Does National Socialism have any truth or relevance to it?
- Thread starter ~Derek~
- Start date
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Sounds like crap to me. How are we supposed to judge this? Are there any other civilizations to compare us to?
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
It's a measure of the energy outpput of a civilization.
It's judged based on our energy output.
Did you read the whole fucking article?
It's judged based on our energy output.
Did you read the whole fucking article?
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
It doesn't have any basis in science and thus is not really relevant at all. It seems quite speculative. Also, judging our level of advancement by how much energy we produce seems kind of off to me.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
It's just a subjective way to categorize something. Not much different than naming different music genres
seedofvengeance
Boosh!
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Atleast Cookie grasps the point of this.
Point being, our race won't continue forever in the state it is now.
And V5, the larger and more powerful a civilization is, the more energy it will consume. Atleast, thats been the trend for the last 10,000 years, which is a pretty respectable sample.
Point being, our race won't continue forever in the state it is now.
And V5, the larger and more powerful a civilization is, the more energy it will consume. Atleast, thats been the trend for the last 10,000 years, which is a pretty respectable sample.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
I dunno, I am conceding because I'm starting to grasp the concept of this. I'm wondering if there are other theories with other criteria on how our civilization is doing.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I don't really understand the opposition to this. It is just one way to classify civilization based on data. It's not making a scientific claim.
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
And my point is still: what does that have to do with what I posted earlier. Considering I made no claims whatsoever about anything related to the future of our civilization.
Maybe you were talking strictly about the US government, but you and WeAreInFlames were making it sound as if no one on this planet is actively researching and developing fusion power, which just isn't true. That is what I was pointing out.
And also that it makes sense that given the highly theoretical nature of fusion power as an efficient and affordable energy source, that no single country is going to allocate a huge part of their resources to researching it by themselves. Instead, it makes more sense for countries to work together in joint ventures to develop this technology considering it would clearly benefit all of humanity. Which is exactly what the test reactor in France is going to be.
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
But countries won't work together. They never do. Each one wants to get there first. It was the same with the space race. They don't care if it benefits humanity. The country that discovers it first has a technological edge on all the others. That's more important to them.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Whoa, slow down with them generalisations there. Plenty of countries work together. To my understanding, competitions like the space race are more often divided by ideology than by nationality. The Cold War was essentially a standoff between Western nations and Soviet-allied nations, with the members of either group often helping out other countries who were on their side.
Yes. The thing I mentioned wasn't some hypothetical or something, they are actually already doing this.
http://www.iter.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
While I'm sure many countries would like to "get there first" in theory, in practice no one is going to be willing to pony up all the money to make that happen by themselves. I mean look at this project, it costs 10 billion, and that is just to create a test reactor that in itself will never generate any kind of useful energy. It's just a technology test. A 10 billion costing test. And that is just the beginning. Not to mention that the entire concept is still theoretical and may never actually end up being a commercially feasible source of power. So that 10 billion and whatever else is spent on it (probably many dozens to hundreds of billions) might not even pay off in the end.
When the costs, risks and potential benefits are as big as they are for fusion power, countries are more than willing to cooperate.
http://www.iter.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
While I'm sure many countries would like to "get there first" in theory, in practice no one is going to be willing to pony up all the money to make that happen by themselves. I mean look at this project, it costs 10 billion, and that is just to create a test reactor that in itself will never generate any kind of useful energy. It's just a technology test. A 10 billion costing test. And that is just the beginning. Not to mention that the entire concept is still theoretical and may never actually end up being a commercially feasible source of power. So that 10 billion and whatever else is spent on it (probably many dozens to hundreds of billions) might not even pay off in the end.
When the costs, risks and potential benefits are as big as they are for fusion power, countries are more than willing to cooperate.
Similar threads
