We spend a lot of our time on these forums debating issues, sometime with civility, sometimes not. So I wanted to start a thread focusing only on those things we deem positive. Most of us probably have more than one source of hope.
Of course, we all may not agree! What one person considers positive another may see as negative. But what gives you hope for the near or far future?
I'll start by choosing a technology currently being researched a few miles away from me here in California. The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Labs aims to generate electricity with nuclear fusion, using high energy lasers fired at a small target to create the fusion event and generate the power. Coupled with a nuclear power plant, such a facility could burn all of the nuclear waste from the power plant, supplementing it's energy production while destroying all nuclear waste. Existing nuclear waste could also be used as fuel, as can nuclear warheads.
Calibration tests are currently underway and proceeding extremely well according to one of the engineers there with whom I spoke. The first fusion attempt will take place next year.
If you wish to learn more, visit the site here: https://lasers.llnl.gov/
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
We spend a lot of our time on these forums debating issues, sometime with civility, sometimes not. So I wanted to start a thread focusing only on those things we deem positive. Most of us probably have more than one source of hope.
Of course, we all may not agree! What one person considers positive another may see as negative. But what gives you hope for the near or far future?
I'll start by choosing a technology currently being researched a few miles away from me here in California. The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Labs aims to generate electricity with nuclear fusion, using high energy lasers fired at a small target to create the fusion event and generate the power. Coupled with a nuclear power plant, such a facility could burn all of the nuclear waste from the power plant, supplementing it's energy production while destroying all nuclear waste. Existing nuclear waste could also be used as fuel, as can nuclear warheads.
Calibration tests are currently underway and proceeding extremely well according to one of the engineers there with whom I spoke. The first fusion attempt will take place next year.
If you wish to learn more, visit the site here: https://lasers.llnl.gov/
Respectfully,
M |
I've always been fascinated with this, right from the beginning of time when it was first mentioned in James Bond movies. Hope that the development will always have peaceful consequences, as it would also be a phenomenal military weapon as well.
For me the greatest invention by far is the progress made with computers and computing hardware and software, including the Internet. I was thinking the other day how even just a few years ago, a Memory Stick was about 100 times as expensive for something rediculous like 500kb. And now we have 1GB on a stick at very low prices. I've just learned about people no longer needing to plug in laptop computers to projector equipment. You can do your presentation right from the memory stick through the projector. You now also get pocket size projectors, equipment are getting smaller and smaller. I keep being impressed almost on a daily basis. Maybe one of these days everything will be done through holograms as well.Nope. You are both wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Haha, just kidding.
Hmm... what new technology do I have hope for?
I gotta say, I don't have much faith in any of it, as far as how it's being used.
Technological advancements always seem to get bastardized and misused by those in power.
But that's a bit off topic.
I like the fusion/electric thing going on in your area, Moonspider. I think it holds promise, as far as energy goes.
I don't know what kind of technology it will take, or what it will ultimately be, but I am really chomping at the bit to see our next big jump in space travel technology. I am fascinated by space travel, and I think it holds a multitude of possibilities for the human race in the future. Sadly, I don't think I will live long enough to see what I dream of it becoming.
| Ophois wrote: |
| I don't know what kind of technology it will take, or what it will ultimately be, but I am really chomping at the bit to see our next big jump in space travel technology. I am fascinated by space travel, and I think it holds a multitude of possibilities for the human race in the future. Sadly, I don't think I will live long enough to see what I dream of it becoming. |
How about Epcot Centre in your neck of the woods? You also have the Kennedy Space Centre. Travelling to other planets has to be one of the most exciting developments of this century as well. The promise of opening up new worlds ..... sigh ..... 
Nuclear fusion has to work,or if not some other alternative has to be found as fossil fuels won't last forever.
I saw on a programme about a new way of getting people into space,it was a lift (or if your American - elevator) So instead of flying up into space to reach a space station,all you do is get into the lift/elevator,and press up.
Technology: None. It cannot solve our problems and might make them worse.
Idea: A world without nuclear weapons. The process of working toward that goal could start the idea of a world without the leading countries in the world all profiting off of wars (the countries on the UN security council just happen to be the same ones making the most money on weapons and war profiteering.)
| handfleisch wrote: |
Technology: None. It cannot solve our problems and might make them worse.
Idea: A world without nuclear weapons. The process of working toward that goal could start the idea of a world without the leading countries in the world all profiting off of wars (the countries on the UN security council just happen to be the same ones making the most money on weapons and war profiteering.) |
That's not technology. Looks as though you are really into the caretaking business. And I don't agree. One of these days we will be without the necessary resources to make electricity, drink clean water, breathe clean air. We need people to come up with some technological proposals for working ourselves around these limitations, including researching other planets.I think a lot of my wishful thinking for technology is based on sci-fi books I've read or movies I've seen. But that said, the transporter from all the Star Trek shows/movies would be a really cool and useful thing. Besides all the uses from the show, there could be other, more “practical” uses. Like in cases of natural disasters/accidents/etc., supplies could be transported directly to where they are needed. Also, deep-sea exploration could be revolutionized because instead of having to submerge and emerge, permanent relay stations could be set up at certain depths to move supplies and people. There is a lot of emphasis place on outer-space exploration, but there are still a lot of areas on our own world worthy of further exploration. We could also cut down on pollution since material goods, food, etc. that are now transported by boats, planes, trucks and trains could be shipped through transporter-style devices. But I have a feeling that even if this technology was freely available I’d still be late all the time. Technology may change, but it’s hard to change human nature.
The coolest thing would be a light saber, though. I remember how bad I wanted one as a kid when the original movies first came out. I’m sure everyone of a certain age remembers getting yelled at by their mothers for unscrewing the kitchen mop/broom handle so that you could have a duel with your friends and coming home with it in two or three pieces.
| deanhills wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | Technology: None. It cannot solve our problems and might make them worse.
Idea: A world without nuclear weapons. The process of working toward that goal could start the idea of a world without the leading countries in the world all profiting off of wars (the countries on the UN security council just happen to be the same ones making the most money on weapons and war profiteering.) |
That's not technology. Looks as though you are really into the caretaking business. |
What do you mean, "that's not technology"? The thread asks for technology or ideas that give us hope. I gave answers to both. What's your problem? | handfleisch wrote: |
Idea: A world without nuclear weapons. The process of working toward that goal could start the idea of a world without the leading countries in the world all profiting off of wars |
Actually, nukes help to prevent wars. A world with lots of nukes would probably have less wars, because countries would be too afraid to start a war that might end with nukes. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: |
Idea: A world without nuclear weapons. The process of working toward that goal could start the idea of a world without the leading countries in the world all profiting off of wars |
Actually, nukes help to prevent wars. A world with lots of nukes would probably have less wars, because countries would be too afraid to start a war that might end with nukes. |
That depends whether:
a) You believe all countries are under 'rational' control;
b) You believe that the extra nukes would not fall into the hands of sub-national groups | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | Technology: None. It cannot solve our problems and might make them worse.
Idea: A world without nuclear weapons. The process of working toward that goal could start the idea of a world without the leading countries in the world all profiting off of wars (the countries on the UN security council just happen to be the same ones making the most money on weapons and war profiteering.) |
That's not technology. Looks as though you are really into the caretaking business. |
What do you mean, "that's not technology"? The thread asks for technology or ideas that give us hope. I gave answers to both. What's your problem? |
"No" is an answer? OK, I guess it has to be. I just thought you would be able to come up with something better than "No". Why do you say that technology cannot solve our problems and will make our problems worse?
A world without nuclear weapons is certainly not a new idea. That idea has been around for quite a long time. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Idea: A world without nuclear weapons. |
I agree. I wish that we could eliminate all nuclear weapons, and believe it or not, I actually think that we will do so within the next 100 to 200 years. Unfortunately I don't believe we will eliminate nuclear weapons because of a change in our nature. Like all technologies, something else (or combination of things) comes about that obsolesces the previous technology. The United States already does not need nuclear weapons. We maintain them solely as a deterrent, and even that has questionable value.
Eventually missile defense technologies will substantially devalue the offensive capability of nuclear weapons, if not make them obsolete entirely, as the Strategic Defense Initiative envisioned. More importantly though, and what we already see in the U.S. military, is that new offensive weapon systems prove better than nuclear weapons.
General Colin Powell said several years ago that (I believe while he was CJCS) there was no military reason for us to use nuclear weapons, because any task for which one would once consider using a nuclear weapon, can now be accomplished with one or more conventional weapons. (I paraphrased.)
If we ask ourselves the “5 Whys” of why we have nuclear weapons, we discover why the United States (and eventually everyone else) no longer needs them militarily.
- Why did we invent nuclear weapons? A single nuclear warhead dropped by one plane with a ten-man crew can do the same job (destroy a city) as 1,000 planes with 10,000 crew members.
- Why did we need to destroy a city?Strategic bombing of factories and other facilities proved only partially effective in damaging the war production of enemy states. The decision was made to level cities in order to cause the greatest amount of destruction to both property/infrastructure and the civilians who work in the factories. Some thought it might also lead to a societal demand for surrender.
- Why was strategic bombing of factories only partially effective?The bombs were not accurate and causing significant damage thus required large numbers of aircraft.
- Why were the bombs not accurate? The technology did not exist to make guided bombs. Ballistic missiles were first being developed but even these had very simple guidance systems.
- Why did the technology not exist? Human technology simply had not advanced far enough.
So once we arrive at the root cause for the development of nuclear weapons, we realize why modern nations of the 21st Century, certainly the United States, no longer need them for offensive military operations. 98% of our strike weapons are “smart” weapons. By the middle of this century at the latest, even U.S. Navy cannons (both powder and rail guns) will be “smart” weapons (and the rail guns will have at least a 200NM range.) We don’t need to wipe out a city to destroy its military capacity. We’ve proven that. And with time, all developed nations will have similar capabilities.
Thus, we retain nuclear weapons now simply as a deterrent. Ironically, the evidence of history over the past 60 years demonstrates that no nation will ever use them. (Although we came within 24 hours of an exchange during the Cuban Missile Crisis.) I firmly believe that the United States and Russia can negotiate away our entire arsenals, perhaps in the next 25 years. Once we do, our nations will have the moral high ground from which to properly uphold the NPT.
| General Charles Horner, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), Former Commander of U.S. Space Command wrote: |
The nuclear weapon is obsolete. I want to get rid of them all...I want to go to zero, and I'll tell you why: If we and the Russians can go to zero nuclear weapons, then think what that does for us in our efforts to counter the new war...Think how intolerant we will be of nations that are developing nuclear weapons if we have none. Think of the high moral ground we secure by having none...It's kind of hard for us to say to North Korea, `You are terrible people, you're developing a nuclear weapons,' when we have oh, 8,000.
I'm not saying that we militarily disarm. I'm saying that I have a nuclear weapon, and you're North Korea and you have a nuclear weapon. You can use yours. I can't use mine. What am I going to use it on? What are nuclear weapons good for? Busting cities. What president of the United States is going to take out Pyongyang?
So then, you say, `Why do I have nuclear weapons?' To use against small countries creating problems. But then you get into that moral issue...I just don't think nuclear weapons are usable. |
I think General Horner is absolutely right.
I believe that the only real threat of a nuclear attack comes from a terrorist organization acquiring one. The likelihood of nation-states using them diminishes with each passing day. And a nation possessing nuclear weapons does not deter terrorists. So if we and the Russians (I think China and Europe would follow our lead) can negotiate our way to 0, there is no need for a nuclear deterrent or nuclear weapons.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| The process of working toward that goal could start the idea of a world without the leading countries in the world all profiting off of wars (the countries on the UN security council just happen to be the same ones making the most money on weapons and war profiteering.) |
I too wish that were so! Unfortunately, this requires a fundamental change in human behavior, which I just don’t see possible. The day we no longer face war will be the same day we can fire every local, state, and national police officer. True world peace, like that of which you (and I would like to think all, but I doubt it) dream simply isn’t within our natures. I'm afraid.
Respectfully,
M@Moonspider. What is it about human nature that when we get the opportunity for "hope" and dreaming up new technology that gives us hope, that we immediately get into a subject that has not much hope written into it? The heading of the thread asked us to look at a technology or idea that gives us hope for the future. When I think nuclear weapons, I get instantly depressed. For how many decades have we seen people marching with placards trying to stop nuclear weapons. I think the best we could aspire to is to do what is currently being done, and that is to work at getting those countries with nuclear weapon know-how to be subjected to the non-profileration treaty of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But surely there are other subjects that we could dream and get positive about? Your kick-off of the National Ignition Facility had me excited. Would be wonderful if we could get more contributions of the "hope" and "solution" variety.
| deanhills wrote: |
@Moonspider. What is it about human nature that when we get the opportunity for "hope" and dreaming up new technology that gives us hope, that we immediately get into a subject that has not much hope written into it? The heading of the thread asked us to look at a technology or idea that gives us hope for the future. When I think nuclear weapons, I get instantly depressed. For how many decades have we seen people marching with placards trying to stop nuclear weapons. I think the best we could aspire to is to do what is currently being done, and that is to work at getting those countries with nuclear weapon know-how to be subjected to the non-profileration treaty of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But surely there are other subjects that we could dream and get positive about? Your kick-off of the National Ignition Facility had me excited. Would be wonderful if we could get more contributions of the "hope" and "solution" variety. |
I honestly think it’s hard to be hopeful sometimes. In the face of all the fears for the future, the barriers of the present and dragging along all the baggage of the past it’s easy to say, “What’s the point?”
Like I said before, I agree with Handfleisch. I too wish the world harbored no nuclear weapons, and that wars and militaries were just the things of stories and history books. I would more than happily pack my uniforms and equipment away for the last time and hang my sword on the wall, not because of retirement, but because nations no longer required such service. I’d praise God that our children would know a better life than that we had lived, never to see the same horrors inflicted by the hands of men.
Idealistic, but not realistic.
But whether it be an idea or a new technology, one can choose to be pessimistic about it or optimistic. Most every new technology brings challenges or problems as well as opportunities and promise. We choose upon which to focus and how to weigh those against one another.
In my example, part of the technology’s purpose is to test thermonuclear weapons material. We no longer detonate those weapons to conduct tests. So to insure their continued viability , we created a machine, the National Ignition Facility, to create the conditions normally only found on this planet inside a thermonuclear explosion. We can also use that technology to generate electricity though, and even destroy nuclear waste and nuclear/thermonuclear warheads as part of energy production. I choose to focus on the promise of clean energy production, not on its purpose of testing thermonuclear weapons.
Another technology I have tremendous hope for is nanotechnology, specifically nano-factories. Once again, there are a lot of fears, realistic fears, about waste, weapons development and proliferation, etc. However the promise and hope the technology offers in the advancement of medicine, production, and other areas outweighs the risks. I truly believe the development of nano-factories will be comparable to the invention of the steam engine. That is how dramatic I think the revolution will be and how significantly it will impact society! I choose to focus on the hope and promise, while we work to mitigate the risks.
When the auto was first invented, people looked to the hope of it cleaning up the streets. No longer would cities be clogged with horses and filled with urine and feces, with dead carcasses on the corner and owners publicly abusing their animals. Sure the auto has brought us other problems with (different) congestion, pollution, and sprawl. But those are problems to be overcome, not reasons we never should have invented the internal combustion engine. We can choose to focus on the problems and condemn a technology. Or we can choose to focus on the promise and mitigate the problems.
Hope I didn’t ramble too much! (And that I made sense in response to your query!)
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | @Moonspider. What is it about human nature that when we get the opportunity for "hope" and dreaming up new technology that gives us hope, that we immediately get into a subject that has not much hope written into it? The heading of the thread asked us to look at a technology or idea that gives us hope for the future. When I think nuclear weapons, I get instantly depressed. For how many decades have we seen people marching with placards trying to stop nuclear weapons. I think the best we could aspire to is to do what is currently being done, and that is to work at getting those countries with nuclear weapon know-how to be subjected to the non-profileration treaty of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But surely there are other subjects that we could dream and get positive about? Your kick-off of the National Ignition Facility had me excited. Would be wonderful if we could get more contributions of the "hope" and "solution" variety. |
I honestly think it’s hard to be hopeful sometimes. In the face of all the fears for the future, the barriers of the present and dragging along all the baggage of the past it’s easy to say, “What’s the point?”
Like I said before, I agree with Handfleisch. I too wish the world harbored no nuclear weapons, and that wars and militaries were just the things of stories and history books. I would more than happily pack my uniforms and equipment away for the last time and hang my sword on the wall, not because of retirement, but because nations no longer required such service. I’d praise God that our children would know a better life than that we had lived, never to see the same horrors inflicted by the hands of men.
Idealistic, but not realistic. |
The question was about ideas and hope. Perhaps hope is always idealistic; if it were realistic it wouldn't be hope.
Look at some of the progress in ideas of the last 100 years in the USA. A hundred years ago, women couldn't vote, were considered a lower class of person, were generally discouraged from obtaining anything more than basic formal education. Everyone think on that. And I don't need to make the now-obvious point about African Americans and what they have achieved. Think of the relatively short time period between many major nations being slave-states to slave-states being pariahs. Think of the concept of a universal standard of human rights being enshrined and accepted by all civilized countries, and the leaps forward we have made in enforcing them. Think of that fact that places like Sweden were once aggressive, warring countries that had their own empires and we can see that entire cultures can change. In these examples, idealism became realism.On a more positive note for the use of nuclear power: Russia is contemplating the building of a nuclear powered space ship to carry humans to the Moon and Mars.
| Quote: |
FRYAZINO (Moscow Region), October 28 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos has developed a design for a piloted spacecraft powered by a nuclear engine, the head of the agency said on Wednesday.
"The project is aimed at implementing large-scale space exploration programs," Anatoly Perminov said at a meeting of the commission on the modernization of the Russian economy.
He added that the development of Megawatt-class nuclear space power systems (MCNSPS) for manned spacecraft was crucial for Russia if the country wanted to maintain a competitive edge in the space race, including the exploration of the Moon and Mars.
Perminov said that the draft design of the spacecraft would be finalized by 2012, and the financing for further development in the next nine years would require an investment of at least 17 billion rubles (over $580 million).
Anatoly Koroteyev, president of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics and head of the Keldysh research center, earlier said that the key scientific and technical problem in sending manned missions to the Moon and Mars was the development of new propulsion systems and energy supplies with a high degree of energy-mass efficiency.
The current capabilities of the Russian space industry are clearly insufficient either to set up a permanent base on the Moon or accomplish an independent manned mission to Mars, he said.
|
Source: http://en.rian.ru/science/20091028/156623290.html The technologies and ideas that give me hope are ones that I can control. They are not new things. But, they are new to me. I have been learning breadmaking, blacksmithing and primitive skills. These new tools, technologies and capabilities may come in very handy in the future.
| jwellsy wrote: |
| The technologies and ideas that give me hope are ones that I can control. They are not new things. But, they are new to me. I have been learning breadmaking, blacksmithing and primitive skills. These new tools, technologies and capabilities may come in very handy in the future. |
Has to be a great thrill. As a kid my parents were always too busy and often never got to the undertakings they made to us kids, so I would always try and figure things out. Like when the plug of a hair dryer or heater blew, I would open the one that blew and a good one and check out how to fix things, and that did give me a good feeling of accomplishment. My greatest personal challenge is to get my TV, DVD and Satellite Receiver to work together properly, it took about two months of reading the manuals. But yes, maybe we are living too comfortable lives that are unhealthy for us as well. We need to get away so that we can be really tested in what we can do, and motivated to do more. | handfleisch wrote: |
The question was about ideas and hope. Perhaps hope is always idealistic; if it were realistic it wouldn't be hope.
Look at some of the progress in ideas of the last 100 years in the USA. A hundred years ago, women couldn't vote, were considered a lower class of person, were generally discouraged from obtaining anything more than basic formal education. Everyone think on that. And I don't need to make the now-obvious point about African Americans and what they have achieved. Think of the relatively short time period between many major nations being slave-states to slave-states being pariahs. Think of the concept of a universal standard of human rights being enshrined and accepted by all civilized countries, and the leaps forward we have made in enforcing them. Think of that fact that places like Sweden were once aggressive, warring countries that had their own empires and we can see that entire cultures can change. In these examples, idealism became realism. |
Point well taken. We may not accomplish all of our hopes and dreams. But we certainly won't achieve them if we never hope. Thank you.
Respectfully,
M | handfleisch wrote: |
| Look at some of the progress in ideas of the last 100 years in the USA. A hundred years ago, women couldn't vote, were considered a lower class of person, were generally discouraged from obtaining anything more than basic formal education. Everyone think on that. And I don't need to make the now-obvious point about African Americans and what they have achieved. Think of the relatively short time period between many major nations being slave-states to slave-states being pariahs. Think of the concept of a universal standard of human rights being enshrined and accepted by all civilized countries, and the leaps forward we have made in enforcing them. Think of that fact that places like Sweden were once aggressive, warring countries that had their own empires and we can see that entire cultures can change. In these examples, idealism became realism. |
Perhaps so much is taken for granted, such as the miracle of uniting 50 states under one roof. It must have taken a huge number of hopes and dreams to have gotten to that point. Dreams and hopes are not enough however, faith in realizing dreams has to be the real miracle here.Every time I saw Captain Picard (Star Trek Next Generation) ordering his Earl Grey Tea or Councilor Troy getting a triple alien fudge dessert from one of those replicators on the Enterprise, it made me jealous. I imagine you could send the dirty dishes back to the void where they came from. BTW, a replicator is a device that uses transporter technology to dematerialize quantities of matter and then rematerialize that matter in another form.
Tokomak's. I think we can see them start makin' sweet sweet juice in the next 30-50 years. Might even see them work in my lifetime! That would be awesome.
Right now it's too expensive to get grains from the US, which must destroy it's hoard lest it goes to waste, to places that have no grain because of the costs of transport. Transporting drinking water from places where there's plenty is quite costly and needs lots of energy. Thus I think that if we get a good energy source, we will be able to power up all needed devices that in turn will be able to distribute wealth more efficiently and cheaper. Sure, there will be poor people out there, BUT there will be less hungry people, less wars over water etc.
I recently saw a piece on tv about an experimental gene therapy that works to give people born with a certain type of congenital blindness their sight by replacing an enzyme in the eye. I've also read about a breakthrough that gets science closer to a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. Both of those give me hope for the future.
They just put a new solar power plant online in Arcadia, Florida that produces enough power for the entire town. That makes me hopeful, too.
| Jinx wrote: |
| I've also read about a breakthrough that gets science closer to a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. |
Based on the fact that some Africans are beginning to show immunity to the virus? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Jinx wrote: | | I've also read about a breakthrough that gets science closer to a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. |
Based on the fact that some Africans are beginning to show immunity to the virus? |
I have not heard anything about this. And am most interested to learn more. Do you have a recollection of where I could search for furthder infor about immunity to the virus? | deanhills wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Jinx wrote: | | I've also read about a breakthrough that gets science closer to a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. |
Based on the fact that some Africans are beginning to show immunity to the virus? |
I have not heard anything about this. And am most interested to learn more. Do you have a recollection of where I could search for furthder infor about immunity to the virus? |
I don't have much, just that it was found out that a small minority of prostitutes in areas of Africa heavily affected by the virus would get infected, but never show any symptoms, never get sick, even after several decades of being infected.
(Which is much like how chimps are... Most chimps have the HIV virus, but very few of them -- 2% was it? -- are ever harmed by the virus. These prostitutes (being the most exposed humans in the world to the virus) might be developing the same kind of immunity.)Short answer: gene therapy solutions to disability and disease. :D
Long answer: If we can modify a virus to recognize and attack cells with incomplete or incorrect sequences of DNA based on a model string that it carries, we will have a cure for every kind of cancer and many genetic disorders. Like this, only more versatile. | Moonspider wrote: |
We spend a lot of our time on these forums debating issues, sometime with civility, sometimes not. So I wanted to start a thread focusing only on those things we deem positive. Most of us probably have more than one source of hope.
Of course, we all may not agree! What one person considers positive another may see as negative. But what gives you hope for the near or far future?
I'll start by choosing a technology currently being researched a few miles away from me here in California. The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Labs aims to generate electricity with nuclear fusion, using high energy lasers fired at a small target to create the fusion event and generate the power. Coupled with a nuclear power plant, such a facility could burn all of the nuclear waste from the power plant, supplementing it's energy production while destroying all nuclear waste. Existing nuclear waste could also be used as fuel, as can nuclear warheads.
Calibration tests are currently underway and proceeding extremely well according to one of the engineers there with whom I spoke. The first fusion attempt will take place next year.
If you wish to learn more, visit the site here: https://lasers.llnl.gov/
Respectfully,
M |
Fusion is certainly an interesting technology. However, I think it may still be a long time before it is Commercial - probably 30-40 years.
I think that Nano-technology is currently the most interesting development. It may offer solutions to major health problems, waste-recyling, renewable energy, food production etc. No single technology promises to solve as many problems as nano-technology. It is probably still 10-15 years before most applications are commercial, however. | bmcbryan wrote: |
Fusion is certainly an interesting technology. However, I think it may still be a long time before it is Commercial - probably 30-40 years.
I think that Nano-technology is currently the most interesting development. It may offer solutions to major health problems, waste-recyling, renewable energy, food production etc. No single technology promises to solve as many problems as nano-technology. It is probably still 10-15 years before most applications are commercial, however. |
Would appear that there are some environmental concerns about this technology in that the products can't break down, and when inhaled it could have similar negative consequences to asbestos. If it were to be used, it would have to be very heavily regulated:
| Quote: |
Some of the recently developed nanoparticle products may have unintended consequences. Researchers have discovered that silver nanoparticles used in socks only to reduce foot odor are being released in the wash with possible negative consequences. Silver nanoparticles, which are bacteriostatic, may then destroy beneficial bacteria which are important for breaking down organic matter in waste treatment plants or farms.
A study at the University of Rochester found that when rats breathed in nanoparticles, the particles settled in the brain and lungs, which led to significant increases in biomarkers for inflammation and stress response.
A major study published more recently in Nature Nanotechnology suggests some forms of carbon nanotubes – a poster child for the “nanotechnology revolution” – could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in sufficient quantities. Anthony Seaton of the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, Scotland, who contributed to the article on carbon nanotubes said "We know that some of them probably have the potential to cause mesothelioma. So those sorts of materials need to be handled very carefully." In the absence of specific nano-regulation forthcoming from governments, Paull and Lyons (2008) have called for an exclusion of engineered nanoparticles from organic food. A newspaper article reports that workers in a paint factory developed serious lung disease and nanoparticles were found in their lungs.
|
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Jinx wrote: | | I've also read about a breakthrough that gets science closer to a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. |
Based on the fact that some Africans are beginning to show immunity to the virus? |
I have not heard anything about this. And am most interested to learn more. Do you have a recollection of where I could search for furthder infor about immunity to the virus? |
I don't have much, just that it was found out that a small minority of prostitutes in areas of Africa heavily affected by the virus would get infected, but never show any symptoms, never get sick, even after several decades of being infected.
(Which is much like how chimps are... Most chimps have the HIV virus, but very few of them -- 2% was it? -- are ever harmed by the virus. These prostitutes (being the most exposed humans in the world to the virus) might be developing the same kind of immunity.) |
This is how most viruses work... HIV has actually gone through many more viral generations than most pathogens do before finally making an error that produces the seeds of immunity. If I remember orgo correctly, it goes like this:
1) Virus forms in small population, spreads. Viral spread is a process of a very few viral capsules infecting host cells, cloning themselves with the infected cell's capability, and finally destroying and exiting the cell to repeat the process.
2) In the course of spreading, virus splits into many permutations of its itself via random changes/errors in the cloning process; all strains that remain similar to the original and one another are classified as the same virus. Each strain tends to form it's own range of "dominance" in a geographic region. (This does not mean the virus is fighting off its brother strains, simply that it is the most common, often because it is the most successful match to the transmission methods of the local population, or it is the only strain introduced to a previously inviolate population via a single infected individual.)
3) Over time, the information within one (or more) strains deteriorates from random errors that occur in copying trillions of times across trillions of cells in millions of hosts. The result is that some new hosts become infected with weakened or ineffective versions of the virus. If the host's immune system can respond correctly to this weakened strain, it defeats the spread and the new host does not suffer the effects of the original virus. This process of divergence>weak strain>host immunity tends to begin in the geographic area wherever the virus is transmitted the most, as this provides the maximum number of viral copies being produced, and therefore, the maximum chances for errors to occur.
4) Those hosts who have successfully defeated the weakened strain become immune to further infection of that strain via long-term immune system response. If that strain is similar enough to the original collection of potent viral strains, the hosts' immunity extends across the entire collection. This immunity can be spread across the entire population in one of several ways:
a) These hosts survive to reproduce at a greater rate than the rest of the vulnerable/infected population, eventually leading to an immune population consisting of their ancestors (hundreds to thousands of years).
b) The weakened virus may achieve infection in another species that maintains close contact with the human population (prey species, pet species, scavenger species) and thereby survive, occasionally infecting humans who then achieve immunity.
c) Scientists identify the weakened strain and utilize it as a base for a live vaccine. Alternately, scientists may develop the weakened strain from an original, potent strain in a laboratory and develop vaccines from this man-made version, either live or inactive. This is (roughly) how the swine flu vaccine was developed.
Owing to the different builds and styles of viruses and depending upon how much we know about their composition and critical functions, there are some viruses that we can quickly develop a vaccine to, and some that we cannot. HIV, to the present, has been one of the later. That may be changing, though. :DThe next 50 years are going to ROCK.
Robotics are going to become the next amazing thing. They'll eventually replace all grocery store & fast food workers, as well as mechanics, janitors, and anything else that can be done with minimal real thought.
The NIF is super exciting, as others mentioned earlier in the thread. Probably won't work, but I love chances.
Computing obviously, and the future of communication.
Augmented reality, HUDs in cars, lane-assist tech in cars, all kinds of automotive applications are going to be awesome.
In-vitro meat is going to make meat really cheap.
Biotech is going to make medicines more available, cheaper, and better working.
so much potential, everywhere.
| Auctus wrote: |
.
so much potential, everywhere. |
A lot of potential for abuse as well... | Auctus wrote: |
The next 50 years are going to ROCK.
Robotics are going to become the next amazing thing. They'll eventually replace all grocery store & fast food workers, as well as mechanics, janitors, and anything else that can be done with minimal real thought. |
This sounds perfectly horrible to me. Adding to unemployment, but more important for me, taking the human part out of the equation. I love my grocery store and fast food workers, as well as janitors and other people in service. I have zero interest in having them replaced with robots. Like taking life out of life! 
| deanhills wrote: |
| Auctus wrote: | The next 50 years are going to ROCK.
Robotics are going to become the next amazing thing. They'll eventually replace all grocery store & fast food workers, as well as mechanics, janitors, and anything else that can be done with minimal real thought. |
This sounds perfectly horrible to me. Adding to unemployment, but more important for me, taking the human part out of the equation. I love my grocery store and fast food workers, as well as janitors and other people in service. I have zero interest in having them replaced with robots. Like taking life out of life! :evil: |
Have either of you experienced vending machines in Japan? Or, for that matter, automats in America? Have you seen the machines behind the counters at a fast food restaurant? Or on a construction line? Even automated calling systems keep a "speak with an customer service representative" option somewhere on the keypad. Even with all of this mechanization, we still have clerks, cashiers, and operators. I don't think the majority of human population, regardless of how close we come to human-quality experiences with our cutting edge robots, will ever dismiss human workers from that last, face-to-face level in the storefront in favor of electronic interaction.
Robotic interfaces are already an option for low-quality, fast functions like ATMs, telephone exchanges, vending machines, online bill pay, medication refills, and the like, but I do not believe they will progress much farther than this. | quex wrote: |
Robotic interfaces are already an option for low-quality, fast functions like ATMs, telephone exchanges, vending machines, online bill pay, medication refills, and the like, but I do not believe they will progress much farther than this. |
And people thought that the automobile would never be more than just a rich man's novelty either...
Just as we think of those days as the very earliest stages of the rise of the car, someday these days will be thought of as the very earliest stages of the robot takeover. | quex wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Auctus wrote: | The next 50 years are going to ROCK.
Robotics are going to become the next amazing thing. They'll eventually replace all grocery store & fast food workers, as well as mechanics, janitors, and anything else that can be done with minimal real thought. |
This sounds perfectly horrible to me. Adding to unemployment, but more important for me, taking the human part out of the equation. I love my grocery store and fast food workers, as well as janitors and other people in service. I have zero interest in having them replaced with robots. Like taking life out of life! |
Have either of you experienced vending machines in Japan? Or, for that matter, automats in America? Have you seen the machines behind the counters at a fast food restaurant? Or on a construction line? Even automated calling systems keep a "speak with an customer service representative" option somewhere on the keypad. Even with all of this mechanization, we still have clerks, cashiers, and operators. I don't think the majority of human population, regardless of how close we come to human-quality experiences with our cutting edge robots, will ever dismiss human workers from that last, face-to-face level in the storefront in favor of electronic interaction.
Robotic interfaces are already an option for low-quality, fast functions like ATMs, telephone exchanges, vending machines, online bill pay, medication refills, and the like, but I do not believe they will progress much farther than this. |
Of course we have. I'm just saying that taking "humanity" out of "service" is not necessarily making a contribution to society. The US currently has an unemployment of 10% of its work force. That has to be a 10% that is in real trouble, from every sense of the word, self-esteem being very high on the list, being able to look after their families, being able to have hope in the future. I'm not averse to some repetitive elements to be replaced by robotics, such as laundromats, but there has to be a balance in the total picture. Some people may not have the same opportunities, or abilities to become highly qualified individuals of society and need "service" jobs. Our students need those "service" jobs to help them qualify for those brainy positions in society.
By the way I really can't stand those automated customer service representatives on the phone. It is very rarely that they are efficient and well designed, and I can't recall that I have ever been satisfied finding the information I needed efficiently after having gone through a ring-a-ring-a-rosies loop within loops circles of those systems. I'd far rather that there are specific hours where you can find a very well trained professional person answering your banking enquiry or go into a bank and speak to a live person, than a 24-hour brainless exercise, where the person who is serving you cannot come up with the answers, nor is empowered to make the changes you need on the spot. The only automated part I appreciate would be such information as the Bank Branch addresses, phone numbers, electronic addresses for transfers, and business hours. | deanhills wrote: |
| quex wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Auctus wrote: | The next 50 years are going to ROCK.
Robotics are going to become the next amazing thing. They'll eventually replace all grocery store & fast food workers, as well as mechanics, janitors, and anything else that can be done with minimal real thought. |
This sounds perfectly horrible to me. Adding to unemployment, but more important for me, taking the human part out of the equation. I love my grocery store and fast food workers, as well as janitors and other people in service. I have zero interest in having them replaced with robots. Like taking life out of life! :evil: |
Have either of you experienced vending machines in Japan? Or, for that matter, automats in America? Have you seen the machines behind the counters at a fast food restaurant? Or on a construction line? Even automated calling systems keep a "speak with an customer service representative" option somewhere on the keypad. Even with all of this mechanization, we still have clerks, cashiers, and operators. I don't think the majority of human population, regardless of how close we come to human-quality experiences with our cutting edge robots, will ever dismiss human workers from that last, face-to-face level in the storefront in favor of electronic interaction.
Robotic interfaces are already an option for low-quality, fast functions like ATMs, telephone exchanges, vending machines, online bill pay, medication refills, and the like, but I do not believe they will progress much farther than this. |
Of course we have. |
Really? Even the automats? ;D
| Quote: |
| I'm just saying that taking "humanity" out of "service" is not necessarily making a contribution to society. The US currently has an unemployment of 10% of its work force. That has to be a 10% that is in real trouble, from every sense of the word, self-esteem being very high on the list, being able to look after their families, being able to have hope in the future. I'm not averse to some repetitive elements to be replaced by robotics, such as laundromats, but there has to be a balance in the total picture. Some people may not have the same opportunities, or abilities to become highly qualified individuals of society and need "service" jobs. Our students need those "service" jobs to help them qualify for those brainy positions in society. |
Ah, but here's the beauty of it; new technology makes new service jobs. Who is going to program and build all of those machines? Who will deliver and install them? Who will service them when they break down? Who will redesign them, upgrade them, etc? In any case, I agree with you on the negative effects of removing the human touch from service... customer service, anyway.
| Quote: |
| By the way I really can't stand those automated customer service representatives on the phone. It is very rarely that they are efficient and well designed, and I can't recall that I have ever been satisfied finding the information I needed efficiently after having gone through a ring-a-ring-a-rosies loop within loops circles of those systems. I'd far rather that there are specific hours where you can find a very well trained professional person answering your banking enquiry or go into a bank and speak to a live person, than a 24-hour brainless exercise, where the person who is serving you cannot come up with the answers, nor is empowered to make the changes you need on the spot. The only automated part I appreciate would be such information as the Bank Branch addresses, phone numbers, electronic addresses for transfers, and business hours. |
OH HELL NO, I totally agree with you. It used to be that you could punch "0" or "9" at any time to get an operator, but that trick doesn't seem to work for me anymore... sometimes on those "speak your choice" menus, you can say "operator" and that's skip the menu. I wonder if there isn't a collection of successful work-arounds somewhere on the Internet, maybe in some forum...
(PS: I miss phreaking. ;_;) | ocalhoun wrote: |
| quex wrote: |
Robotic interfaces are already an option for low-quality, fast functions like ATMs, telephone exchanges, vending machines, online bill pay, medication refills, and the like, but I do not believe they will progress much farther than this. |
And people thought that the automobile would never be more than just a rich man's novelty either...
Just as we think of those days as the very earliest stages of the rise of the car, someday these days will be thought of as the very earliest stages of the robot takeover. |
Do you mean "takeover" in the humans vs. robots tradition? :D
I don't mean to say that robots and automated machinery will not progress any further than they have now, but that they will not become much more dominant above their human operators and counterparts than a degree similar to the modern. People like people. People are social, and want to see other people more than they want to see robots. | quex wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | quex wrote: |
Robotic interfaces are already an option for low-quality, fast functions like ATMs, telephone exchanges, vending machines, online bill pay, medication refills, and the like, but I do not believe they will progress much farther than this. |
And people thought that the automobile would never be more than just a rich man's novelty either...
Just as we think of those days as the very earliest stages of the rise of the car, someday these days will be thought of as the very earliest stages of the robot takeover. |
Do you mean "takeover" in the humans vs. robots tradition? 
|
No, I mean 'takeover' as in the horses vs. automobiles tradition. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| quex wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | quex wrote: |
Robotic interfaces are already an option for low-quality, fast functions like ATMs, telephone exchanges, vending machines, online bill pay, medication refills, and the like, but I do not believe they will progress much farther than this. |
And people thought that the automobile would never be more than just a rich man's novelty either...
Just as we think of those days as the very earliest stages of the rise of the car, someday these days will be thought of as the very earliest stages of the robot takeover. |
Do you mean "takeover" in the humans vs. robots tradition? :D
|
No, I mean 'takeover' as in the horses vs. automobiles tradition. |
Oh. That's not as much fun. :( | quex wrote: |
| Ah, but here's the beauty of it; new technology makes new service jobs. Who is going to program and build all of those machines? Who will deliver and install them? Who will service them when they break down? Who will redesign them, upgrade them, etc? |
This can hardly be described as a service job. More one of technology that you have to be trained for. Not all people have access to that kind of training, or perhaps even the aptitude for it. There will always be a percentage of the people who need simple service jobs.
| quex wrote: |
OH HELL NO, I totally agree with you. It used to be that you could punch "0" or "9" at any time to get an operator, but that trick doesn't seem to work for me anymore... sometimes on those "speak your choice" menus, you can say "operator" and that's skip the menu. I wonder if there isn't a collection of successful work-arounds somewhere on the Internet, maybe in some forum...
(PS: I miss phreaking. ;_ |
Right, maybe this is the kind of service that can be greatly improved and one that should not replace good people who provide service in the Bank, but point customers in the direction of service at the Bank. In my opinion, banking service that has been automated from the service point of view has gone right down the tubes. One of the highest criteria on my list of a Bank I would do business with is a friendly and efficient person that I can see face to face, and who can see my face to face as well, and know who I am. | deanhills wrote: |
| quex wrote: | | Ah, but here's the beauty of it; new technology makes new service jobs. Who is going to program and build all of those machines? Who will deliver and install them? Who will service them when they break down? Who will redesign them, upgrade them, etc? |
This can hardly be described as a service job. More one of technology that you have to be trained for. Not all people have access to that kind of training, or perhaps even the aptitude for it. There will always be a percentage of the people who need simple service jobs. |
I imagine this kind of work will, in the future, be classified as low-skill, simple service. Provided we aren't dipping into the unfortunate percentage of the population that must survive on sub-average intelligence/faculties, I think a normal person can be trained to do any of the above jobs, except possibly redesign and initial programming. Consider how many of America's middle class are/were employed in the manufacture of automobiles, the vast majority of these being on the assembly line. These jobs do not require a higher education -- most of the actions and responsibilities are learned through on-the-job instruction and observation. Such would be the same case in the construction, installation, and service of automated machines in a new economy. I am confident the repetitive (and largely low-cog) skills needed to operate on the line, an understanding of hand tools and semi-automated robotic arms, would translate without much difficulty to the building and maintenance of new machines.
As for other service jobs... I don't see waitstaff going extinct any time soon. :D | quex wrote: |
| As for other service jobs... I don't see waitstaff going extinct any time soon. |
Ahhhhh what a relief! I was just wondering what my cup of coffee would be like in the early morning without the cheerful wait staff to make it all go round. I'm all for personal touches and individual characters. Sort of gives a special flavour to a place. Make it or break it! 
