WOW. Your article did not mention composting EVEN ONCE! What the HECK is with you? The thing about woody plants is that they pull carbon out of the atmosphere to build structures - like tree trunks, branches and leaves. When they die (in part or in whole) that carbon goes back into nature. That is a cycle. That article does not ONCE claim that the cycle of growth and decay is changing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Some people think we all should have 6 months of food in a shelter underground. Maybe they are right, but do we take them seriously and do it?
What's your plan for that? It's not good enough to just ignore problems that have devastating impact on people's lives.
Six months of food stored up is always a good idea. Just have a gun and enough ammo to protect it in case your neighbors want to claim some of it as theirs.
What with all this climate change and runaway inflation it's everybody for themselves these days. Of course none of it's Biden's or the Democrats' fault.
Runaway inflation? Do you follow recent news? There's no fault. It's life. A rule of thumb to live by. When you borrow something, bring it back the same or better than when you borrowed it. We humans just borrow this Earth while we reside here for a short time.
Prove it. Because you have yet to even try to do that. You simply make a claim with absolutely nothing to back it up. Sorry, how about actually validating your claims, instead of expecting everybody to simply drink the kool-aid just because you say it?
Yea, no crap. It talked about a report from MIT saying that decomposition accounts for over 90% of greenhouse gasses. Obviously logically following cause and effect is beyond you.
Actually, I typically have from 3-6 months of supplies stored up. And I think everybody should, it is just good common sense. That has helped me a great many times over the decades, as when some disaster struck (earthquake, hurricane, winter storms, COVID, etc), I could simply stay at home and use those until things got back to normal. And to be honest, I simply can't understand people that don't do that. Back in 1994 our neighbor had 2 infants, and the water was declared unsafe to drink. So I went to my supply (which I had just replenished as we had moved there only 2 weeks prior) and gave him four gallons so he could make formula for his kids. 2 years ago when the country went crazy and stores emptied in hours, I mostly just laughed. No need to leave the house, and once again giving items to friends and neighbors who needed it. Almost every single area of the country suffers from some kind of disasters. And any that are not prepared in my mind are sheep.
If we perfected this technology. Over the next 50-100 years, we probably could feed it anything. Even our garbage. Waste disposal is solved too. We might be even able to feed it certain things in specialized session to produce certain heavier rare elements.
As this technology is is perfected, we could also install air pollution filters on top of skyscrapers and around the industrial zones. Each city would have a local reactor. It is fed all the greenhouse gasses that has been filtered out of the atmosphere in the area through a network of pipes connecting to the atmospheric filters. We'd have the technology in the next 50 year to do that. In the next 100 years we'd have the required infrastructure. Even if we go balls to the wall polluting the air like China does, in the next 100 years, global warming still won't be an issue. By the time it becomes as severe of an issue as climate alarmist are making it out to be, our technology would have moved passed it. Before it became a catastrophe big enough that we should be worried for our "kids future", we'd already have solved all the problems in 100-200 years. From a technological prospective, think where we were 200 years ago.
No, we could not. They will be perfecting nothing in the nest century or more. And it still could use nothing but isotopes of hydrogen.
What were wer doing in 1923? What about 1823? That was 47 years before the industrial revolution and steam engine. Mind you, the industrial revolution started 11 years after the invention of the first steam engine. It didn't take a long time before they became wide spread. But you're saying that 100-200 years isn't enough time to drastically improve/perfect a new technology? That sounds very ignorant
Fusion, by its shear namesake converts lighter elements into heavy elements. A hot enough fusion could convert heavy elements into heavier ones. That's exactly how we got elements like gold and lead. Through fusion. Lol
I am talking about the laws of physics. Hell, look at the very thing we got the idea from in the first place. Stars like our sun fuse hydrogen. That's it, hydrogen. It fuses it into helium. This is known as the "Proton-Proton Chain". And very late in the cycle it will enter the CNO cycle, or Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen cycle. This is where it combined helium with the remaining hydrogen and other trace elements collected over billions of years and convert them into carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Only in the last stages where is compresses before going nova does it even start to make heavier elements. It is not "ignorant", it is simply knowing and understanding science. If you take a Tesla and throw it into the sun, it will not become part of the fusion. It will simply be crushed and sit in the core. We can work on this technology for a billion years, and it will never do that. That is not how it works. This is not ignorance, this is actually understanding science and how things work.
Lol "Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei are combined to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles. The difference in mass between the reactants and products is manifested as either the release or absorption of energy" Its literally what fusion is. And I'll leave this here. The rate at which technology improves is exponential. It will eventually reach a singularity. Where the line of the graph started straightening out
But very little can actually be fused. Elements like iron are not created by fusion. This is why you fail.
It just energy requiments. 200 years ago, many thing that exists today were though as inconceivable. Especially the methods. If we convert technological capability to cahs, a simple smart phone today is worth more than the wealth of all nations 200 years ago. In fact, no amount of wealth could buy this technology back then. And it lasts 10 hours wirelessly? "Impossible!" They would say. Has it occurred to you that 200 years from now we would develop new "inconceivable" methods that fuses things more efficiently? We can't even comprehend the type of technology will exist 200 years from now. Line that graph up 200 years from now.
You are trying to equate Moore's Law to physics? Not the same thing. And BTW, Moore's Law is already breaking down, as it has been predicted. The physics and very materials involved have already shown that Moore's Law is no longer sustainable, as we have pretty much reached the capability of putting transistors on silicon and can not go much farther. And that is not even new, we have known that for almost 20 years. That is why fabrications almost 2 decades ago stopped even trying, and instead of building "more powerful microchips", started to create multiple processors into a microchip working in parallel. That is why around 2008 was the height of technology for the "single core CPU". The advances since then has been much less about "making a more powerful CPU", and in how to make clusters of them operate together. What you are talking about contradicts all laws of physics, and shows you do not really understand how any of that works.
