what powers YOUR utopia?

[534634634265]

so, many who are aware of the limited nature of oil-based civilization seem to think another energy source will step up and fill the void of petro products after the apocalypse.
whats your poison fellows?
do you think solar? or wind? or something more exotic, perhaps?
i personally think we're looking at the imminent downfall of mankind as it exists today, but thats just my take on it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My utopia is powered by nuclear energy and massive desert solar farms.

[534634634265]

My utopia is powered by nuclear energy and massive desert solar farms.
okay then. questions.
1. where do the replacement parts that wear out from the desert sands come from?
2. where does the lubricant for the moving parts come from?
3. ditto the parts question for the nuclear plants, and where does the radioactive waste get stored?

[Sentinel]

Nuclear Fission energy has the waste problem, but luckily that wouldn't be the case with Fusion plants. Those aren't reality as an alternative yet, but research is quite promising.

I'd say a combination of nuclear (perhaps initially fission, but later fusion) power, and solar and wind will be the solution.


i personally think we're looking at the imminent downfall of mankind as it exists today, but thats just my take on it.I'm personally positive that once the waste of resources and the environment characteristic to capitalism is done with, we face a brighter future again.

By the way -- do you agree that a collapse of technological society is not a preferable solution, and should be avoided if only possible?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

okay then. questions.
1. where do the replacement parts that wear out from the desert sands come from?

From a factory. Duh.


2. where does the lubricant for the moving parts come from?

1) From the oil we're no longer wastefully burning. While oil may no longer be a viable energy source, it's still abundant enough for industrial applications.

2) If the worst comes to the worst, dry lubricants (such as graphite) and biologically produced lubricants such as WD-40 can be used.


3. ditto the parts question for the nuclear plants, and where does the radioactive waste get stored?

The waste should be reprocessed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing) rather than wastefully dumping the vast majority of it. Any leftover waste can be stored in vaults either on-site or in a suitable location.


Nuclear Fission energy has the waste problem, but luckily that wouldn't be the case with Fusion plants.

The "problem" of nuclear waste is not as big a problem as people make it out to be.

[Plagueround]

My Utopian power source is the Dyson sphere, ring, shell, or swarm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere)

My not too far off, more realistic power sources would be the ideas Noxion and Sentinel have already suggested. The solar updraft tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower) looks neato too.

[534634634265]

From the oil we're no longer wastefully burning. While oil may no longer be a viable energy source, it's still abundant enough for industrial applications. If the worst comes to the worst, dry lubricants (such as graphite) and biologically produced lubricants such as WD-40 can be used.

to claim that we will still be able to pump and refine oil, but only for good causes is a dangerous fantasy. i think buckminster fuller tried to propose something like that. either way, the current system of power isn't going to allow this magical transition to a different energy system take place until its likely too late to make the change. we depend on oil and its derivatives in virtually every aspect of our lives. to try and continue living the way we are now seems foolish, considering how thoroughly mankind will fuck the world in order to sustain our current way of life just that much longer.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

to claim that we will still be able to pump and refine oil, but only for good causes is a dangerous fantasy.

Why? If it takes more energy to get the stuff out of the ground than you get from burning it, nobody is going to use it for energy generation. To do so under capitalism would lose you serious money, and under communism it would simply be wasteful.


i think buckminster fuller tried to propose something like that. either way, the current system of power isn't going to allow this magical transition to a different energy system take place until its likely too late to make the change.

Capitalists may be greedy, but they are not stupid. Already, interest in nuclear power is picking up. There's no "magic" about it.


we depend on oil and its derivatives in virtually every aspect of our lives. to try and continue living the way we are now seems foolish, considering how thoroughly mankind will fuck the world in order to sustain our current way of life just that much longer.

Humans are an inventive species and there is nothing I can think of that uses oil that cannot be replaced with something else. People like you have consistently predicted that the sky is falling, but things just keep getting better in the long run.

[Demogorgon]

It is obviously going to vary from place to place. Scotland will clearly generate plenty of electricity from wind. We get enough of it. Places like North Africa and the Middle East have the potential to generate a lot of solar power which could be supplied further afield most likely though I am not an expert on that particular issue.

[Killfacer]

My Utopia, or Killfacerland as i like to call it, is going to be powered by plasma generators. This technology will be salvaged from an alien planet after my acolytes storm their inter-planetary defence systems. To defeat the aliens, or the Hu'quan as they are known to the rest of the solar system, my acolytes will use rael gun firearms, traded with the interplanetary space traders of torros'nu. In return for the rael guns, i offered them oil, which is not freely available on the interplanetary market. Luckily once i had the rael guns, i commanded my acolytes to destroy trade ships and take back the oil. I salvaged their space warp technology in order to allow interplanetary teleportation. In doing so i opened the path way for the invasion of the Hu'quan homeworld. Suprise will get the better of them, my acolytes will wipe them out. Thus making the unlimited supply of their planets plasma core fields readily available for powering my utopia.

[pusher robot]

Finally, a science thread I can post in.

Agree with Noxion 100% here. Make it nuclear. Nuclear power is safe, clean, and reliable. It's shockingly efficient, too, producing ludicrously large amounts of power from laughably tiny quantities of fuel. Virtually all of the arguments against nuclear power are based on lies or demand for perfection.

For applications that really need hydrocarbons, like jet fuel or certain lubricants, we can produce biofuels from high-yield algae and other specially-designed micro-organisms.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Powered on dirt, dont know how or if its possible but its an infinite resource so.,,

[Wake Up]

space based solar power for me.

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

[Dean]

so, many who are aware of the limited nature of oil-based civilization seem to think another energy source will step up and fill the void of petro products after the apocalypse.
whats your poison fellows?
do you think solar? or wind? or something more exotic, perhaps?
i personally think we're looking at the imminent downfall of mankind as it exists today, but thats just my take on it.

Crack cocaine.

[Killfacer]

space based solar power for me.

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


The problem with that is that when interplanetary warfare begins, it leaves a planets power supply completely open to obliteration. Look at what happened to the fith moon of kau'sus, they did that and they were wiped out by an invasion force from Telgororon.

[Algernon]

Fusion, if we managed to achieve it somehow.

[534634634265]

im not predicting the collapse of the sky, im guesstimating when the EroEI of oil is going to reach 1:1 and thus make any sort of oil dependent production impossible.

wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, these all have the benefit of seeming like easy natural alternatives to oil. how will you repair/build your energy source, when you can't get parts shipped to you(no fuel) and can't run the machines to make them(no fuel)? factories, shipping, even the tools for harnessing alternative energy-these all are based on an oil based economy.

Killfacer and Dean make more sense to me than someone who claims to recognize the end of oil based society, but clings desperately to the technology of that civilization. Invention and Technology aren't magical cure-alls.
to me, it seems you view Science with a capital "S" the same way cargo cults viewed the planes and soldiers that created them.

im loathe to address nuclear power. it requires little maintenance and little fuel, so it seems equally glamorous, but its intake is horribly poisonous to life, as is its output. i just don't see how we can safely maintain nuclear power beyond the end of oil. its waste is an entirely different issue, as that needs hundreds of years just to be only mildly lethal to living things.

maybe i'm uninformed on some issues, maybe i just don't understand. show me how your model works.

[freakazoid]

I've heard that oil is actually pretty much an endless supply. That it actually regenerates itself a lot quicker than originally thought.


its waste is an entirely different issue, as that needs hundreds of years just to be only mildly lethal to living things.

Storage deep underground?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

im not predicting the collapse of the sky, im guesstimating when the EroEI of oil is going to reach 1:1 and thus make any sort of oil dependent production impossible.

That's why I said that while oil may no longer be used as a source of energy, it will still be used in various industrial applications EG lubricants.


wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, these all have the benefit of seeming like easy natural alternatives to oil. how will you repair/build your energy source, when you can't get parts shipped to you(no fuel) and can't run the machines to make them(no fuel)? factories, shipping, even the tools for harnessing alternative energy-these all are based on an oil based economy.The oil is not going to suddenly stop. Besides, how can you build solar, wind, geothermal, hydro etc without transporting goods? You can't.

Therefore, if you don't have the oil to build nuclear plants, you don't have the oil to build renewables either.


Killfacer and Dean make more sense to me than someone who claims to recognize the end of oil based society, but clings desperately to the technology of that civilization. Invention and Technology aren't magical cure-alls.Renewables use oil in their construction as well. They're just as "oil-based" as nuclear.


to me, it seems you view Science with a capital "S" the same way cargo cults viewed the planes and soldiers that created them. And it seems you started this thread merely to have a go at sinful technology lovers.

You see, I can make baseless accusations as well!


im loathe to address nuclear power. it requires little maintenance and little fuel, so it seems equally glamorous, but its intake is horribly poisonous to life, as is its output.All industries are horribly poisonous to life if mismanaged. Nuclear power is not exceptional in this regard - in fact, it's environmental impact compared to fossil fuels is miniscule.


i just don't see how we can safely maintain nuclear power beyond the end of oil.Weaning our civilisation off oil will involve more than just building nuclear power plants. Electrification of our transport systems (such as trains and motor vehicles) is also a key strategy. Cargo ships can be converted to run on fissionables rather than fuel oil.

What will also help is if we set up a system whereby sewage, animal effluent and organic waste is used to produce methane. Pretty much everything you can make from oil, you can make from methane, as directly burning it as a fuel. This means we will always have a stable source of hydrocarbons, even if it isn't as large as past and current oil reserves.

And since the carbon in methane is derived from biotic sources is already in the environment, as opposed to methane derived from geological sources which has been locked up for much of the Earth's history, it doesn't contribute to climate change.

By using renewables and consuming fissionables instead of oil to produce our electricity, we free up a lot of whatever geological oil is left, as well as biotic methane, for other purposes.

As a civilisation, we produce a lot of shit that rots. Let's put it to good use.


its waste is an entirely different issue, as that needs hundreds of years just to be only mildly lethal to living things.That's why you reprocess the bulk of it in order to extract more usable energy, and store the rest in facilities designed for the task.

Tell me, just how much radiation is lethal? And how much radiation do nuclear waste storage sites actually release into the environment? We need numbers, not conjecture.

Remember that uranium has been sitting naturally in the Earth's crust for billions of years, without any kind of shielding whatsoever, without any adverse effects on the biosphere, so why should a specially built facility represent more risk?


maybe i'm uninformed on some issues, maybe i just don't understand. show me how your model works.Why do you assume I have a model? The facts are obvious to those who care to look for them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've heard that oil is actually pretty much an endless supply. That it actually regenerates itself a lot quicker than originally thought.

I'm sorry, but that's a complete fantasy. Long term trends in oil prices indicate that the stuff is becoming increasingly harder to find.

Nobody knows how much is left, but one thing is certain; it's a finite amount.


Storage deep underground?

That's not actually a bad idea, as maligned as it is. But my personal preference is for on-site storage in order to facilitate easy retrieval.

[Bud Struggle]

My utopia is powered by nuclear energy and massive desert solar farms.

I agree. Amazingly simple yet you have to fight miles and miles of bureaucrats and "save the earthers" to get there.

[Trystan]

My utopia would be powered by sheep.

[Bud Struggle]

My utopia would be powered by sheep.
Dip?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm sorry, but that's a complete fantasy. Long term trends in oil prices indicate that the stuff is becoming increasingly harder to find.

Nobody knows how much is left, but one thing is certain; it's a finite amount.

I've heard there's a lot of oil left, but very little of the sweet crude that is cheap to pump and refine. Canada, for example, has huge amounts of oil in tar-sands, which costs three times as much to clean and refine.


That's not actually a bad idea, as maligned as it is. But my personal preference is for on-site storage in order to facilitate easy retrieval.

Gotta be a better idea than Yucca Mountain.

Anyway, I'm for High-Speed Rail to eliminate as many flight-corridors as possible, mass inner-city public transportation, a removal of the tariff on imported ethanol, and end to trade restrictions on Cuba (a major producer of sugar cane, used in ethanol), increased restrictions on fuel-economy in new automobiles, a major tax rebate for people who convert their home/business to solar/clean tech, and, most importantly, a $2 tax on every gallon of gasoline sold (and a corresponding cut in payroll taxes) to allow the market to find a viable alternative.

[Jazzratt]

I've heard that oil is actually pretty much an endless supply. That it actually regenerates itself a lot quicker than originally thought.

Where did you hear this and why did you believe it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've heard there's a lot of oil left, but very little of the sweet crude that is cheap to pump and refine. Canada, for example, has huge amounts of oil in tar-sands, which costs three times as much to clean and refine.

In other words, the energy return on investment is getting smaller. I think we should take that as a hint to stop burning oil.


Anyway, I'm for High-Speed Rail to eliminate as many flight-corridors as possible,An excellent idea.


mass inner-city public transportation,Another excellent idea.


a removal of the tariff on imported ethanol, and end to trade restrictions on Cuba (a major producer of sugar cane, used in ethanol),...followed by two really terrible ideas. I think it's fucking stupid to grow crops for biofuels as it wastes valuable land that could otherwise be growing food, increasing prices, plus it's simply horribly inefficient.

No, better to use our sewage systems and factory farms as a source of methane if we want renewable hydrocarbons.


increased restrictions on fuel-economy in new automobiles, a major tax rebate for people who convert their home/business to solar/clean tech, and, most importantly, a $2 tax on every gallon of gasoline sold (and a corresponding cut in payroll taxes) to allow the market to find a viable alternative.No real objections here.

[apathy maybe]

Massively decentralised, minimal environmental impact, and depending on the prevailing local conditions. Also fusion for bigger projects.

Wind, wave, tidal, solar, bio-fuels (in certain situations, including fast transport), small scale hydro, animal power, human power (if you want to watch the teli, you have to pedal!), etc.

[freakazoid]

I'm sorry, but that's a complete fantasy. Long term trends in oil prices indicate that the stuff is becoming increasingly harder to find.


I don't think the prices necesarily mean that the stuff is becoming harder to find. Everything is going up in price. Also I hear that there are a lot of very large untapped places. The reason that some say that it actually repleneshis itself much faster than thought is because it is actually made from something else or something.


Where did you hear this and why did you believe it?

I've heard about it from a few places, don't remember where. And I didn't say that I believe it, it is just an interesting thought.

[bcbm]

Crack cocaine.

I hate you so much for beating me to this.

[Ken]

Make it nuclear. Nuclear power is safe, clean, and reliable.

lol

[Jazzratt]

The reason that some say that it actually repleneshis itself much faster than thought is because it is actually made from something else or something.

This is some real science right here ladies and gentlemen. Oil is actually made from "something else or something", you heard that here on revleft first.


I've heard about it from a few places, don't remember where. And I didn't say that I believe it, it is just an interesting thought.

Why bother mentioning it? It's just a loony fantasy.

[freakazoid]

This is some real science right here ladies and gentlemen. Oil is actually made from "something else or something", you heard that here on revleft first.

Sigh, if I remembered the details don't you think I would of posted them? It has been a while since I read it and I don't remember where or else I would of dug up the info.


Why bother mentioning it?

Because perhaps someone else has heard of it to and could further elaborate on the subject.

[pusher robot]

lol

Great story bro!

[pusher robot]

Sigh, if I remembered the details don't you think I would of posted them? It has been a while since I read it and I don't remember where or else I would of dug up the info.
Because perhaps someone else has heard of it to and could further elaborate on the subject.

Yes, you're talking about the abiogenetic origin of petroleum theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin). It's not widely accepted.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Finally, a science thread I can post in.

Agree with Noxion 100% here. Make it nuclear. Nuclear power is safe, clean, and reliable. It's shockingly efficient, too, producing ludicrously large amounts of power from laughably tiny quantities of fuel. Virtually all of the arguments against nuclear power are based on lies or demand for perfection.

For applications that really need hydrocarbons, like jet fuel or certain lubricants, we can produce biofuels from high-yield algae and other specially-designed micro-organisms.
Perhaps your utopia could be powered on adjectives?

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, you're talking about the abiogenetic origin of petroleum theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin). It's not widely accepted.

Foolproof. :rolleyes:

It's pretty much certain that most non conventional methods of oir production will cost $5.00 per barrel to produce than their eventual price at the gas pump.

No matter the price at the gas pump.

[pusher robot]

Perhaps your utopia could be powered on adjectives?

Or adverbs maybe?

[534634634265]

i think a big problem here for me is that where i envision society isn't necessarily where you envision it. i think trying to sustain civilization as it exists now can only happen if we continue to rape the environment. you seem to feel that civilization as it exists now is fine, and needs to be continued and further expanded (to enable your technology based lifestyle).
i didn't intend to start a thread just to butt heads with someone who enjoys technology, that would be hypocritical considering the online nature of this debate. i do want to know what people consider to be realistic alternatives or replacements. so far its been methane, crack, uranium, and adjectives.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think a big problem here for me is that where i envision society isn't necessarily where you envision it. i think trying to sustain civilization as it exists now can only happen if we continue to rape the environment.

You say rape, I say exploit. The environment is not a singular entity with a will of it's own that can be violated, like a human. So your usage of the word "rape" in this context is at the samwe time technically incorrect as well as being emotional hyperbole.


you seem to feel that civilization as it exists now is fine, and needs to be continued and further expanded (to enable your technology based lifestyle).My technology based lifestyle? I think you'll find that most humans alive today depend on technology in some form or another.

The problem is that not everyone has access to the full range of technology, causing massive inequality.


i didn't intend to start a thread just to butt heads with someone who enjoys technology, that would be hypocritical considering the online nature of this debate. i do want to know what people consider to be realistic alternatives or replacements. so far its been methane, crack, uranium, and adjectives.My suggestion was serious. I suspect the crack and adjective-powered societies were proposed in jest. Are you familiar with the concept of humour?

[pusher robot]

i think a big problem here for me is that where i envision society isn't necessarily where you envision it. i think trying to sustain civilization as it exists now can only happen if we continue to rape the environment. you seem to feel that civilization as it exists now is fine, and needs to be continued and further expanded (to enable your technology based lifestyle).

"Technology" is not a gorram lifestyle.

It is the essence of humanity. Embrace who you are.

[Lynx]

My utopia won't be powered by Windows.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

...followed by two really terrible ideas. I think it's fucking stupid to grow crops for biofuels as it wastes valuable land that could otherwise be growing food, increasing prices, plus it's simply horribly inefficient.

No, better to use our sewage systems and factory farms as a source of methane if we want renewable hydrocarbons.

It's not the end-all idea, but simply a substitute (Natural Gas, biodiesel, etc could be used also) for oil while we develop technologies which will eliminate the need for hydrocarbons by replacing internal-combustion engines. Whether the eventual technology is solar, hydrogen fuel cells, an incredible magnetic levetation system, or whatever else I just don't know.

Even if we only use E50, like in Brazil, and use 10% of the savings for research we'd be on the right path, I believe.

[#FF0000]

i think a big problem here for me is that where i envision society isn't necessarily where you envision it. i think trying to sustain civilization as it exists now can only happen if we continue to rape the environment. you seem to feel that civilization as it exists now is fine, and needs to be continued and further expanded (to enable your technology based lifestyle).

You know I just want to point out that no matter what humans do, short of full-scale global nuclear war, the Earth will still be here. If humans were to die out tomorrow, the planet would go on as if we never existed, with all that's left of human society decays until there's hardly a trace left.

The Earth doesn't need saving. No matter what we do, it isn't going anywhere. Humanity, on the other hand...

[bcbm]

Great story bro!

You're doing it wrong.

[Dejavu]

You know I just want to point out that no matter what humans do, short of full-scale global nuclear war, the Earth will still be here. If humans were to die out tomorrow, the planet would go on as if we never existed, with all that's left of human society decays until there's hardly a trace left.

The Earth doesn't need saving. No matter what we do, it isn't going anywhere. Humanity, on the other hand...

No that's BS man! This is just an excuse to keep on using plastic grocery bags. :mad:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No that's BS man! This is just an excuse to keep on using plastic grocery bags. :mad:

He's right, but I agree. It's all about creating the Earth we would like to inhabit. We are, after all, the first species I know of which understands the climate may be changing to an environment we don't prefer, and we can take steps to alter this. Or maybe not.


I think it's fucking stupid to grow crops for biofuels as it wastes valuable land that could otherwise be growing food, increasing prices, plus it's simply horribly inefficient.

Just remembered another possible "filler" technology:

http://www.hempcar.org/img/frontpage/car.jpg

http://www.viperrecords.com/img/activism/hempcar450.jpg

Hmmmm...wonder if you could fly a jet with hash OIL :laugh:

I don't even know if that's possibly viable, but it'd be cool if could replace normal pollution with potsmoke, Cheen and Chong style.

[AnthArmo]

Anti-matter anyone?:D:D:D:D:D:D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Anti-matter anyone?:D:D:D:D:D:D

Erm, no not really, until the following conditions are fulfilled:

1) We find a much, much cheaper way of producing it than currently, as at the moment it is the most expensive substance on Earth at 300 billion dollars per milligram.

2) We construct solar farms covering most of the surface of Mercury, in order to get the energy to produce it in the first place - natural antimatter makes gold look as common as dirt.

3) We find a way of storing it where it doesn't immediately blow up in your face if you slightly nudge it.

I would say it's a couple of centuries off at the very least, and that's being heavily optimistic. Fusion is a doddle in comparison.

[freakazoid]

Dream killer.

[butterfly]

Constant existential crisis, right now NoXion's technocratic chatter turns me on :blink:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dream killer.

Au contraire, monsieur Freakazoid. There's nothing in the laws of physics preventing us from using antimatter, it's just that expecting us to start using antimatter any time soon is kind of like expecting Revolutionary France to have built a functioning spacecraft.

There are many hurdles, but they are not insurmountable.


Constant existential crisis, right now NoXion's technocratic chatter turns me on :blink:

I could discuss other forms of power I'd like to see society use in the future if you like. :D

[butterfly]

:lol: Bit more THC

[freakazoid]

it's just that expecting us to start using antimatter any time soon is kind of like expecting Revolutionary France to have built a functioning spacecraft.

Maybe they would of if your dream killing didn't stop them, :mad:

:D

[Wake Up]

The problem with that is that when interplanetary warfare begins, it leaves a planets power supply completely open to obliteration. Look at what happened to the fith moon of kau'sus, they did that and they were wiped out by an invasion force from Telgororon.

pretty sure that the word 'utopia' was used in the OP...

[534634634265]

also a question for your potential utopia,
do you choose passivity and nonviolence when confronting other groups, or do you have a strong response when confronted by aggressors?

i think my ideal utopia would be able to exclude and alienate those who attempt to gain through violence, without having to use force on them.

[pusher robot]

Antimatter is not practical as an energy source because it does not exist in any quantity free for the taking. We would have to manufacture it first, but barring any revolutions in physics, that would take at least as much energy as you would get from using it. So at best antimatter would be a good way to store energy, but it isn't an energy source.

It's like hydrogen in that respect.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

also a question for your potential utopia,
do you choose passivity and nonviolence when confronting other groups, or do you have a strong response when confronted by aggressors?

We should always maintain the ability to respond in kind to any sort of aggression. This includes weapons of mass destruction such as tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

As well as massive planetary scale nuclear bombardment, we should develop possible future weapon systems such as asteroid bombardment (http://orbitalvector.com/Space%20Weapons/Asteroid%20Bombardment/ASTEROID%20BOMBARDMENT.htm), Relativistic Kill Vehicles (RKVs) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle), Orbital Bombardment systems (http://orbitalvector.com/Space%20Weapons/Orbital%20Bombardment/ORBITAL%20BOMBARDMENT.htm), railguns, gauss cannons, and Autonomous Kill Vehicles (AKVs) launched by Mass Drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver).

We should also try for the more speculative stuff like military nanotechnology ("khaki goo"), armies of power-armoured superhumans and self-replicating robots, Autonomous Military Vehicles (AMVs - basically tanks with minds of their own), space battleships (also containing squadrons of AKVs) , and megastructures.

Even if humans stop fighting each other, we never know what we'll encounter as we spread out into the universe. If we aren't ready, the whole human species might go the way of the Aztecs when they met the Conquistadors.


Antimatter is not practical as an energy source because it does not exist in any quantity free for the taking. We would have to manufacture it first, but barring any revolutions in physics, that would take at least as much energy as you would get from using it. So at best antimatter would be a good way to store energy, but it isn't an energy source.

You're right, which is why I chose Mercury to be the best place to make it because of all the infalling solar energy that's quite concentrated.

[#FF0000]

We should always maintain the ability to respond in kind to any sort of aggression. This includes weapons of mass destruction such as tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

As well as massive planetary scale nuclear bombardment, we should develop possible future weapon systems such as asteroid bombardment (http://orbitalvector.com/Space%20Weapons/Asteroid%20Bombardment/ASTEROID%20BOMBARDMENT.htm), Relativistic Kill Vehicles (RKVs) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle), Orbital Bombardment systems (http://orbitalvector.com/Space%20Weapons/Orbital%20Bombardment/ORBITAL%20BOMBARDMENT.htm), railguns, gauss cannons, and Autonomous Kill Vehicles (AKVs) launched by Mass Drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver).

We should also try for the more speculative stuff like military nanotechnology ("khaki goo"), armies of power-armoured superhumans and self-replicating robots, Autonomous Military Vehicles (AMVs - basically tanks with minds of their own), space battleships (also containing squadrons of AKVs) , and megastructures.

Even if humans stop fighting each other, we never know what we'll encounter as we spread out into the universe. If we aren't ready, the whole human species might go the way of the Aztecs when they met the Conquistadors.

Holy shit the future is awesome.

[Killfacer]

I was mocked for saying that i would acquire Rail cannons from space traders, but now who is laughing? Me!!!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was mocked for saying that i would acquire Rail cannons from space traders, but now who is laughing? Me!!!!

Guy, your scenario had "plasma generators" which if they mean what I think they mean, don't produce energy. Do you even know what plasma is?

[Killfacer]

i was joking. I do know what plasma is, but there is no point asking people online when the wikipedia is at hand.

[cop an Attitude]

solar panals, ocean windmills, fisson or nuclear plants (although it creates waste). Who knows maybe in a couple of decades we could harness antimatter or plasma, enegry without any byproducts.

[Dust Bunnies]

If a revolution turned the world over to my plan today I realize that under today's infrastructure, October 26, 2008, I would realize that we currently do not have the infrastructure or technology to make an automatic "green switch". We would need a 5 year plan for us to build up new nuclear, hydro, solar, geothermal, and wind stations/plants while building new forms of mass transport and possibly solar powered cars.

[Dharma]

Hemp

[Jazzratt]

solar panals, ocean windmills, fisson or nuclear plants (although it creates waste). Who knows maybe in a couple of decades we could harness antimatter or plasma, enegry without any byproducts.

You say that as if solar panels and ocean windmills produce no waste whatsoever...

[Sentinel]

HempThat has been discussed some in the Sciences & Environment forum. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15959)

It's quite interesting.

[Ken]

Great story bro!

nice try at jumping on the bandwagon, but your doing it wrong. way to be unfunny.

[Ken]

You know I just want to point out that no matter what humans do, short of full-scale global nuclear war, the Earth will still be here. If humans were to die out tomorrow, the planet would go on as if we never existed, with all that's left of human society decays until there's hardly a trace left.

The Earth doesn't need saving. No matter what we do, it isn't going anywhere. Humanity, on the other hand...

hmm i wonder if you would say that in 10,000 years. or even 1000 years. or 500. will we be around in 500 years?

[Dust Bunnies]

Ken, your back, welcome back.

[pusher robot]

nice try at jumping on the bandwagon, but your doing it wrong. way to be unfunny.

lol

[Dust Bunnies]

Pusher wins automatically since he has Wall-E as his avatar.

To put some stuff on topic:

I am afraid even oil energy infrastructures would be destroyed during the revolution. We won't have a professional army who could accept a retreat and use conventional warfare, refineries and plants will be destroyed. Maybe some will remain, but we definitively cannot just make nuclear plants or solar panels just magically appear once we win.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am afraid even oil energy infrastructures would be destroyed during the revolution. We won't have a professional army who could accept a retreat and use conventional warfare, refineries and plants will be destroyed.

The aim of a proletarian revolution is to appropriate infrastructure from the ruling class. To destroy it would be suicidal.


Maybe some will remain, but we definitively cannot just make nuclear plants or solar panels just magically appear once we win.

Nobody is saying that; building such things will take time. But unless we go around killing those who know how to build such things and destroying information telling us how (and I strongly hope this doesn't happen), then we should be able to do it.

[Plagueround]

your doing it wrong.

I'm by no means a grammar nazi, but when you're attempting to correct someone this is priceless.

[freakazoid]

The aim of a proletarian revolution is to appropriate infrastructure from the ruling class. To destroy it would be suicidal.

I think he meant that this will happen to us, not that we will do it. To weaken our infrastructure so we would fail.

[Dust Bunnies]

Either they will destroy it or we will, I doubt the Commander of a local revolution group will destroy a plant if it meant causing mass chaos among an enemy force.

[534634634265]

the commander of a local revolutionary group is a balless twat if hes afraid of striking at whats basically the jugular of the great beast. oil makes the government work as it does now, so why not deny it its lifes blood? people will by and large sustain themselves without it, the military will not.

[pusher robot]

the commander of a local revolutionary group is a balless twat if hes afraid of striking at whats basically the jugular of the great beast. oil makes the government work as it does now, so why not deny it its lifes blood? people will by and large sustain themselves without it, the military will not.

Because, what, imperial armies never existed until the discovery of oil?

[freakazoid]

Of course that was back when we road horses to move the armies around. Now we use vehicles, which require oil.

[#FF0000]

hmm i wonder if you would say that in 10,000 years. or even 1000 years. or 500. will we be around in 500 years?

Who knows. I'm not implying that humanity is on the verge of extinction or anything like that. I'm just saying it's sort of silly to be an environmentalist to "save the planet" rather than to secure a healthy environment for humans to live in. After all, if the sea level rose a little bit, humanity would lose tons of lives because of the flooding. The planet, however, would be completely indifferent.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The standard deviation of some people's thoughts are inseparable when they're asleep and awake.

[butterfly]

I'm just saying it's sort of silly to be an environmentalist to "save the planet" rather than to secure a healthy environment for humans to live in. After all, if the sea level rose a little bit, humanity would lose tons of lives because of the flooding. The planet, however, would be completely indifferent.
1. Environmentalist's percieve 'saving the planet' as correlating with securing a healthy environment for human's to live in.
2. The environment which human lives depend on would not remain completely indifferent to sea level risel.
Remember that NASA climatologist James Hansen has warned of a possible rise of 25m.
To dispute the effect that would have on human life, in order to support an ideology, is religiously fanatical.