X-Message-Number: 29233
From: "Mark Plus" <>
Subject: Re: Futurism
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:52:37 -0800

Perry Metzger writes,

>Nuclear power is already substantially more economically efficient than 
>fossil fuel use. At less than 2.5 cents per killowatt-hour including the 
>cost of vitrifying the waste, it is just fine right now,
and even kills far fewer people than conventional power generation. (Find 
out some time how many people die outright in coal mining and how much 
radiation burning coal puts out, not to mention
the mercury contamination.)

While I realize you can also build nuclear reactors fueled by thorium, the 
real-world uranium supply has hit a bottleneck, with even talk of "peak 
uranium" in some quarters:

Analysis: Demand to Stress Uranium Supply


http://www.upi.com/Energy/analysis_demand_to_stress_uranium_supply/20070302-045726-5588r/

It also deserves mentioning that nuclear power requires a substantial fossil 
fuels subsidy to work. Our civilization uses energy from fossil fuels to 
find, mine, transport, process and assemble fissionable materials into 
nuclear reactors. Not to mention that the Homer Simpsons who work at nuclear 
power plants need gasoline to get to their jobs. How would uranium get from 
a mine in Australia to the U.S. without bunker fuel for the freighter, for 
example? On a sailing ship?

I also wonder why libertarians defend nuclear power, given how deeply the 
state has guided its development. Without the state to absorb many of the 
costs and risks of nuclear energy throughout its history, would this 
technology have ever even arisen through spontaneous market processes?

>Photovoltaics are also clearly about to be quite practical. 30 years ago 
>cells cost something like $600 per watt in *non*-inflation adjusted 
>dollars.

The factories which manufacture photovoltaic devices don't run off of solar 
or wind power. Instead they have to use the regular power grid running off 
of fossil fuels, hydroelectric power or nuclear power. A real alterative to 
fossil fuels wouid have to cut them out of the loop altogether.

>There are teenagers getting in trouble these days for sending digital 
>photographs of themselves giving blow jobs to each other from their camera 
>equipped cellphones to their friends' internet connected personal 
>computers. Consider what a weird idea ANY COMPONENT OF THAT would have been 
>to someone in 1980, let alone in 1960. Indeed, most of it would have seemed 
>really bizarre to people in 1993 if they weren't reading certain mailing 
>lists. Where is the future, Mr. Plus? You're
living in it.

Many morally conservative parents wouldn't consider this as evidence of 
"progress," and I feel sympathetic to their viewpoint even though I don't 
have children. (Not having children never stopped Robert Heinlein from 
pontificating about parenthood and childrearing. either.)

>We've sequenced the human genome -- repeatedly if you count all the SNP and 
>other work -- and we're in striking distance of equipment that will 
>sequence any genome for peanuts in a few days. I have friends that find new 
>biological subsystems just by doing statistical data mining of the existing 
>genome information. We move organelles around inside cells under study with 
>laser tweezers.

As Brian Wowk and others have pointed out, none of these developments 
necessarily have to get translated into medical practice, especially given 
the current cultural and political climate; nor does it follow that these 
techniques will necessarily create any substantial longevity breakthrough in 
humans. Robin Hanson argues that most of the healthcare we consume doesn't 
do us any good, and we don't really know why people live as long as they do, 
nor why longevity in certain groups has increased lately. The 
supercentenarian freaks, many of whom lived in poverty much of their lives, 
certainly didn't ingest something like Life Extension Mix in the early and 
mid 20th Century to make it to at least 110 years of age.

>You're totally out of touch if you think the future isn't here just because 
>your flying car hasn't arrived.

Straw man. Edgar Swank wants a flying car. Where did I say I wanted one?

>Clearly you're surrounded by more change than people can cope with, and it 
>is only accelerating, and you're asking "where is the future". Well open 
>your eyes already.

Do I see "the future" in the tooth-optional Arizonans I encounter every day? 
(I also met a great many people like that in California.) Maybe you live in 
an affluent bubble somewhere, and don't have a good understanding of how 
many ordinary Americans live.

>Mirrored single piece overalls from Hugo Gernsback magazine covers are not 
>the way to tell you are "in the future". People carrying their laptop 
>computers into coffee shops and pirating full
length movies over wireless broadband via peer-to-peer networks while 
sipping their tea is more relevant.

It doesn't matter how gadgety our lives become, if we still have to age and 
die. I just view a lot of this stuff as the high-tech equivalent of grave 
goods.

Mark Plus

_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few 
simple tips. 


http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29233