Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 41b)
    I don't give a **** if it's green. You keep bleating on about that first commandment in your treehugging bible. I care about progress, I care about human survival and I value the preservation of nature so far as it benefits human survival. And the vast majority of people on this planet are like me.

    And what does it mean to be green in the middle of space? What are you smoking?
    Trashing the environment isn't going to help human survival. Climate change is the biggest long-term existential risk to human civilization, I honestly don't understand what's so difficult to realise about this. You can't have a successful civilization in an inhospitable environment.

    Are you even thinking about the impacts of mining on the moon? Even if you totally discount the moon, just think of all the fuel that has to be burned on the Earth to get rockets there in the first place, all the infrastructure that has to be built.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Adding to what I previously said, we don't even need He-3. Fusion is perfectly possibly with Deuterium which can be extracted from the oceans.
    Good. I'm glad you can use google.

    Perhaps googling "why is helium 3 better than deuterium for fusion reactions" would have resulted in you finding this page: http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...than-deuterium
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    I don't see it as that important whatsoever Chloro, I don't know the science it would provide and I don't think the majority do either that other celestial bodies would not. And even if laws were made, regulators would be in place and regulators on the regulators and so on if you were that serious about it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    None of us know the scientific value of the moon, that's precisely why it's so important to preserve. We have absolutely no idea what there is to discover. There could be little of practical value or there could be an immense value to humanity. As I've said, many of the most revolutionary discoveries came from scientists investigating things nobody thought was important.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't really have anything to say to that other than I feel sorry for you. Your life must be pretty miserable if you genuinely don't care about anything.
    Yet your life is factually and infinitely more miserable than anyones
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 41b)
    Good. I'm glad you can use google.

    Perhaps googling "why is helium 3 better than deuterium for fusion reactions" would have resulted in you finding this page: http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...than-deuterium
    I fail to understand why you've linked this article? There's nothing in that article that strongly supports the idea that He-3 is more practical a source than Deuterium.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    None of us know the scientific value of the moon, that's precisely why it's so important to preserve. We have absolutely no idea what there is to discover. There could be little of practical value or there could be an immense value to humanity. As I've said, many of the most revolutionary discoveries came from scientists investigating things nobody thought was important.
    And if we were all protectionist like that we wouldn't get anything done.

    I'm curious, what is your suggestion when we run out of minerals from the Earth in the distant future? Can we mine the moon then?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't think we need to worry about asteroids since any hope of accessing them is centuries away.
    What a load of drivel. As far as mining them goes we can theoretically do it now, will probably be able to practically do it within decades and will actually do it not long after it becomes economical.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What a load of drivel. As far as mining them goes we can theoretically do it now, will probably be able to practically do it within decades and will actually do it not long after it becomes economical.
    Are you serious? It took an absolute immense amount of international collaboration to even land a tiny space probe on a comet and even that didn't work very well and cost billions. We've not managed to land anything of decent size on a small object like a comet, never mind actually starting any kind of economic activity on it. We are nowhere close to that point.

    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    And if we were all protectionist like that we wouldn't get anything done.

    I'm curious, what is your suggestion when we run out of minerals from the Earth in the distant future? Can we mine the moon then?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Start actually learning how to live sustainably and start recycling our waste properly. It's completely possible to live sustainably on earth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Start actually learning how to live sustainably and start recycling our waste. It's completely possible to live sustainably on earth.
    Recycling our waste costs a lot and not to mention rare earth elements are becoming a lot more harder to find on earth. Can we mine for rare earth metals on the moon?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Are you serious? It took an absolute immense amount of international collaboration to even land a tiny space probe on a comet and even that didn't work very well and cost billions. We've not managed to land anything of decent size on a small object like a comet, never mind actually starting any kind of economic activity on it. We are nowhere close to that point.
    What bit of "theoretically" do you not understand?
    As in it CAN be done, that's not to say anybody actually will, and actually, being pedantic, we already "mine" Mars.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh I don't see many of those policies I disagree with. Sure we can sit here and pretend the most important issue atm is the purely artificial construct known as money or focus on what's actually of importance - the place we need to preserve because we kind of still live in it...

    Okay so you'd claim economic growth makes us all richer... lets say this is 100% true, how come in the last year despite economic growth 3 times as many people used food banks than the year before that. Surely if they are richer than they'd be able to afford such a basic necessity. There needs to be a system where everyone is able to afford to live. No one should ever be in the situation where they need to use a food bank yet this doesn't seem to be a top priority to our current government. All our current government seems to care about is 'economic growth' which essentially does nothing more than feed the pockets of the richest people in society.

    I don't see the issue with loosening border controls either. At the end of the day what gives us priority over this country other than the fact we were born here. Congratulations for being born in the right country, have a medal. Furthermore if you live here, and if you pay taxes (regardless of when you immigrated) why shouldn't you be entitled to vote.

    What really annoys me is the way it talks about decriminalising drugs as a bad thing. If your addicted to a drug how is locking you up for a while then letting you back out, having offered no actual help or treatment for the addiction, going to stop you from using. At the end of your sentence the most likely thing is you'll find yourself in the same position and it just turns into a cycle. The alternative would be to offer treatment and treat it like what it is, an illness. If you treat addiction as an illness, offering more access to support etc, then the problem will massively decrease.

    Besides which of course after reading an article written by a source which has relatively right wing views is going to make the Greens sound like a terrible party. If you want to make an informed political choice you should be reading manifesto's and deciding for yourself imo, not relying on a newspaper to tell you what party is good and what party is bad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Second, the earth is not a closed system. There is a constant influx of new resources in the form of energy from the sun. There is also a huge store of untapped energy on the earth (fissile and fusible materials, ultimately including water). While it's still some limit, human energy consumption is a minute fraction of a percent of solar energy flux alone
    Yet we STILL look to the ground when searching for energy sources and spend literally Gigawatts of (pure) energy mining, digging, transporting, cleaning etc.

    Just refining oil uses more energy than it takes to drill and transport it. It takes about 6Kwh of energy to refine one gallon of petrol.

    Also, id just lke to point out the drinkable water is rarer than petrol, it'd not a good idea to use it as a fuel source as well.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Yet we STILL look to the ground when searching for energy sources and spend literally Gigawatts of (pure) energy mining, digging, transporting, cleaning etc.
    Because it's cheaper, not because there's a hard limit.

    Just refining oil uses more energy than it takes to drill and transport it. It takes about 6Kwh of energy to refine one gallon of petrol.
    A gallon of petrol contains 34kWh of energy, though it would still be worth making if it contained less than required to produce it, because of its very convenient storage and handling properties.

    Also, id just lke to point out the drinkable water is rarer than petrol, it'd not a good idea to use it as a fuel source as well.
    idk what you mean by rarer. It's certainly neither more expensive nor subject to a more stringent physical limit.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Trashing the environment isn't going to help human survival. Climate change is the biggest long-term existential risk to human civilization, I honestly don't understand what's so difficult to realise about this. You can't have a successful civilization in an inhospitable environment.

    Are you even thinking about the impacts of mining on the moon? Even if you totally discount the moon, just think of all the fuel that has to be burned on the Earth to get rockets there in the first place, all the infrastructure that has to be built.
    I suspect we just have different definitions of trashing.

    I like, say, hiking in Dartmoor, but when I get the train to London the next day, I don't walk around Kensington or Westminster thinking, "Yeah, it could be nice if not for all this trash laying about.".

    When we are considering altering the surface of the moon - a structure that is totally inhospitable to any form of life - for human gain as trashing, it's hard not to conclude that you regard people themselves as the trash.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Because it's cheaper, not because there's a hard limit.


    A gallon of petrol contains 34kWh of energy, though it would still be worth making if it contained less than required to produce it, because of its very convenient storage and handling properties.


    idk what you mean by rarer. It's certainly neither more expensive nor subject to a more stringent physical limit.
    ....and this is where economics takes front seat over the environment. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's better. You mention solar power bathing the planet and yet we probably use less than .01% of it. Instead we decide to dig, mine etc and cause polution. Then we refine a dirty fuel, using energy derived from other dirty fuel which generated pollution, which causes more pollution so that we can burn it to produce yet more pollution.

    Alternatively, we could reduce our energy consumption and invest more in renewable sources of energy (the UK isn't great for solar, but it's almost the best place on Earth for wind). If we reduced our consumtion we woudn't need so many sources of energy.


    Water, as a rescource for cooking and drinking is already fought over in some parts of the world.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    ....and this is where economics takes front seat over the environment. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's better. You mention solar power bathing the planet and yet we probably use less than .01% of it. Instead we decide to dig, mine etc and cause polution. Then we refine a dirty fuel, using energy derived from other dirty fuel which generated pollution, which causes more pollution so that we can burn it to produce yet more pollution.

    Alternatively, we could reduce our energy consumption and invest more in renewable sources of energy (the UK isn't great for solar, but it's almost the best place on Earth for wind). If we reduced our consumtion we woudn't need so many sources of energy.
    Both of our goals, I suggest, are ultimately to maximise human happiness. This is an economic question, not a scientific one, because happiness is subjective. In particular in this case, we have to weigh the cost of diffuse property damage (AGW is not bad because it's damaging "the environment", but because it's damaging something that a person owns in the hope of bettering his life) against the benefits of using certain types of fuel. So we have a basic choice of what to buy. We can choose:

    Cheap fuel with AGW damage

    or

    Expensive fuel without AGW damage

    Which we should choose depends on how much more expensive the expensive fuel is and how much damage the cheaper fuel is expected to cause. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that in many cases today the AGW damage is not taken into account. By all means it should be, and this would probably shift for instance baseload electricity generation toward nuclear and wind. However that is not the case for petrol in the UK, which is already taxed higher per gallon than the best estimates of AGW damage per gallon. So I think we can't avoid the fact that these fuels are so much more convenient than any alternative that they're very much worth using anyway.

    Water, as a rescource for cooking and drinking is already fought over is some parts of the world.
    True, but not because of inherent scarcity of water, but rather because those societies are poor because they are controlled by governments that adopt bad policies. In particular they don't have free markets with stable property rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sdotd)
    i do hope people vote for them no matter about the policies as they will take votes off labour
    so do you really want the green party to ruin this country by abolishing the monarchy and putting the queen into a council house, their economic policies would hit the poorest hardest and they believe that it shouldn't be a crime if you join terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Now do you really want a party which is radical and also stupid in power. And anyway whats wrong with the labour party?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simran C)
    so do you really want the green party to ruin this country by abolishing the monarchy and putting the queen into a council house, their economic policies would hit the poorest hardest and they believe that it shouldn't be a crime if you join terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Now do you really want a party which is radical and also stupid in power. And anyway whats wrong with the labour party?
    They're not left enough, apparently.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simran C)
    so do you really want the green party to ruin this country by abolishing the monarchy and putting the queen into a council house, their economic policies would hit the poorest hardest and they believe that it shouldn't be a crime if you join terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Now do you really want a party which is radical and also stupid in power. And anyway whats wrong with the labour party?

    no as the green party have 0% of getting into power but as long as they take votes off labour then its all good. labour would not be good for the economy and they would increase tax massively. they also would not back english votes for english laws as they prefer scotland over england. they will also not give us a eu referendum which most people want. the welfare state will also be expanded and will encourage people not to work.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aaaaaaaaand now they seem to have dropped the citizen's income idea.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.