from the are-those-imperial-or-metric-units? dept.
We humans like to think ourselves pretty advanced – and with no other technology-bearing beings to compare ourselves to, our back-patting doesn’t have to take context into account. After all, we harnessed fire, invented stone tools and the wheel, developed agriculture and writing, built cities, and learned to use metals.
Then, a mere few moments ago from the perspective of cosmic time, we advanced even more rapidly, developing telescopes and steam power; discovering gravity and electromagnetism and the forces that hold the nuclei of atoms together.
Meanwhile, the age of electricity was transforming human civilization. You could light up a building at night, speak with somebody in another city, or ride in a vehicle that needed no horse to pull it, and humans were very proud of themselves for achieving all of this. In fact, by the year 1899, purportedly, these developments prompted U.S. patent office commissioner Charles H. Duell to remark, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
We really have come a long way from the cave, but how far can we still go? Is there a limit to our technological progress? Put another way, if Duell was dead wrong in the year 1899, might his words be prophetic for the year 2099, or 2199? And what does that mean for humanity’s distant future?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/09/02/how-advanced-earthlings-cosmic-yardstick/
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @04:17PM
fusion, thorium, cheap propulsion, asteroid mining, space elevator, 25 meter+ mirror space telescopes, FTL, nanobots, nanoscale manufacturing [kurzweilai.net], metamaterials, high temperature superconductors, "3D" processors, quantum computing, optical computing, holographic storage, bioengineering, $10-100 genome sequencing, brain scanning, hybrot brains, artificial vision, flexible solar panels, cheap LEDs, lithium-air/etc. batteries
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Saturday September 06 2014, @04:36PM
We're not ready for half of that. Fusion and thorium would unleash a huge quantity of energy that we wouldn't use responsibly. A space elevator would get shot out of the sky before it was finished. Optical computing requires a huge decrease in gate count. And anything involving DNA gets labelled as Frankenstein and/or eugenic.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:11PM
Why should we care what you think of the word "responsibly"? Just because electricity got cheap enough, say, that it becomes not worth it to turn off lights, doesn't mean that people suddenly became "irresponsible". It means among other things, that what is and should be considered "responsible" has shifted as well.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday September 07 2014, @01:13PM
In the highly cited scientific paper: Toward A Metabolic Theory Of Ecology by James H. Brown, James F. Gillooly, Andrew P. Allen, Van M. Savage and Geoffrey B. West ( http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/03-9000 [esajournals.org] ) and related work, discussed in the New Scientist magazine ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224455.600-one-rate-to-rule-them-all.html [newscientist.com] [subscription required]) and on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_theory_of_ecology [wikipedia.org] ), the observed effect of organisms consuming energy in a power law relative to size is extended to the observed effect of industrialized countries drastically reducing the average number of children. A mechanism is posited in which the lifestyle of an organism is determined by total energy consumption including external energy consumption whereas the ability to breed remains constrained to internal energy consumption. Therefore, at a certain level of energy affluence, a population does not sustain itself. Continued to its logical conclusion, a species with abundant energy would make itself extinct even when it remains peaceful.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 07 2014, @08:34PM
So do you have any argument or evidence to back your earlier assertions?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Sunday September 07 2014, @10:02PM
The only assertion that I haven't already covered was about optical computing. For this, I recommend finding an early 2708 EPROM or suchlike and looking at it under a cheap microscope. It is a small joy to see the gates and wiring for yourself. At one time, this was the only scale of integration. But if we want to do optical computing, we will have to return to a similar scale. This is because the wavelength of photons is much larger than the wavelength of electrons and therefore the scale of integration is limited. It is possible to use photons with short wavelengths. For example, X-rays. However, this is likely to destroy the optical circuits relatively quickly. So, I presume that optical computers would be driven by a ultra-violet laser diode, at best. Even this presents safety problems, so the laser diodes from BluRay players may be re-purposed for this task.
Admittedly, with optical computing, it would be possible to implement something like a 6502 or a Z80 running at 200GHz and then simulate a more contemporary processor. Assuming there is a good impedance match between the ALU and flags of the physical and logical processor, it should be possible to run the common instructions at 5% speed or better. If the optical computer was connected to electronic DRAM, the mismatch in speed would allow the optical processor to implement caching algorithms and hyperthreaded scheduling which cannot be implemented in silicon.
Optical computing would benefit greatly from 3D etching but I don't see this advancing very fast on the basis that it is difficult to etch DRAM with the minimum number of layers even when there is redundancy in the design. Therefore, in the short term, 3D chips (electronic and optical) are likely to be miniturized card buses (with at least a dozen different standards) where each layer is etched and tested separately. So, the shortest path between layers is likely to be via the edge of the stack.
I don't object to possibility of asteroid mining, giant space telescopes, nanobots, high-temperature superconductivity, quantum computing, neuron-level brain scanning, artificial vision or huge quantities of lithium being refined. Nanobots may take 200 years to arrive and may require a ridiculous amount of energy. Mining the Moon is more practical than mining asteroids or going to Mars. However, we're doomed if they don't all occur. Lithium refinement inside the biosphere is likely to be part of a huge environmental disaster.
I leave the remainder undecided.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 08 2014, @06:42AM
I'll ask again, do you have any evidence to support your assertions that having access to plentiful energy results in bad things happening (like extinction of humans). A nonsensical model (which doesn't actually support your assertion even) coming from amateur statistics (which doesn't actually support the model even) isn't evidence even if they managed to get the thing published.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 08 2014, @10:12AM
Countries which have high energy consumption, such as the UK and US, don't have sustainable populations. However, this is hidden due to immigration.
If everyone's standard of living increases (due to abundant energy) then this immigration ceases and all countries would have declining populations. The remaining people would have more resources each and the process would accelerate, as described by the Metabolic Theory Of Ecology.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Monday September 08 2014, @04:57PM
Correlation doesn't imply causation. An obvious rebuttal here is that these countries also have far greater participation in the labor force from women. That has nothing to do with energy consumption, but it in turn creates a substantial tradeoff between having children and having more economic resources such as wealth.
No, a genuine metabolic theory of ecology would note that since humans have more energy at their disposal while supposedly the "internal" energy cost of bearing young hasn't changed, then they should have more young not less.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday September 10 2014, @12:16AM
My first reaction to the Metabolic Theory Of Ecology was similar to yours. However, if you plot [paulchefurka.com] birth rate [wikipedia.org] against energy consumption [wikipedia.org] you'll find that high birth rate and high energy consumption are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the most energy-intensive countries generally have less than two children per breeding pair [wikipedia.org].
Like you, I would have presumed that more energy means more stability and more resources to have more children. But that doesn't match the data. Indeed, it is suspected that some families stop having children after they have male and female children. Also, fertile couples tend to replace lost children. Whereas, people in energy poverty tend to breed prolifically to counter high infant mortality and other dire circumstances.
I think this raises interesting questions about quality of life, labor participation, work patterns, migration, contraception, medical care and very probably other matters.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday September 10 2014, @02:04AM
ours. However, if you plot birth rate against energy consumption you'll find that high birth rate and high energy consumption are mutually exclusive.
And I already came up with a better explanation, opportunity costs resulting from women in the work force reduces human fertility. This is an example of the amateur statistics I referred to earlier. You can come up with all sorts of correlations, but correlation isn't causation.
Like you, I would have presumed that more energy means more stability and more resources to have more children.
And you would be right in your presumption. What is missing here is that the real cost of raising children in terms of things more important than energy went up a lot. This includes opportunity costs and use of resources. Further, while the biological cost of giving birth to a child may not have changed much, the actual energy cost of having and raising children vastly increased perhaps even more than the availability of energy. Where's the inclusion of the energy cost of two decades of schooling and education? The actual facts of human rearing indicate that the premises of this model don't apply here.
This goes back to my original assertion "A nonsensical model (which doesn't actually support your assertion even) coming from amateur statistics (which doesn't actually support the model even) isn't evidence".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:42AM
Oh please. How is anyone going to "shoot" a space elevator "out of the sky"? It'd only be vulnerable to militarily-strong nations like Russia or China, and it's doubtful they'd want to destroy it. Besides, it can't be easily destroyed; even if you destroy the anchor point, it's pretty easy to just lower another cable from orbit. The orbital counterweight is the really critical part, and only Russia has any serious capability of getting there.
DNA stuff is coming whether people want it or not. Unlike megascale stuff like space elevators, genetic stuff is easily done in a small lab, with cheaper and cheaper equipment. Before long, it'll be possible to manipulate genetics with equipment you can build yourself with open-source plans. When that happens, it doesn't matter if people scream "Frankenstein" or "eugenics"; it'll be just like BitTorrent. Anyone who wants to do anything and has the money for equipment and the know-how will be able to do whatever they want.
As for "a huge quantity of energy", it's not like people are all that conservationist with electricity these days anyway. I walk by stores that leave their doors open in the summer all the time, letting cold air-conditioned air flow out onto the street. Cheaper prices aren't going to affect usage too much.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:52AM
Oh please. How is anyone going to "shoot" a space elevator "out of the sky"? It'd only be vulnerable to militarily-strong nations like Russia or China, and it's doubtful they'd want to destroy it. Besides, it can't be easily destroyed; even if you destroy the anchor point, it's pretty easy to just lower another cable from orbit. The orbital counterweight is the really critical part, and only Russia has any serious capability of getting there.
More and more counties have orbital capabilities to strike at an elevator at an appreciable altitude. You're right that only Russia would have the resources to build one, I suspect they would enter in partnership with china to base one at one of te Chinese colonies in Africa.
The us obviously doesn't have the ability to build one, but could probably shoot one down today (which would push Europe into the arms of Russia, or at least neutrality, on the worlds stage). Realistically by the time such an elevator is ready to build, the us won't be able to get anything in to orbit and will have devolved into a 3rd world country.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:46PM
Regarding space elevators, the location of the base is significantly more constrained than having a launchpad 28 degrees North [soylentnews.org]. The base of a space elevator has to be on the equator. This limits locations to Indonesia, Ecuador, Columbia, Brazil and seven countries in Africa [wikipedia.org]. If equidistant space elevators are required, the locations are significantly more constrained. All of these locations could be the stage for a proxy war between superpowers. Or, as inferred from https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=3782&cid=90434 [soylentnews.org], the US would have means, motive and ability to shoot down a South American space elevator.
Regarding DNA manipulation, this is a matter which has to be resolved sometime. Whether it is accurate or not, financial and legal pressure has been brought against GMOs [Genetically Modified Organisms]. Personally, I am in favor of Mexico banning GMO soybeans [soylentnews.org] but it was done in a tenuous manner rather than considering the precautionary principle.
As I have previously hinted [soylentnews.org], 3D printers are likely to advance over 200 years to the point that they will be able to manipulate individual atoms. Before this point is reached, they will be able to manipulate individual cells. Even within 20 years, 3D printing of body parts may become commonplace.
The foreseeable problem is that anyone with a grudge will eventually be able to synthesize a custom virus which kills an individual or an ethnic group. There are a number of unsatisfactory solutions to this problem. The first solution is that information would be restricted to accredited researchers. I see evidence of this happening already. For example, when I done a patent search about 10 years ago, it was possible to do it completely anonymously. Nowadays, photographic identification is required in addition to stating your purpose. This is for one month of access which excludes nuclear and biological patents.
The second solution is DRM [Digital Rights Management or Digital Restrictions Management [fsf.org]] on 3D printers. I would hope this solution is unviable because it has implications elsewhere. However, it remains possible that controlling a 3D printer becomes difficult even if it is easy to construct. The third solution is unrestricted access to information and the hope that inclusion is sufficient. There may be other solutions.
I am not happy with any of these solutions but the first is closest to following the precautionary principle.
Regarding energy consumption, I have answered elsewhere [soylentnews.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 08 2014, @08:58AM
> This limits locations to Indonesia, Ecuador, Columbia, Brazil and seven countries in Africa.
Or in the sea. Most space elevator proposals I've see feature a base station on a floating platform, that can be moved about to avoid bad weather.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 08 2014, @10:24AM
So, they want a base station which is light enough to float (and steer in one axis) but heavy enough for the counterweight? And it has to withstand the corrosiveness of seawater? And not get hijacked in international waters? It would probably be easier to make a space elevator on land which could withstand a hurricane.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:27PM
*Shrug*
I'm no rocket scientist, I'm just saying what I see. It doesn't seem to be too far-fetched (or at least, no more so than a space elevator is to begin with) since it's a pretty mainstream part of the concept. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator#Base_station [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 09 2014, @07:25PM
After reading that, it appears that there is the problem of avoiding bad weather inside the atmosphere and debris outside of the atmosphere. Bad weather could be withstood by building a 20km tower. However, this does not allow a space elevator to be towed to avoid debris outside of the atmosphere. Furthermore, a space elevator near land would also impinge on geostationary satellite capacity. (Although I accounted for whipping and oscillation by latitude, I failed to consider the greater problem over longitude.)
Apparently, the first nation to implement a space elevator would reduce launch costs to about 5% of present levels. This would incentivize spending on air dominance. However, I don't know how that's going to be achieved out on an ocean. So, we have a situation where a space elevator on land is politically possible but may not be technically possible whereas a space elevator on water may be technically possible but may not be politically possible.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Geotti on Saturday September 06 2014, @11:21PM
I'd prepend the aforementioned list with the word "sustainable." Also the most important achievement would be to finally get over our petty quarrels and live in peace.
(Score: 1) by jasassin on Saturday September 06 2014, @04:49PM
Anything (maybe a gravity drive) that would allow us to go faster than light. I'm not good in physics, I'm not sure if that would be the same thing as time travel... Then, to colonize another planet. That would be cool.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:16PM
You don't need faster-than-light travel to colonize the galaxy. That's just the Star Trek method.
If we could travel 1/5th the speed of light, a ship from earth would reach our nearest neighboring solar system Alpha Centari within 18 years. They can colonize there, and after some time, send out some ships on the next 18-year voyage to the next nearest solar system (Luhman 16?).
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:31PM
So the ship would need an 18 year supply of food, water, and oxygen. Food that can perish must be avoided as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:01PM
This isn't a camping trip we're talking about.
Water is treated and recycled, indefinitely. There's talk of us doing this here on Earth pretty soon.
If you can't grow plants for food on your trip, you sure won't be able to survive once you get there, anyhow. The food growing should take care of the oxygen generation and CO2 scrubbing, too.
Just store it in an airlock room, kept open to space most of the time. You get vacuum sealing without a bag... No oxygen, and freezing cold to boot.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by davester666 on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:23PM
I believe the most obvious thing would be to grow your food as you go instead of trying to pack it all up front.
Of course, the bigger issue is the "colonize whatever we find orbiting Alpha Centauri [well, there are 3 stars in the area]. The one planet we're pretty sure is there seems to be orbiting rather close to the main star, with a surface temperature of 1200 degrees C, so it's either go underground or maybe get lucky and live on the 'dark side' if the rotation is just right.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:27PM
Lets see if we got all the points right
1) invent an imaginary scale of energy use without a shred of evidence
2) decide we can't even qualify to stand on the first rung of the ladder
3) Throw in earthquakes asteroids and volcano (being careful not to mention boogiemen under the bed)
4) Lament the sorry state of man kind because we don't harness all that much energy.
5) TA DAAAA! The perfect puff-pastry article, made of nothing at all.
ALL the evidence we have suggests we are the the most advanced civilization in the galaxy.
Such Hubris you say!?
No, Hubris is assuming there are other powers out there looking for us, spying on us, sending bug-eyed little gray representatives and wantonly slaughtering cattle in the night.
Besides, the whole Kardashev nonsense reeks of drill babe drill mentality. I thought we were growing out of that!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:26PM
All scales are imaginary so you're not going anywhere with that. What makes scales like that useful, is that one can actually measure more than one physical system, like human civilization, and nail them to a point on the scale which can be done here. In other words, for comparing.
"Growing out" only happens, if you have a more mature belief system replacing the old. I'm not convinced that actually is happening here with your remarks.
The real problem with the Kardashev scale is that it has terrible features, mathematically. The scale was chosen so that levels 1, 2, and 3 had certain properties. But it's difficult, computationally, to extract actual energy use when someone is, say, 0.78 on the scale. How much of a planet is that? It would be much better to use a logarithmic scale since then, it's very easy to figure out energy consumption from looking at the number.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:28PM
The patent office guy was wrong then and he'll always be wrong. My grandmother was born six months before the Wright brothers' first flight, and watched men land on the moon. Today we have robots on Mars and telescopes in outer space.
When I was a kid it was primitive as hell, but it didn't seem like it then. Hell, both sets of my grandparents still had outhouses. They used automotive starting fluid to knock you out for surgery, and ether is REALLY nasty, you do NOT want that stuff to knock you out. All computers were big enough to walk around in and were far, far less powerful than your phone. Only the rich had air conditioning or color TVs. Cars had no ABS, air bags, seat belts, crumple zones, and went a third as far on a gallon of gasoline.
When I was a teenager, Star Trek came out and the communicators and tablets and Uhura's bluetooth earpiece and flat screen talking computers and self-opening doors and McCoy's sick bay were as much a fantasy as faster than light travel or replicators. Now that program looks really primitive.
I was always very nearsighted, and it was impossible that I would ever be able to go without corrective lenses, but I had surgery in 2006 and now have better than normal vision at all distances -- I'm 62 and don't even need reading glasses.
It's obvious TFA's author has little imagination (note: I did not RTFA, that impression is from the summary). Much of the science fiction of my youth has become commonplace. Like this bit of fantasy [baen.com] written by Murray Leinster in 1946.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by elgrantrolo on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:36PM
Totally agree. Some centuries were pretty good in terms of moving forward, some others were not so impressive for our collective progress. Hopefully the current century will be comparable to the last, especially if we can go without the world wars and their proxies.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:42PM
Human society moves as the inch worm. Societal advance is Poisson.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kebes on Monday September 08 2014, @04:17PM
The patent office guy was wrong then and he'll always be wrong.
(emphasis added)
If you're trying to say "technology will always get better", or equivalently "there is no limit to technological progress", then I disagree. The reason is simple: the laws of physics. Every law of physics delinates domains of things that can be done, and things that cannot be done. There is a finite territory within which we can operate; a finite number of devices we can ever create, with corresponding limits to their sophistication/power/etc.
Note that this argument doesn't rely on our current understanding of physics being correct. We may overturn some of our best current theories. Nevertheless, if you believe that the universe is regulated by some kind of consistent laws, then it's inescapable that these laws impose physical limits. (If it can be circumvented somehow, it's not really a fundamental law, is it?)
This bothers many technophiles and sci-fi enthusiasts, because it means that some of our fantastical futuristic dreams are truly untenable and will never be realized. To give an example, we have ample evidence that faster-than-light travel is impossible; yet a great many optimists persist in suggesting that we'll eventually find a way to overcome this 'limit'. They suggest that the inescapable march of progress will eventually find a way to achieve FTL travel. But there's no good reason to assume that sufficient ingenuity can trump any constraints. As already noted, the nature of living in a consistent reality is, in fact, that some are things are not possible (if everything is possible somehow, then reality is instead an 'anything goes' situation, where inconsistency and contradiction will appear).
We can in fact use our understanding of physics to compute the maximum computational capacity of a computer of a given size/mass, the minimum travel times for known physics and physically-possible fuel sources, and so on. Again, our understanding of physics is no-doubt imperfect, but future refinements to physics may shift the possible/impossible boundary, but they cannot remove it. (And there's no guarantee that a future shift will be in our "technological favor"; i.e. it may turn out that things we thought were possible turn out not to be.) Just because some techno-predictions have been borne out, we should not simply assume that any techno-prediction is possible (e.g. perpetual motion, FTL, time-travel, and worm-holes are probably strictly impossible).
Having said all that, it should be clear enough that we have a long way to go before hitting many of these immutable barriers. Moreover, it should be clear that the parameter space of the 'possible' is huge and full of hugely-interesting possible futures. (E.g. travelling to other star-systems at faster than the speed of light is probably impossible; but it doesn't seem impossible to suggest vastly increasing our lifespans to the point that we can travel there if we really want to.) So I'm not so much taking issue with the flavor of your post (which is "don't be silly and assume that technological progress is nearing its end"), but rather with the categorical phrasing.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:31PM
Yes, it's true that there will always be physical constraints. I parodied FTL travel in my book Nobots (however, some physicists have said that space itself can travel faster than light, and did so in the early universe).
But what there is to learn is as infinite as the universe itself.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:03PM
If you want to measure us by a "Cosmic Yardstick" then we don't measure up. If we can't get to another planet or send out space ships to explore the rest of the galaxy then we're near 0. Any life form that makes its way to Earth will be light years ahead of us (figuratively and possibly even literally).
Our "Cosmic Yardstick" marketing slogan: Take that, Moon!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:38PM
If you want to measure us with a cosmic yardstick you first have to have a cosmic yardstick. Nobody has such.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:25AM
Nobody on Earth. Hopefully somewhere out there the Universe has produced something better than us. Because if we're it then it may be time to start again.
(Score: 4, Funny) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:40PM
You have to put humankind in perspective. Here's a list from most to least advanced:
1. Miraluka, Mirialan
2. Human, Wookiee
3. Weequay, Nikto
4. Droids
5. Ewoks
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:04PM
Where's the gungans placed? Above or below the ewoks?
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday September 08 2014, @10:58AM
Sorry, the Wookiees ate the Gungans. Thought they were snacks. Still working on some aspects of interspecies integration.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:34PM
The author's thesis is that we're basically a Kardashev Type I civilization already because, he incorrectly claims, we're using 75% as much energy as reaches the Earth from the Sun.
For better or for worse, and as pointed out in the comments, he's off by a couple orders of magnitude. The reality is closer to 0.75% -- with virtually all of that coming from fossil fuels in one form or another.
This is trivial to confirm from a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Never mind the greenhouse effect; using (roughly) as much energy from fossil fuels as reaches the Earth from the Sun would result in the burning of those fossil fuels releasing about as much heat as the Earth absorbs from the Sun. We can, very roughly and naively, approximate the result by doubling the current absolute temperature.
70F =~ 300K
600K =~ 600F
That's almost the temperature at which lead melts.
And, again -- that's not from the greenhouse effect trapping solar radiation that would otherwise escape to space overnight; that's the heat coming off of burning that much fuel.
An independent way to validate this: we receive about a kilowatt per square meter from the Sun. Imagine drawing a one-meter grid on the Earth's surface, and putting a 1,000 W hairdryer at each point on the grid. Whether that would be enough to melt lead, it's clearly an Hell of a lot more heat than we currently release.
And, so, the rest of the conclusions drawn from that slip o' th' point are, one might suggest, "Not even worng."
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:36PM
An independent way to validate this: we receive about a kilowatt per square meter from the Sun. Imagine drawing a one-meter grid on the Earth's surface, and putting a 1,000 W hairdryer at each point on the grid. Whether that would be enough to melt lead, it's clearly an Hell of a lot more heat than we currently release.
We don't have to even imagine that. Just look outside on a sunny day and watch the lead melt.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gman003 on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:18PM
His scale isn't a good measure of progress, just power. Let's look instead at how much space we control. For simplicity, we'll just use a linear measure instead of area or volume.
The Planck length is (roughly) 10^-35 meters. That's the smallest size that has any meaning in out current understanding of physics. But that's a poor starting point, because that would measure our progress from primitive atoms. Let's start instead from the size of a cell, which is only 10^-6 meters. So that's our starting point.
We'll end at controlling the observable universe, which is roughly 10^26 meters. There might be higher, but that's not something we can really concern ourselves with. Assuming a logarithmic scale, that gives us 32 points (convenient binary number, isn't it?). Since we're mostly programmers here, we'll index from 0. So a single cell is Progress 0.
Right now, humanity has pretty clear dominance of the planet. That's 10^8 meters, or Progress 14. A little under halfway. Gaining real control of the Moon would put us in 10^9 meters, or Progress 15. Colonizing all the inner planets would be 10^11, or Progress 17. Colonizing Gliese 876 is 10^17 meters, jumping us all the way to Progress 23. Owning the whole Milky Way would be 10^21 meters, Progress 27. Going the other direction, when we only lived in Africa, we were only 10^7 meters, or Progress 13. So we've made it one Progress Level since homo sapiens started, and we're starting to poke at higher levels.
Interestingly, you can extend that to subsets of humanity. I personally control an area on the order of 10^1 meters, putting me personally at Progress 7. I could feasibly go up to Progress 8 or even 9 just by investing in more real estate. The United States is on the order of 10^6 meters, putting America at Progress 12.
It's still not a perfect system, but it's at least as good as measuring progress by energy consumption, and it has finer resolution and can measure more than just our entire species. Make of that what you will.
(Score: 1) by Lee_Dailey on Sunday September 07 2014, @05:06AM
howdy gman003 (4155),
this is pretty nifty! thanks for the idea, dude. [*grin*] now i have some cogitating to do ...
take care,
lee
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:52PM
Your scale is very popular but it lacks a catchy name.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Interesting) by novak on Sunday September 07 2014, @04:46AM
On a scale from 0 to ∞, we're closer to 0. Makes sense.
novak
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday September 07 2014, @05:19PM
In the words of a wise man: To infinity - and beyond!
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @02:42AM
slavery exists, planet-wide.
therefore we are not very advanced.
truth is born out of knowledge and love and leads to greater freedom.
falsehood is born out of ignorance and fear and leads to greater slavery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @05:25AM
2014 and religion is still in the top reasons we're killing each other.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday September 08 2014, @08:22AM
How did things stay on the ground before we discovered gravity?