Dag -

Solar power has and will come a long way since it's conception. Remember this is an industry just coming out of its infancy.

The issue about batteries deals with the storage of the energy produced, not the actual production of energy. The currently most popular energy storage device is the battery (which the technology seems to be advancing every year), but there are alternatives to that including: hydrogen gas (a converter splits water and stores the hydrogen gas for later use - either heat or electricity production), compressed air (some energy production facilities use underground caverns pumped full of compressed air and then covert that into energy when needed), or simply a lack of storage by people that tie to an existing electrical grid.

Dannym is quite correct on the new production techniques have advanced. Currently there is a company that has been able to produce solar powered sheets of plastic. They have taken the advances of nanotechnology and applied them to this field. The conversion rate isn't great, but the cost of production are much less than traditional methods. The idea is that it can be made into siding for houses, roof tiling, etc.

I haven't read about the Thorium reactors. I can safely assume that there have been advances in that field in the last 30 years as well. I will look into that. Thanks for the link. I used to work in reactor plants, but had no desire to continue that work in the civilian world. All the nuclear plants in the US are east coast, california, or stuck in the midwest (and a small one in colorado.) I love the pacific northwest and had no desire to be anywhere else. It just something about the mountains and water... and looking across the water to see more mountains. Part of my soul is here and I'd rather not leave that. Oh yeah, a point - I haven't looked into newer designs. And I will look at that information and try to withhold my predisposition towards doubt as I personally think that solar is a much better way to go until we crack the fusion problem. I think that solar should always play a part, even if it is as simple as facing your house to true south with windows and building a trombe wall, eutectic salt chambers, etc. So much less energy would be spent if we focused on a little bit of good engineering in the housing market and conservation.

In 50 years, it's possible that hunger, shelter and energy become self-sustaining or so cheap that no one will go without basic necessities.

In one or two more centuries, if nanotechnology fulfills its prophecies, the average joe will be able to manufacture practically anything--fuel, food, shelter and weapons--by himself with his "nano-oven". There will probably also be humanoid robots that can do all the manual labor (shitwork) even without self-aware, independent AI. What use will there be for governments then? Most of the federal government right now is IMO useless, and thus constantly trying to invent new, meddling ways (and manufactured crises) in order to stay relevant.

Eventually people will prefer to live in a viable Matrix and willingly trade their meatsack bodies for worlds of their design.

3M Scotchgard is nanotechnology?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I think science's work to make me immortal is progressing quite nicely.

Our species is nearing the end of suffering the terminal illness of aging. If anti-aging/life extension through Bioprinting and other current and soon to be announced technologies is not established before your last day of living, Cryopreservation is the ONLY ship out of town! Re-animation through new technologies such as MNT (Molecular NanoTechnologies) is a certainty.

>> ^nach0s:
IMO, most national (and global) achievements haven't been as outwardly observable as past achievements. For example: the internet. Personal computing. Nanotechnology. Miniaturization of every conceivable electronic device. They are all amazing achievements, but they aren't as sensational as a trip to the moon.


I love how people just don't care about organ regeneration or any advances that are more than 10 or 20 years away.

Even if you're young now, some day your organs will fail --in one of an endless variety of painful ways. When that happens, you'll be surprised, and you and your loved ones will probably cry at the unforeseeable tragedy of it. Then, since nobody likes a dying person who's bitter, you'll talk about how the death and disease process is actually beautiful, even though, um, you kind of wish you weren't dying.

If you have organs, then organ regeneration is orders of magnitude more useful to you than watching on TV some guy in orbit walking on a piece of rock.

I was thinking about the subject of national achievements the other day. One hundred years ago, people were for the most part not using internal combustion for transportation. In the fifty years hence, amazing advances took place. However, it seems at first glance to have tapered off since the late 60s.

My two cents: First off, we can thank the Cold War for the space race and our landing on the Moon. Second, Mars rovers anyone? That was a pretty fucking amazing feat! Third, IMO, most national (and global) achievements haven't been as outwardly observable as past achievements. For example: the internet. Personal computing. Nanotechnology. Miniaturization of every conceivable electronic device. They are all amazing achievements, but they aren't as sensational as a trip to the moon.

>> ^imstellar28:
You are saying that corporate boycotts are too difficult. You think changing governmental policy is less so?

Actually yes. I also think it can be more fine grained. Boycotting car companies that charge extra for seat belts won't make them standard equipment, ever. Ask lots of people "should seat belts be required equipment on cars?", and you'll get an overwhelming vote in the affirmative.

Also, since it's law, there's no backsliding. No making them optional in bad economic times, no new companies who have some unproven alternative that's cheaper, etc. If a superior safety device comes along, there's a whole series of regulatory agencies who can test it, review it, and approve it.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made saying seat belts and airbags shouldn't be specifically required, but instead earning a 4+ star rating from an IIHS crash test, but I don't see operating only by boycott as being a superior method for improving car safety.

Cultural changes don't happen overnight, they happen over years, decades or even centuries. Unfortunate for those living during that time period, but thats the reality of societal evolution.
However, when the government is in the way, cultural evolution grinds to a halt. How can you evolve if you are jailed for doing so?

I agree that it takes time, and that government can be in the way. On social issues, I'm already essentially a libertarian though. I'm a touch different in that I'd rather have government give positive affirmation of rights (gay marriage recognized nationally as legal, as opposed to government not recognizing marriage at all, just civil unions), but that's essentially just a semantic difference.

When it comes to more economic matters, I'm happy to call myself conservative in the sense that I'm okay with evolution being slowed down a bit. Not that I'm afraid of progress generically, but I think we should be careful about what we do, and make sure we've tested things thoroughly, and thought through all the implications before we go wild with a new technology.

For example, I'm in favor of bans on human cloning...for now. However, my reason for a ban would be so we have time to prepare a legal and ethical framework for the people created through such a process. I think the people who pushed that kind of a ban through had religion on their brains, and intend for it to last forever though. I doubt we'll see many bioethicists pushing for legislation covering guardianship, clone creation consent, etc. anytime soon.

I also hope someone is paying close attention to robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc. I'd hate for the first big breakthrough in self-replicating machines result in an unstoppable mechanical pest or virus.

Turns out I was looking too far ahead, I should've been worried about Credit Default Swaps to the same degree.

I'm not saying people only deserve they rights they can defend, I'm saying all people deserve the same rights. Start there, and let the culture catch up.
Governmental policy does not drive culture, nor has it ever - its the other way around. Why do you think I'm talking to you instead of my state representative?

On this we agree completely. I think we just disagree on where people's equal rights end.

Remember this video? I got to the end without disagreeing with anything they said. You're right that they left off the right to life, though that can be situationally controversial (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.) and it was supposed to be a happy feel good sort of presentation.

I think a right to life also includes the right to medical care, and access to preventative medicine, affordable healthy food, etc. I think paying for that is an issue, but I think we have a moral imperative to find a way to pay for it, in the same way we had a moral imperative to find a way to pay for manual labor once slavery was abolished.

Not only could we be using nanotechnology on something more important, but soft/hi-tech shoes can actually be harmful.

More information here, here, here, and here.

>> ^quantumushroom: Things will really get interesting in a few decades when ubiquitous nanotechnology makes copying anything--from diamonds to cars to guns to...life itself--as easy as burning a CD.


Well, by that point money wouldn't be an issue anyway, so there wouldn't be any reason to protect intellectual property.

Intellectual property rights are good as creators deserves compensation for the time and energy put into their art. There are many laws in place that make sense now; you can quote articles for reviews or personal use, make copies for personal use, and you are free to parody others' creations under fair use laws.

Things will really get interesting in a few decades when ubiquitous nanotechnology makes copying anything--from diamonds to cars to guns to...life itself--as easy as burning a CD.

I don't think history has proven Marx right.

As a hopeful point of agreement, in approx. 100 years, with the widespread use of nanotechnology, the means of production will be universal.

The film includes interviews by top experts and thinkers on the subject worldwide, including Marvin Minsky, Terence McKenna, Hans Moravec, Bruce Sterling, Robert Anton Wilson, Richard Seed, Margareth Wertheim, Kirkpatrick Sale, Ralph C. Merkle, Mark Pesce, Ray Kurzweil, Rabbi Youssouf Kazen, Rael and many others.

Part 1: Transhuman
Part 1 gives an overview of recent technological developments (biogenetics, artificial intelligence, robotics, implants, nanotechnology,…) and prognoses made by leading scientists about the impact of these developments in the near future.

Part 2: Preparing for the Singularity
In this part advocates and opponents of a transhuman future are weighed against each other; prognoses are done when we can expect the transhuman revolution and how people are preparing for it already now.

Part 3: The Metaphysics of Technology
This part covers the metaphysical consequences of the new technological revolution. On the one hand scientist start to use metaphysical concepts to describe the impact of their research, on the other hand, a surprisingly large number of scientific projects is inspired by religious aspirations and more and more theologians from any religious or spiritual belief are getting interested in these aspirations of new technology, making the discussion inextricable complex.

perhaps nanotechnology will render any surgeries obsolete-If....it is not used for the benefit of the few-

Nano-scale materials are needed across the board to make the hydrogen economy happen. They will help to make hydrogen generation, storage, and conversion safer and more efficient.

This is a distinctly different class of nanotechnology than you'll find in a computer chip, because precision engineering is not necessary for it to work. What's being taken advantage of is the surface properties of small particles. Once a process like the one in this video is set up, the materials can be produced relatively cheaply.

I've been working on nanotechnology behind closed doors every night for years now.