Hydrogen Fusion, Energy, and Idiots

An article on Forbes by Richard Martin astounded me in that it’s almost unbelievable that anyone could be that short-sighted.  If humanity is to have a future, we need to overcome this kind of thinking.  To summarize, “If there isn’t a quick buck in it for me, then there is no reason to do it” is the mentality that went into that article and which will doom mankind if we can’t move past it.

The long term survival and development of mankind and civilization requires several things.  It requires that we establish ourselves on more than one planet because planetary scale disasters happen and sooner or later we will go the way of the dinosaurs if Earth remains our only home, that’s nearly impossible using chemical propulsion.  In the long term, it really requires that we have the ability to make a home for ourselves on planets orbiting distant stars because events that sterilize regions of space several hundred light years in diameter with intense gamma radiation do happen from time to time and the sun will only sustain life here on this planet for so long, perhaps another five hundred million years if we’re lucky.  And yes, the sun won’t run out of fuel for perhaps another five billion, but as it evolves it will become redder and expand and that will evaporate the oceans and make this planet uninhabitable.

Another thing that our long term survival requires is that we have the ability to adapt to a changing environment, both natural changes and the more rapid changes we make ourselves.  One necessary part of this adaptation is the education necessary to exist within today’s technological society.  We’ve created a world of gadgets that we’re dependent upon but our educational system is still mostly churning out ditch diggers.  So we create these huge “infrastructure” projects to keep them employed, while the real needs of society go unfilled because nobody has the education necessary to fulfill them.

We need the ability to feed ourselves, and today’s huge commercial mono-culture farms that relay heavily on artificial fertilizers and waste huge amounts of water, are not sustainable.  Planting rice in the desert and then spraying water on it from 100 feet away, isn’t going to cut it as the world’s population approaches 9 billion.

Energy is another problem, closely related to the others, for if we have adequate energy than water becomes a non-problem because the oceans are plenty but they’re salty, energy can remove that salt and make fresh water.  Fracking isn’t the solution, it’s a temporary bandaid that only slows the bleeding for a short time.  And while it slows the bleeding, it’s poisoning the patient, contaminating ground water, bringing up radioactive materials to the surface, and geologically destabilizing the planet. They tell us that we’ve got 100 years worth of cheap natural gas.  Actually, they’ll get at the cheap gas in the near-term and then what remains becomes increasingly difficult to get at, just like oil.  We can not keep burning hydrocarbons indefinitely.

This research being done at the University of Washington is valuable because it aims to address at least two of these problems, to give us the means of viable interplanetary travel, and to solve our energy problems, and at the same time some folks are getting educated in the process.

I’m not suggesting for a second that we rely solely on hydrogen fusion, Solar and Wind have become much more economical, and solar is often most economical near where it’s going to be used, such as in California or Arizona, where the solar peak corresponds nicely with peak-load since much of that peak load is air conditioning.  Wind power is a little more problematic since some of the best wind resources are not where the grid is.  I think we need to make the investment to build the grid out and take advantage of wind where we can.

One renewable that one doesn’t hear much mention of, except in Hawaii, is Geo-thermal.  That’ s a shame because Geo-thermal is uniquely able to provide the kind of base-load power that the utilities are so quick to criticize Wind and Solar for being unable to do, although both the Netherlands and Germany have proven that solar and wind can reliably provide a much larger portion of our power needs than the utilities here will admit, by virtue of geographical diversification, and the United States has much more territory to diversify over than either Germany or the Netherlands.

Presently, we have a moratorium on power production in Yellowstone, but it is both our largest and potentially most dangerous Geo-thermal source, if not tapped.  We’re better off taking any heat out of that system that we can.  Yellowstone, if it were to have a major eruption, would instantly depopulate about 1/3rd of the United States while causing food production problems for the remainder of the globe.

All the wealth in the world isn’t going to do Richard any good if there is no food, water, or energy to be purchased.  We really need to start thinking about how we’re going to survive as a species and recognize our dependence upon the rest of the life on this planet, and give some serious thought to what kind of a future we want to have.  The path we’re on now is going to take us to more death, disease, destruction, and poverty, but we can make other choices.

The Seeds of Change


The dots are the seeds of change.  The seeds for change in the future are planted in the present.

Presently, things look pretty dark.  Those in power have brain-washed the masses into believing that they are superior and know what’s best for us all and what is sustainable.  Their actions would indicate that they are neither interested in our best interests nor in sustainability.  People have come to expect that Big Brother will provide for them as long as they do what they are told even though events like Katrina have proven that Big Brother is neither capable nor interested in providing for them.  People have given up their constitutional rights in return for perceived safety even though that safety is only a perception.

From a biological perspective, we are a species that has internal programming both for self-preservation and propagation and for group preservation and propagation.  We’ve not arrived at this point without a great deal of internal conflict.  Every one of us exists because our parents were successful at acquiring the necessary resources for their own survival and in reproducing.  Many who were less driven to obtain resources didn’t survive.  Many who were less driven to reproduce had no offspring.  They are not our parents, they are not represented in today’s gene pool, and this process has been going on for thousands of years.

From the days where we first banded together to hunt more effectively, we became more effective at gathering resources as a group, and groups that were most effective at interacting in a productive manner, their members survived and reproduced more effectively than those that did not, and thus our genes also have encoded in them characteristics directed at group survival.

There are conflicts between group and individual survival.  An action might benefit the group but result in the death or significant harm to the individual.  An action might benefit an individual but harm the group.  And there exists more than one group, in fact entire hierarchies which complicates things further.  If it only were as simple as Spock put it, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.   It is not so simple because there are often great discrepancies between the needs of the individual and the group. What might be the difference between the survival and death of an individual, might be only a very small inconvenience to the group.  It’s not an absolute black-and-white but many shades of grey.

These dark times we are presently in result because there are very great conflicts between the needs of individuals and the collective, because there are great conflicts between various groups that exist within the hierarchy of groups, and because within groups, the balance between individual and group needs varies greatly from individual to individual.

Society would function best if the interests of the group and the individual were balanced, and if all members of the group benefit equally from their participation.  Right now we are so far from this.  We’ve got a handful of people who are manipulating the group for their own benefit, and the rest of the group is willing to roll over and play dead, no balance at all, neither between the needs of the group and the individuals, or between individuals within the group.

I can see the seeds of change however, with events like Edward Snowden revealing the illegal activities of the NSA.  People are getting tired of being exploited and starting to resist, like the hacker group Anonymous.  I don’t think all the Homeland Security Departments two billion bullets can stop it.

It seems clear to me change is in the works.  That change can come gradually and peacefully or quickly and violently.  Those who are manipulating us collectively must make a choice now, they can allow our participation in self-determination and allow the resources to be shared more equitably, or they can remain greedy and wait until people are totally fed up and rise up violently as in the French revolution and put the lot of them to death.  One way or the other change is coming, I fear it’s going to go the violent route and I’d rather it not, but if people persist with their money and power greed I don’t see how it can go otherwise.

Agenda 21

Just because Glenn Beck says it doesn’t make it so…

To be sure, Agenda 21 is a real United Nations document that seeks to promote sustainability, some would say using Draconian measures.  Some suggest that Agenda 21 intends to eliminate capitalism, national sovereignty, property rights, and personal freedom.  However, agenda 21 is not a treaty and thus not law in the United States, and problems it addresses are real and not all of the ideas for sustainable growth are bad.

I do believe we need to move towards a sustainable future and we need to do it now but I don’t believe that means we have to stick all human population in 1% of the Earths’ land or that we have to eliminate many of the things we value such as the freedom to move about.

Agenda 21 makes the incorrect assumption that it is man verses nature. Inherent in that idea is that human beings are separate and distinct from nature and must, for natures sake, be separated from nature.  We are part of nature and we must learn to peacefully co-exist with the rest of nature, not separate ourselves from it.  Indeed, we’ve already separated ourselves from nature too much.  This is what has lead to an insensitivity on our part to that which sustains us.

A second assumption agenda 21 makes is that the carrying capacity of the Earth is around a billion human beings.  I think this assumption is wrong except that to carry a larger population in a sustainable manner we have to do things much differently than we are doing now.  Without the use of oil, or some other energy source to replace it, we could not sustain anywhere near the level of food production that we have today.  And without a substantial source of energy, water is going to soon become a problem because we are depleting aquifers faster than they are replenished naturally.  With adequate energy, we could desalinate seawater and eliminate that issue but our current energy supplies are not adequate or sustainable.

There is also a quality of life verses quantity of life issue.  Meat production takes about a hundred times as much resources as grain production.  Therefore, the percentage of our diet that is meat is a huge factor in how large of a human population Earth can carry in a sustainable manner.  This is bad news for me because I happen to like meat.

Some ideas presented in Agenda 21, I happen to agree with.  Mixed use buildings in urban areas, that makes sense.  It is convenient to be able to go from your apartment or condo downstairs and pick up whatever you might need, or go downstairs to work or maybe across the street, as opposed to driving a couple miles to a store or commuting ten miles to work.  And having retail businesses, restaurants, and other such facilities at the ground level of multistory apartment or condominium buildings has the additional effect of reducing crime and creating a better urban environment.

The idea that less of the planet needs to be covered in asphalt, I agree with that.  Asphalt relies on oil, which is running out, and we really use a large amount of land for our transportation needs, and it’s a non-sustainable form of transportation.  For local transportation, cars are fine, they can be replaced by electric vehicles and the electricity for those vehicles can be generated from sustainable sources.  For inter-city transportation, cars and trucking are not sustainable, and neither is our diesel powered railroads in this country.  We should be electrifying our railway like every other continent except for North America has done.

I am concerned that although it’s not law in the United States now, it may become law given our current governments general disregard for the Constitution and our rights as declared in it.  I am also less than thrilled with the way the UN decided to address the issue of sustainability.  Rather than say, here’s the problem and here is A solution, not necessarily THE solution, they just say here is the problem and here is THE solution and if you don’t like it we’re going to jam it down your throats anyway.

In my view, if we solve the energy problem we’re about 90% of the way to solving all the other problems and the energy problems ARE solvable if we’re willing to commit the resources to doing it.  Controlled hydrogen fusion, really the Holy Grail of energy production is technologically achievable, but it would have to be on a large scale with current technology.  Right now there is no one place where the grid capacity is sufficient to carry away the power of a 10GW plant but why not build that grid?

The natural fusion reactor in the sky could also be tapped to a much greater degree.  And in the US we have ABUNDANT Geo-thermal resources and in my view, we really ought to be taking away heat from Yellowstone as fast as we can anyway, because, if it blows, one-third of the US is gone in a flash and the rest of us will starve to death in time.  So might as well let some of the steam out now, even if it means Old Faithful becomes a little less so, our survival really depends on it.  Germany and Holland have both been very successful at tapping Wind energy, and in the mid-west we have ample resources.  Again grid capacity is the issue, let’s fix that.

Once we get the energy problem solved, we’ve solved the water problem as well as their is plenty of water in the oceans and we need only the energy to desalinate it.  And when the water problem is solved, so to a large degree is the land problem because we can then transform desert into arable land and eliminate the need to cut down all the forest for farmland.  There are to be sure other things we need to do like get away from mono-crop agriculture and aerial sprinklers and chemical fertilizers.  It’s all doable.

It’s interesting that some of the folks behind Agenda 21 are former oil company types, which leads me to believe that they’re not really interested in the environment at all, that rather this is a situation where people that have financial interests that are hampered by environmentalists are trying to create a situation so extreme everyone will rise up against it, and thus the restraints in their environmentally damaging agendas well be removed and they can go about plundering the planet as they desire.


A wavelength is the distance from a part of a wave to the same part in the next cycle.  It can be from one positive peak to the next, or one high pressure peak to the next, or the top of one water wave to the next, etc.  The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength.  Also, the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy.

I’m noticing something interesting on this planet, the trend seems to be to higher frequencies, shorter wavelengths, more energy.  Radios back in the 40’s used large vacuum tubes for amplifiers, they were big hunky things, and they tended to operate on rather low frequencies.  Today we use transistors and we can pack billions of them in a very small space of a few centimeters.

We used to use frequencies in the AM broadcast band for transmitting sounds, around 1 Mhz, or 1 million cycles per second, with a long wavelength of around 300 meters.  Now we’ve got Satellite radio broadcasting on 2.3 Ghz, that’s 2.3 billion cycles per second, a wavelength of .13 meters (typical receiving antenna will be 1/4 or 1/2 wavelength).

The thing that seems weird to me is that it’s not just technical things that are changing, it’s the pace of our lives, faster and faster, time intervals for things, shorter and shorter, we used to spend hours or even sometimes days reading a book, now we spend 15 seconds reading a blog, we used to live in good sized homes, now more and more the trend is towards tiny apartments and condos.

The logical conclusion to all of this is that eventually we’ll exist in no space at all for no time at all.  I don’t think I like where this is headed.

Where Are We Headed?

The department of homeland security is purchasing 2 billion (that’s 2,000,000,000) rounds of ammunition.

When asked the purpose of this purchase they say it’s for law enforcement practice.  There are approximately 100,000 US federal law enforcement officers.  That’s 20,000 bullets per officer.  That’s a lot of practice.

It appears to me that they’re preparing for a war against the citizens, a civil war.  The separation between the wealthy elite and the average American citizen has reached the point where 400 people own more wealth than the remaining 300,000,000+ ordinary Americans.  I can’t see how this trend can continue without it leading to a major bloody revolt and I think that is what the department of protect the ultra-rich wealthy elite from the rest of us security department is preparing for.

There are also these huge concentration camps, er, detention centers that are being built or have been built around the country.  Again I think preparations for a revolt they know is inevitable if something isn’t done to reign in the power of these wealthy elite and spread the wealth more equitably among the workers who actually create it.

And those are things being done along the lines of force.  Equally insane things are being done along the lines of domestic covert intelligence (spying).  The NSA is building a million square food super-computing center that will allow them to store every telephone conversation, e-mail, text-message, or any other communication forever.  This will allow them to go back and listen or read any communication you and I have ever had, not to mention the data mining possibilities, particularly as the field of artificial intelligence continues to advance.

Laws are starting to get passed to help them populate this center.  CISPA essentially will encourage corporations to share private information with the government.  It’s not just about hackers, it’s about anyone that uses a computer or phone or mail or any other form of communications having that information routed to the government and stored in this super computer center forever.

I’m not a big fan of hackers (in the illegal destructive sense), after having suffered a two week outage and nearly $20,000 in losses back in 1995 as the result of a break-in.  But, I have to say the message Anonymous has I think is spot on.  I don’t agree with their tactics, but I absolutely agree with their insistence that the meaning be restored to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, that the value of every individual life be respected.  And I think they are absolutely right that if congress does not allow this to happen peacefully, it will happen in a bloody revolution and I think that is what the 2 billion rounds of ammunition, federal detention centers, NSA super computer center, and CISPA are all about.

The Grand Experiment

It’s been two years since the three nuclear reactors melted down at Fukushima, the direct result of their emergency generators being swamped by a tsunami, resulting in loss of cooling.  But also the result of man being arrogant with respect to his ability to control the nuclear genie.

After two years, the levels of radiation in Tokyo continue to rise, and over here in the United States, snow still has twice the normal background radiation levels in some areas.  The atmosphere is now more radioactive than it was during the height of atmospheric nuclear bomb testing.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from around 250 parts per million a hundred years ago to around 380 parts per million today.  I had hoped, as we ran out of fossil fuels, that would taper off, but now with all the recent large “tight oil” discoveries, combined with technology for extracting it, directional drilling and hydrological fracturing, or fracking, there appears to be no end in sight, at least during my lifetime.

It does appear that this is an experiment we are determined to do, find out just how resilient this planet is.  It is an experiment I wish that we were not undertaking.

Humans need energy, and more energy available to us translates into a better standard of living.  A good standard of living for all of humankind is something we would  prefer. Is it a choice between global poverty and trashing our environment?

The original design for the Fukushima nuclear plant called for the emergency generators to be built upon a hill where they may have survived the tsunami without being swamped.  There is still a question of whether wiring would have survived, pumps survived, etc, but had the plant been built as originally designed, there is at least the possibility there might not be three melted reactors there now.

There is a nuclear plant on the California coast, approximately mid-way between Los Angeles and San Diego.  Like Japan, a seismically unstable region, but with two huge cities (that have for all intents and purposes grown together) surrounding it. We have the potential for a disaster very similar to what happened in Japan to happen here.  It seems highly likely that it’s just a matter of time.

The only thing that really matters to corporations is making money and that usually means doing things in the cheapest way possible, even if it does endanger tens of millions of people.

People say that renewable energy isn’t economically competitive.  The thing is nuclear and fossil fuels only are because they’re not being done in safe and environmentally responsible ways.  There are inherently safe reactor designs, designs you can turn the coolant off and nothing bad happens, reactors that will burn the actinides produced by conventional reactors eliminating the very long term wastes, but these are expensive, and so they don’t get built.

BP, the reason we had that big spill in the gulf was that the proper casings for that kind of oil pressure cost more and so they opted to go with what was cheap, before you consider the cost to the environment and the clean-up costs, which are nowhere near enough to REALLY clean it up.

If the oil and nuclear industry actually did things in safe environmentally friendly ways, they would not be cost efficient with respect to sustainable energy sources.  In real terms, when you include the costs to our environment, the costs to human health, the cost of waste disposal, etc, renewable sustainable energy sources are cost effective.

We really need to find a way to alter our economic system such that the true cost of energy production, food production, etc, is attributed to each producer.  If the costs of producing electricity using coal included for example, all the additional deaths from all the mercury and radon and other pollutants that get pumped into the air, and the health care costs prior to death that coal produced, then it would no longer be cheap and more sane alternatives would prevail.

There is a lot of misinformation being brandied about with respect to renewable energy sources.  Solar and Wind are intermittent and therefor can’t contribute to base power, some form of backup power is needed, and since nuclear and coal can’t be rapidly increased or decreased, that usually means gas or hydro where it is available, and hydro has it’s own environmental problems or so they say, fish they say can’t make the fish ladders, even though they did fine for decades prior to the modern era of over fishing and oxygen depleted streams because everyone has to have the perfect lawn.

Germany has proven that these sources can in fact make a much larger contribution to the grid if they are geographically dispersed.  Here in the United States, we have much larger landmass to geographically disperse them over.  However, there are deficiencies in our grid, or should I saw grids, that make this problematic.  Most of our long distance transmission lines are radiatively lossy AC lines.  If we changed all lines longer than about 300km over to DC high voltage, we’d lose a lot less power to radiation, and this would make it feasible to intertie the East and West grids because DC interties would eliminate the issue of phasing.  It would also eliminate 60 Hz radiation and the leukemia that is associated with it.  It would also give those lines immunity to solar flares and coronal mass ejections.  In the process of making it possible for solar and wind to contribute a greater amount of power to the grid, converting these long lines to DC would have all of these other benefits.  Existing lines converted to DC could also carry more power because they’re carrying the maximum current and voltage all the time instead of just during a portion of the AC cycle.

However, there is another renewable that can contribute base load power 24×7, and that’s geothermal power.  Nuclear decay and to some degree fission, occurring naturally in the Earth’s core produce heat that is trying to escape to the surface.  There is more than enough geothermal resources to supply all of our electrical needs.

When you turn on anything electric or start your car, don’t you feel a small twinge of guilt?  Wouldn’t it be good to not have to feel that, to be able to flip on a light switch, or turn up the heat, or the A/C if you’re in a hot climate, and not feel bad about it knowing that your energy is coming from an environmentally friendly source?

I’d rather not do the grand experiment and not continue to dump carbon dioxide into the air and not continue to turn the planet into a large nuclear waste dump.

Oil / Gas / Fracking

Recent shale oil discoveries make it appear that we won’t see peak oil for decades to come.  It’s turning out that oil reservoirs known as seeps tend to contain relatively small portions of oil compared to the source rock below them and a combination of horizontal drilling and hydrological fracturing (fracking) has given us the ability to access the source rock oil and gas.

I knew it was likely there would be more hydrocarbons to be found somewhere simply by the amount and thickness of the carbon dioxide atmosphere on Venus.  Venus is a planet similar to Earth in size, but with an atmosphere of almost pure carbon dioxide 99 times as dense as Earth’s.  That suggested a similar amount of carbon is present on our planet and since it’s not in the atmosphere, it must be stored in some other form, as buried hydrocarbons or carbonates, and the latter, at sufficient temperature, pressure, and in the presence of iron, tends to become hydrocarbons.

For those of you who want to keep driving your SUVs and Hummers around it’s great news, for the rest of us that want to breath, drink water that is uncontaminated, and not persevere constant low grade earth quakes, not so good.  Natural gas supplies will be abundant, unfortunately they’ll be laced with radon gas.  If you smoke and figure on dying of lung cancer anyway, no big deal, but for the rest of us, not good.

The supplies of hydrocarbons may be huge, but the supply of atmosphere hasn’t increased one bit.  It would appear now that we are destined to find out truly how resilient the planet is.  Will the ocean warm enough for methane hydrates to release their methane and cause a runaway effect or not?  How much will increased plant growth sink the extra carbon dioxide we’re putting into the atmosphere?  We don’t know, but looks like we’re going to find out.

Those of you who enjoy shell fish, better get used to doing without because as the quantities of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere continue to increased, so does the percentage dissolved in the ocean forming carbolic acid which dissolves the shells of shellfish.

This creates a situation globally where only by mutual consent of all nations will we have a chance to do anything about it.  We all share the same atmosphere, that means the negative consequences of burning these newly accessible hydrocarbons will affect us all.  But only the nations that do so will benefit economically.  So if Germany, a country that recently has been relatively ecologically conscious, chooses not to access shale deposits in their country, they still suffer from what the US, England, and other countries that do produce oil from shale contribute to the atmosphere.  All they gain is not benefiting economically.  If history is any guide, we’ll not come to any sort of global agreement.

It does devalue oil as a commodity to the point where maybe we will be ever so less likely to attack Iran for it’s oil, so there is one minor benefit.  I was really hoping we’d come to some state of sanity by necessity, switch to sustainable energy sources as a matter of survival.  Now that looks unlikely.


[embedplusvideo height=”478″ width=”800″ standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/o-zM8IQHVzI?fs=1&hd=1″ vars=”ytid=o-zM8IQHVzI&width=800&height=478&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=1&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep6775″ /]

We’ve got this huge energy problem. We’ve got this huge energy source, which, left to it’s own devices will release it’s energy violently, killing millions, rendering most of the United States uninhabitable, and altering weather globally causing a huge failure of crops and mass starvation.

Right now we’ve got a moratorium on tapping geothermal energy in national parks.  I think we ought to make an exception to this for Yellowstone, both for the energy it could provide and because whatever heat, however insignificant, we can remove from that magma chamber, which is enormous, might possibly delay a super-eruption.

David Houle – Shift Age – I Disagree

They’ve got David Houle on Coast to Coast AM tonight, a futurist.  The just of his take on things is that we’ve exited the information age and are entering what he calls the shift age. I disagree that we’ve exited the information age even though I agree that we’re also entering an age of major shifts.  The information age is just cranking up, it’s nowhere near the peak let alone past it.

He uses the analogy of the industrial age. While agreeing that the industrial age is a good analog, I believe he is missing a major point.  Most heavy industry has left this country and moved to where labor and energy are cheap.  The industrial age hasn’t ended, it’s just left the United States and moved into China and India.

Here is where the metaphor is more applicable.  In the industrial revolution, as machine power replaced human power, there was a great displacement of labor.  The machine power meant things could be manufactured less expensively but it displaced much of the labor force.  New people were needed to maintain, design, build, and deploy machines but the displaced labor was not trained to do these things.  So you had unemployed people at the same time you had unfilled openings until people could become trained in the new technology.

The information age, instead of replacing human physical labor, power, with machine power, replaces human intelligence with machine intelligence.  We are experiencing exactly what we experienced in the industrial revolution, high unemployment even though there are also many unfilled positions.  Displaced workers are not trained in the new technology and it will take time and an investment in education.

We are a long way from a mature information age. Only relatively simple tasks have been automated. There remains much more human labor to be replaced with machines. The rate which that can happen is limited by the lack of people trained in new technology.

As people get trained in these new technologies and the new technological positions are filled, we’ll see a great acceleration in productivity and a reduction in the cost of doing most things which will result in higher levels of prosperity. The new jobs will be more challenging and less mundane.

Energy is a problem that needs to be solved, artificial brawn and artificial brains requires considerable energy.  Hydraulic fracturing, “fracking”, will provide a short-term fix for this in the United States and probably in China, but to date Europe is resisting this because of ecological concerns (which are entirely valid, we should have concerns here too).   This may mean little or no growth in the European economy while the US economy grows, but it also means they won’t be dealing with the issues of contaminated groundwater and radon contamination of natural gas supplies that we will as the result of fracking, and the sustainable energy sources they put in place won’t crash when the tight oil runs out.

Our decision to place economic concerns above ecological concerns means that we will probably see some of the manufacturing that has moved overseas return as foreign labor markets saturate while our energy costs, relative to foreign supplies drop.  That’s not to say they will drop in real terms, it is to say they will inflate faster where fracking is not employed and supplies of conventional “loose” oil run out.  European investment in renewable energy sources will benefit them in the long run as tight oil exhausts.

I speculate that as we clamp down on freedom more and more in this country, creativity will suffer and that’s going to dampen our productivity.  How far this goes really depends on how much loss of freedom and infringement of privacy the American citizen is willing to tolerate.  So far it seems we’ll tolerate quite a bit because there isn’t a constitutional amendment left that hasn’t been gutted.

Child labor laws that restrict child labor under 16, have also spelled the end to craftsmanship because they prevent effective apprenticeships.  Take away the ability of a child to learn a craft when their brains are still highly malleable and their parents still young and functional enough to teach it and chances are they will never learn it.  This is already reflected in society with mass produced crap replacing high quality hand built items.  How often do you find something like a nice carved wood railing or a hand carved cabinet?  When you do it’s because we’ve either got some guy who is 110 years old still practicing his craft, or we’ve imported a craftsman or product from nations where it is still possible to have apprenticeships.

As I see it, we have four big problems we have to solve.  Food production has to be sustainable. Current petrochemical dependent methods requiring oil based fertilizers, oil based pesticides, oil based mechanized harvesting, and oil based transportation is only sustainable as long as the oil lasts.  The way we use water for agriculture is not sustainable, we need to get away from sprinklers and turn towards controlled drip irrigation. We need to plant crops appropriate for the climate instead of trying to turn desert into swamps.

We need an educational system that prepares our population for the new high tech jobs that are available.  Our quality of life would also improve if we found a way to allow apprenticeships again so that crafts could be passed down from generation to generation.

We need a sustainable energy to replace fossil fuels.  This likely won’t come from any one source.  We need to ramp up every sustainable source as fast as we can and eliminate our reliance on oil.  We will need oil for chemical feedstock and if we burn it all up for energy we won’t have it for those needs.

We need to put individual responsibilities back to the individual and get them out of the hands of big brother.  Stop putting in more cameras, stop mandating a gazillion ridiculous safety requirements that insurance company lobbyists keep pushing for, wrestle healthcare out of the insurance industry and put it back in the hands of health care professionals.  We need to pass some serious privacy legislation that stops Google and other big data miners from collecting huge amounts of information about each of us.

We need to stop wasting resources squabbling over limited resources remaining on this planet.  We used more oil in the Iraqi war each year than Iraq was producing,  The only people who benefited from that war was the military industrial complex.

If we continue down the path we’re on, it’s just a matter of time until starvation becomes widespread, and a huge population crash results.  If we seriously invest in renewable energy now, before the tight oil runs out, then we have some chance at sustaining our population beyond that point.

We need to invest more in pure science, the kind of science that increases our real understanding of the universe we are part of, that which can lead to real breakthroughs that can help us do things like mine the asteroids for resources in short supply on this planet, or find ways to make interstellar travel possible. There are many new things still waiting to be discovered.

What Will The Higgs Mean?

When electromagnetic theory was formulated and radio waves discovered, they were viewed as an interesting laboratory phenomena with no useful purpose, but now they give us radio and television, radar, microwave ovens, cellular phones, emergency response, remote controlled gizmos of every kind, and much more. Quantum mechanics has given us the transistor, solar cells, the laser, the heads in your hard drive, cell phones, and many other things.

So what ultimately will the Higgs give us?  The experimental confirmation of the Higgs boson gives us proof of the Higgs field.  The Higgs field is what couples mass to other particles.  This is just wild speculation at this point but suppose we learn how to control or manipulate this field, what does that mean?  Well, it could mean the ability to uncouple mass from matter.  If we could make ordinary matter massless, then it would take zero energy to accelerate it to the speed of light.  That would make Interstellar travel to at least nearby star systems possible.  Combined with Warp technology, and yes, this is actually being worked on now, effective faster-than-light travel may even be possible.

If we could couple and uncouple mass at will, imagine a wheel with weights on it, when the weights approach the bottom of the wheel we uncouple the mass, when they reach the top, we recouple it, energy from gravity. Transportation and shipping would become essentially free from an energy perspective.  Without expending energy, we wouldn’t need to create pollution in the process of creating that energy.  Lifting something to Earth orbit or entirely out of Earth’s gravitational influence would become trivial, and with that the colonization and exploitation of space.  Our planet would not have to be scarred for mineral wealth if we could economically tap the millions of asteroids in orbit around our sun.

These seem like the obvious benefits of learning how to control or manipulate this field, but just as with electromagnetic or quantum effects, undoubtedly there are applications none of us can even dream of now.