Topic: POPULATION - page 3. (Read 3252 times)

Absolutely. I may disagree with you on everything else, but I agree on this.

Getting back to the debate - ignoring the cultural side, I still think 'God' is just the collective term for the science we haven't yet uncovered. If you accept some scientific findings, any of them, then you're accepting something that used to be considered the province of God. Science grows from generation to generation, as more of what was once considered God becomes simple explicable fact. God shrinks as science grows, and God will eventually disappear.

An argument isn't necessarily a quarrel. To argue means to bring up points. Look at this:

Imagine that you and your buddy go to the lake to go swimming. You are on the beach for the moment, but your buddy goes out for a swim. Suddenly you see your buddy out in the deep part of the water, calling for help, like he is drowning. By the time you swim out to rescue him, he is already out of his mind in a delirious-like panic.

As you near him, he grabs you and tries to climb on top of you, because he sees that you are something that is floating. This drags you down, so you are in danger, yourself.

Argue with him about it? You both want to be saved. And that is what talking about religion and politics does. It clarifies things so that people can be saved.

If you don't want to talk religion and politics, don't go out to your buddy. Stay home. And certainly don't try to save him. After all, you might just get saved yourself.

And you can also get a lot of friends to live comfortable because if you argue to many others then you live in a scared life. From your attitude to others can help you to stay and live without a problem to the sorroundings.

Yeah and don't ever get into arguments with your neighbors especially about religion, politics and culture. Be civil and respectful. Most of the time people only reflect the attitude that others show towards them so, one way to survive in a densely populated area is to be really tolerant. Learn to just turn away.

quick note on the plastic bag thing

the plastic is not a product in itself. its a bi product of the oil->fuel business
whilst people still use and demand car fuel there will always be more plastic being produced.
by creating bags atleast the bi-product of fuel is not going straight to landfill as a waste of fuel production facilities. so if you have plastic bags, use them, reuse them but do not expect to irradicate plastic ending up in landfill.

this is because 'biodegradable' plastic bags is made up of less plastic and more other stuff. meaning a surplus of plastic that would have been used now doesnt so it will just get landfilled at source as a waste of car fuel production.

what people should do is use plastic bags and then find new purposes for them such as an art material

imagine plastic bags were never made and we always used paper sacks.
th bi-product residue from making car fuel would become the car fuel industries 'carbon footprint' but by passing the bi-product on to a plastic bag factory, it then eventually becomes a general publics carbon footprint and we get the blame for not reusing. finding purpose or disposing of the bi-product safely.
an ingenius plan that was by the way

much like sugar.. pepsi puts sugar in bottles to intice peoples sweet tooth
no pepsi buying customer themselves manually adds sugar themselves to the drink...
but yet obesity and diabeties become the fault of the patient not the pepsi company. all because pepsi didnt use force in ramming sugar down peoples throats

oops i digressed
plastic bag 'biodegradable' does not mean it becomes compost that can be used to enrich soils for plant growth.. it just means after a few decades it falls apart into smaller micro plastic pieces. meaning it still contaminates the land... but just as microbeads instead of sitting as a single object
in short. if it too small to see you falsly believe it doesnt exist

or to visually illustrate it. if you have a box of seeds and then spread those seeds soo widely across a field that you falsely believe the box of seeds miraculously biodegraded.. truth is the seeds then still affect the land they seed into.. just not in a small area space of just the footprint of a box

Hmmmm... That makes sence

If you use plastic bags to dispose of some of your waste, make sure they are biodegradable.

Stay humble is all I say for an overpopulated area. Stay close to your friends and relatives. Don't take much space. Segregate your waste and dispose it off properly. Stay updated , stay safe.

The poor guys is all mixed up, but he's at least trying.  That's more than can be said for most people.

"Deuterium can easily be extracted from seawater, where 1 in 6700 hydrogen atoms is deuterium."  from: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fusion-energy-future

At least he is starting to see the 'perpetually 40 years out' scam.  In fact it was right around 40 years ago that I was reading about the threshold of energy in/energy out in a tokamak was being crossed.  The 'energy out' was not being harnessed in the test reactor of course, but it the reaction was producing as much energy as it took to maintain the plasma.  That's the way I remember the story at least.

We really do. 93% (or thereabouts) of your body by weight is made from elements that are the product of fusion in stars (the rest being hydrogen). Fusion is how stars work. It's why they are stars.

Fusion works because if you force two atoms together, the output is one new atom and a shit-ton of energy (the actual figure may be more or less than one metric shit-ton, but it's still a lot).
The main isotope of hydrogen used for fusion is deuterium, which can be extracted from seawater. Tritium I think is also used, but can be 'bred' inside the reactor. The energy source is cheap and for all practical purposes infinite.

Hmm.  Not sure if you are completely sane or just pretending to be.

If you can get naturally occurring hydrogen gas from the ground or elsewhere as you can get oil, then we can talk about comparing a diesel engine to a nuclear fusion reactor.

Until then it is money burning operation.

Useful nuclear fusion reactors will always be 40 years away, LOL.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

Go back to injuneering school please.

Anyway, once you are disabused of your rather comical mis-understandings of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, and basic system analytics:

PETN needs a particular form of energy from a blasting cap to detonate it.  Again, so what?


Edit:  Of course the fusion reaction underway in our sun is not net positive energy.  The reaction only sustains because of energy from God which 'produces hydrogen'.  Just ask BADecker as our resident authority on all things God.

More seriously, the high energy consumption of tokamak reactors was, as I recall, associated with maintianing the magnetic field needed to contain the plasma.  Early experiments required an input of energy to achieve this, and they also did not focus on extraction of energy.  That would come later.

Note that the early diesel engines did 'work', but they did not generate enough power to overcome their own internal friction.  Once the principle was demonstrated they rapidly developed into very useful and serviceable devices indeed.

Energy from fusion < (Energy required to produce hydrogen + Energy required to start fusion)

Ya, that's how almost all reactions work geenyus.  So what?

We don't have any proof that the sun operates on fusion principles. Its operation fits that of an electric plasma, better.

If you knew how the fusion works on the Sun, you'd know that to make fusion on Earth you need to supply the energy to start the process.

On the Sun, that energy is supplied by the gravitational forces, which creates extreme temperature and pressure at its core.  The hydrogen is already there so the Sun gets these two ingredients for free.

There is net energy produced on the Sun, however, it is just dissipated in an uncontrollable fashion.  To do the same on Earth and recapture that produced energy is a technological challenge.  We might never develop the net gain fusion reactors on Earth.

To get hydrogen we need energy, to start the fusion we need energy.

You have unlimited (for as long as Earth is spinning) energy at Earth's core.  Other than that, these nuclear fusion companies are just burning investor's money, IMHO.

Consider the MS foundation (multiple sclerosis):

One Dr. Alan MacDonald found visible worms in the cerebral spinal fluid of every sample of MS victims he could get his hands on.  His discovery is one of the most censored things I have ever seen, and it was vanished from Jewtube long before this kind of censorship was a thing there...it's super common now of course.  I found a copy which is currently up and linked to it below.

Inside the worms are Borrelia Burgdorferi species bacteria.  Now Borrelia Burgdorferi and related species are a VERY VERY interesting bacteria indeed in a number of ways...

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHVXJpDBcmU

Anyway, what did the MS Foundation who have collected many millions of dollars over many decades of apparently not doing shit have to say about this research?  Exactly nothing last time I looked.

And that's nothing. The Association for the Prevention and Relief of Heart Disease (which became The American Heart Association) was started in 1915. They have had over 100 years to get rid of heart disease. And they still haven't done it. In fact, heart disease has been on the rise.

It's like this with all kinds of big projects and cures and junk. Just give us the money and we will do this and that. What a joke.

Yes, it's a famous joke that commercial fusion is always just a few years away. And with reason, we've had a lot of false dawns over the decades.

Having said that, development is certainly continuing. ITER is being built in Europe, plus just recently we have the UK announcing plans for a £200m tokamak... and just a couple of days ago news of the US navy filing a patent for a compact fusion reactor.

40 years ago when I was a kid 'they' were getting to the point of having energy neutral reactions in toroid containers as I recal.

I would suggest that if the technology _were_ perfected it would probably be 'held back by the powers that be' for the very purpose you mentioned.  I certainly don't rule out that exactly this has happened.  For all the (fairly well controlled) talk about 'sustainable energy' it is very very rare for people to mention nuclear fusion at all.

To say the truth, I would have my own fears for the planet if fusion were perfected and made available.  This stems back to a time decades ago when I was much more aligned with the 'globalist eugenicist' crowd...because they control education, publishing, etc, and it's what I was indoctrinated with.  Both then and now I was prone to draw a mapping between population densities of organisms and thermodynamics.  I didn't learn this, or to be interested in this, it school though.  I was a science geek from about age 8 or 10 and took and extracurricular interest in such things.