor, or want to turn on a computer, or wish to cool their domicile in the summer or heat it in the winter, or heat their food by a microwave, or talk on their cell phone.


We get that in Hawaii with native rights activists who want to restore the monarchy. But they vote, drive SUV's with huge tires, shop at safeway, etc. The guys who actually grow their food and live the old Hawaiian are not judgmental at all. If only the concept of aloha was global...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Postby MirariNefas » Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:34 am

MSimon wrote:
I think this ties into another implication for the social environment. I think that, in general, people don't trust technology, and view it as a force for evil in the world.


Until they need a doctor, or want to turn on a computer, or wish to cool their domicile in the summer or heat it in the winter, or heat their food by a microwave, or talk on their cell phone.


Well, you ge the nuts who don't visit the doctor, they visit the alternative healing specialist guru, and refuse to get their kids vaccinated. They complain and feel guilty about cooling their domicile because they feel it warms the planet, they don't stand too close to the microwave, and they wonder if they can sue the cell phone company when they get a brain tumor.

But they love turning on the computer so they can blog about the evils of technology.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:37 am

I try to keep my distance from the microwave. Since I do not have a tester I worry about bad seals. Rare to be sure. But I'd prefer to avoid getting cataracts any sooner than my age indicates.

As to your other points. Yes.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

cksantos
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 6:18 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby cksantos » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:59 am

I think this ties into another implication for the social environment. I think that, in general, people don't trust technology, and view it as a force for evil in the world.


I think that the technology=evil is an older generation thing. Because the younger generation is convinced that technology can solve any problem, to the point of obsession. I agree many people do think that tech is evil, but I have a hunch they are a minority. Even if they are a majority still, or much more likely just in charge for the moment, they will die/retire eventually.

My grandpa wont touch computers, he says "their evil". Yet I want to download my consciousness onto a Google cloud in a few years. Call it Google afterlife. My point thought is that this disconnect is going to change the government slowly as people die off. We have a African american president who won by using online social networking, older candidates in the future need to clue in or just die/retire.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:36 am

I first got into computers in Jan of 1975. So I was an early adopter. And yet I could never get my mom and dad into them. And I know many people in my generation who can't deal with them (boomers).

Of course my kids grew up in my shop and were always around computers from birth. Back when it was hard my #1 son and I worked 3 days straight in shifts to get us on the Internet (Dec of 95). And we thought we were way late. There were already 20 million users. Heh.

As to the 2008 election. It was not so much social networking that won that battle. It did help. It was that the 20 and 30 somethings wanted to do something historic. I had seen that go down in Illinois with the election of Carol M. Braun. A totally ineffective Senator. Barry did not make that mistake. He left no tracks, unless you dug really deep.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

wizz33
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:43 pm

Postby wizz33 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:23 pm

see www.plantlab.com for a plant factory

ltgbrown
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Postby ltgbrown » Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:06 pm

Because the younger generation is convinced that technology can solve any problem, to the point of obsession.


And this is way we have so many problems. Technology is just one dimension of transformation. Without changes in legislation, organization, processes, concepts, and (by far the most important and therefore most difficult to affect) culture, the realization of the full potential for change cannot be achieved, especially with just technology.

Concepts lay out what is hoped to be achieved by bringing together transformations (i.e. changes, innovations, improvements, etc) in the other dimensions.

-Legislation contains the rules by which one must play.
-Organization is who is responsible for what to whom.
-Process is who does what how.
-Technology is what is used to do what by whom to do what for what purpose by what rules operating in what structure... (I just wanted to see how many times I could use the word what.)
-Culture is the mindset that binds the other dimensions together and empowers the people doing all this to fill in the gaps to best achieve what is hoped for in the concepts. Most importantly, it is what drives one to look for better ways (through the all the dimensions of transformation) to achieve the goal, what (again!) ever that might be. National Security, Economic growth, civil rights, sustainability, etc.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

cksantos
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 6:18 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby cksantos » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:00 pm

Throughout history technology has been the driving force of anthropogenic change. Technology is an enabler rather than a result.

And this is way we have so many problems. Technology is just one dimension of transformation. Without changes in legislation, organization, processes, concepts, and (by far the most important and therefore most difficult to affect) culture, the realization of the full potential for change cannot be achieved, especially with just technology.


Technology is the enabler for change in all of the above dimensions.

Computers will make more direct forms of democracy practical. The US democratic republic is only 200 years old, and IMO does not stand a chance at surviving the singularity(assuming computers follow Moores law unto technological oblivion)

Internet 2.0 ie, youtube, twitter, wikipedia, facebook, etc have done more to change the rate of sociological development in the past 5 years than many of the inventions of the past millennia.


-Legislation contains the rules by which one must play.


Not necessarily, you are discounting revolution, civil war, and possible mass enlightenment that could occur from singularity class social events.

Organization is who is responsible for what to whom.


Changing dramatically due to technology, ie cell phone text donations during haiti disaster, internet bloggers swinging government decisions(polywell), etc.

Process is who does what how.


Processes are changing exponentially due to recent technology ie, 3d printers, 100% automated manufacturing, and god forbid nanotech...

-Technology is what is used to do what by whom to do what for what purpose by what rules operating in what structure... (I just wanted to see how many times I could use the word what.)


See how many defining terms you had to use to understand technology, that shows how it is the web that binds culture. Without tools/technology language would not have developed, pack hunting would be impracticable for lack of method to take down big game, and human would not have developed a society/culture at all. If you asked an anthropologist, which came first tool usage/technology or homo sapiens sapiens, the answer is technology/tools. (my wife is an anthropology major, so I actually got to do that, lol)

-Culture is the mindset that binds the other dimensions together and empowers the people doing all this to fill in the gaps to best achieve what is hoped for in the concepts. Most importantly, it is what drives one to look for better ways (through the all the dimensions of transformation) to achieve the goal, what (again!) ever that might be. National Security, Economic growth, civil rights, sustainability, etc.


Culture empowers people through tools, not vice versa. Without the technology of writing and language in general culture would never have developed. So to predict the future, look at the technology and what its implications are. Tesla is my inspiration for this methodology. He had very little cultural and social knowledge/skills, yet he was able to predict with accuracy many future technologies and their implications.

ltgbrown
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Postby ltgbrown » Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:19 pm

See how many defining terms you had to use to understand technology, that shows how it is the web that binds culture. Without tools/technology language would not have developed, pack hunting would be impracticable for lack of method to take down big game, and human would not have developed a society/culture at all. If you asked an anthropologist, which came first tool usage/technology or homo sapiens sapiens, the answer is technology/tools. (my wife is an anthropology major, so I actually got to do that, lol)


However if you can solve the backflow issues (regulatory not technical issues)


Ah, so without regulation, the technology cannot be fully applied. As I said, you need transformation across all the dimensions (some more than others) in order to fully realize a capability.

What do you mean by homo sapiens sapiens? Typo I am guessing. As for your (and your wife's) assertion about tools coming after homo sapiens, are you both positive that the chimpanezes that use sticks to get ants/termites did so after homo sapiens came about?

I would submit that tools and technology are not in and of themselves transformational. People (or homo sapiens if you like :D ) use these tools and technologies, but for what purpose? How do they use it? What can they use if for it? With whom? Why? All of these are answered by concept, process, legislation, organization, and culture, whether it is written down or not. Does there exist the technology, today (hell 30 years ago), for the world to transform to "green" sources of energy and virtually eliminate (i.e. make it less than .1% as solar is today) fossil fuels from the energy mix? Then why has it not happened? Because the will (culture) is not there to create the regulatory (legislative) envirnoment to spur the transistion. Do we use cap and trade or a carbon tax (legislative) to incentivize the development? What should be taxed/capped first (process)? Who should manage it (organization)? Etc.

I agree with what I read between the lines in your comments: that technology essentialy drives transformation and the other dimensions play catchup, the internet is a perfect example of this. But, the concept of how the internet (a piece of technology) can improve the execution of a democratic election (as an example, and I am not talking about the campaign, but the actually PROCESS of gathering and tallying votes) is a concept waiting to be written. Just think of all the changes in the other dimensions that would HAVE to take place before you see the internet transform elections. Could the internet actually get us to a true democracy (we have a representative government, I am talking about a government where there are no representatives)? Maybe, but it sure as hell will not do it without massive transformations in ALL of the other dimensions.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:45 pm

Then why has it not happened? Because the will (culture) is not there to create the regulatory (legislative) envirnoment to spur the transistion.


Translation: steal from the people to fund your hobby horse.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:00 pm

And don't get me wrong. I think funding research that is forward looking but too far off to attract VC is a good thing. The amounts required for that are pennies per person vs the current hundreds of billions for subsidies and regulations.

The government should not be involved in any way with subsidies and mandates for any technology except those with military applications.

So what should be done to insure roll out of desirable technologies? Research that lowers the cost to make such technologies cost competitive.

Otherwise you get what we have today: huge subsidies for generation (which is sexy) and very little for storage to make AE in the system viable (actually reduce the need for 100% fossil fuel hot backup).

If the rubric was "let the market decide" then the money would be allocated better because people who want AE would be asking: what are the impediments and how can we clear them without putting a big gun to people's heads?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:13 am

ltgbrown wrote: What do you mean by homo sapiens sapiens? Typo I am guessing.
Homo sapiens sapiens is modern human, Genus Homo, species, sapiens, subspecies sapiens. As opposed to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and some say homo sap heidelbergensis.

cksantos
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 6:18 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby cksantos » Fri Jun 25, 2010 2:11 am

ltgbrown wrote:
cksantos wrote:If you asked an anthropologist, which came first tool usage/technology or homo sapiens sapiens, the answer is technology/tools. (my wife is an anthropology major, so I actually got to do that, lol)


As for your (and your wife's) assertion about tools coming after homo sapiens, are you both positive that the chimpanezes that use sticks to get ants/termites did so after homo sapiens came about?


Please reread my statement, we are in agreement. Tools came first.

ltgbrown wrote:I would submit that tools and technology are not in and of themselves transformational. People (or homo sapiens if you like :D ) use these tools and technologies, but for what purpose? How do they use it? What can they use if for it? With whom? Why?


Tools and technology are merely an extension of our mental "selves". Our physical "selves" don't use technology, so much as we were part cyborg already when that monkey uses the stick to eat. Our mental "selves" take advantage of the aggregate of cells that are so nice as to facilitate "our" existence(our bodies). This same, so called, "self" also takes advantage of things outside of its body as well. The scary part is the "self" is a bystander to the actions of the body, recent cogsci studies show that the brain fires the nuerons to move body parts BEFORE it fires the DECISION to move the body part. "YOU" are a bystander to "it", which is your body. and tools are part of "it", not "you".

This is what people mean when they reach enlightenment and feel "one" with the universe/god. They merely associate themselves with "it", more than "you".

Self is change, because change is the only constant within the self. Me today is not me tomorrow. That said me tomorrow is still responsible for me today, so i cant just go and start stealing, murdering and pillaging without accepting responsibility for the continuity of my "self". Which is why an insanity plea is merely a plea of discontinuous self, aka schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. So "you" is ego and is self delusional in thinking it has any control over "it", yet it is still responsible for "it" because "you" is the holder/watcher/protector of continuity of self. Hence the terms, lose yourself, lost my mind, etc. Your body was still working during the said loss of continuity, but your "self" is lost due to failure to protect is continuity.

ltgbrown wrote:I agree with what I read between the lines in your comments: that technology essentialy drives transformation and the other dimensions play catchup, the internet is a perfect example of this. But, the concept of how the internet (a piece of technology) can improve the execution of a democratic election (as an example, and I am not talking about the campaign, but the actually PROCESS of gathering and tallying votes) is a concept waiting to be written. Just think of all the changes in the other dimensions that would HAVE to take place before you see the internet transform elections. Could the internet actually get us to a true democracy (we have a representative government, I am talking about a government where there are no representatives)? Maybe, but it sure as hell will not do it without massive transformations in ALL of the other dimensions.


Technology is driving massive change as we speak, while nothing else is changing. This in the past results in regime shifts. Read Ibn Kahldun he had all this figured out in 14th century.

ltgbrown
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Postby ltgbrown » Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:44 am

Homo sapiens sapiens is modern human, Genus Homo, species, sapiens, subspecies sapiens


Thanks, didn't know that.

As for the tools before humans thing, I goofed. I agree with you.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"


Return to “Implications”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest