8 ms·

Imagine a higher culture formed in a super-earth, keeping peaceful with the earth and not leaving their home without a sufficiently eco-friendly technology bein

• everdev 8y ago
  We can send a person to space, but we can't colonize another planet yet, so our capabilities are virtually the same as in the premise you state.
• nickik 8y ago
  Going to space and living their forces the devlopment of advanced technology that can make the world eco-friendly. Water recycling, factory farming, resistant plants, nuclear power innovation, advanced solar power, syntetic fuel production, fuel cells and so on. The attitude that we should never do anything because its not green enough is just naive. Would you have been sitting around in 1800 and tried to stop people from explointing coal? > They only leave with super-advanced form of green technologies. We have that technology. We could use nuclear energy as Nuclear Thermal rockets, we can use it as a space battery, we can use it as a nuclear reactor to drive ion enignes, we can use it on mars to make rocket fuel and so. Ironoically envoirmentalist are partly responable that we almost use no nuclear technology anymore. They advocated for 40 years against all use of nuclear energy, and the most harmful effect is widespread misunderstanding of risks. The political deadlock about all issues nuclear make it a nightmare to deal with, and that's threw your supply chain. A Nuclear Thermal rocket was planned to be a major part of Mars exploration when von Braun thought about it in the 60s. Robert Zubrin who planned 'Mars Direct' in the early 90s, want to use a nuclear reactor to make fuel on mars and he was strongly avocating for NTRs in the second generation. Elon Musk has said that he would want nuclear reactors on mars and NTRs in later generations. That's exactly the advanced green technology you are looking for. After our first steps we should have moved onto that next level. Sadly it has not happened and it will take a while longer. It is currently practically impossible to devlop such a technology, unless you have direct support from NASA and other governments agencies. They themselfs have little interest in doing much in this space. So, I think space people are happy to do it as greenly as you like, but then a whole set of regulations have to change.
  • code51 8y ago
    I think most people understand the benefits and greenness of nuclear compared to other forms of energy generation. Yet it is also superficial to plainly say "nuclear is safe". That's obviously more complicated than that. Chernobyl, Fukushima (widely known, 2011), Marcoule (2011), Ibaraki (1999), WIPP (2014) etc. These are not events like "Uber car killed a person but self-driving cars are the future" thing, these events are actual evidence that human error plays a huge part in dealing with nuclear systems. Plus, when you think about the waste, it doesn't seem so green anymore. Maybe greener when you're throwing radioactive stuff into space. What I'm saying is, it's not a simple issue that "average people don't understand" Actually we see that average people pick most pragmatic options when economically pressed. Regulations are there for a reason. Personally, I don't want spacecraft throwing radioactive material onto our own atmosphere.
    • nickik 8y ago
      > I think most people understand the benefits and greenness of nuclear compared to other forms of energy generation. No they do not. Even in France the majoirty of people believe that nuclear causes more CO2. Another example is the impact of Uranium mining, there is a waste overestimation of the imact on uranium mining compared to the mining you would have to do for ANY other energy source. There is a waste spread of misinformation about nuclear. Organisation like Greenpeace, Sierra Club have spent the last 50 years spreading misinformation with really very little pro-nuclear opposition. > Yet it is also superficial to plainly say "nuclear is safe". That's obviously more complicated than that. Chernobyl, Fukushima (widely known, 2011), Marcoule (2011), Ibaraki (1999), WIPP (2014) etc. Nothing is 100% safe. People say solar is safe all the time, yet it kills more people then nuclear by a factor of 10x. And that includes all the deaths from Chernobyl. > Plus, when you think about the waste, it doesn't seem so green anymore. Maybe greener when you're throwing radioactive stuff into space. Nuclear waste does not hurt nature or anybody at all. A lot of that waste will be fuel for nuclear reactors of the future. We need a small amount of long term storage, and the money for that has already been payed. Its just a political dead lock that prevents a soluiton with practically zero impact on the envoirment threwout the whole supply chain. > What I'm saying is, it's not a simple issue that "average people don't understand" Actually we see that average people pick most pragmatic options when economically pressed. That is actually totally false. Avg peoples opinions are not right outside a 'wisdom of crowds' kind of knowlage. If you have bias then the avg people are wrong. The dangers of radiation and/or nuclear waste are a perfect example. The relative fear of nuclear vs coal. Coal plants, if they were nuclear, culd not operate because they are to radioactive. Regulation exist for a reason, but that does not mean that they are not harmful, self-contradicting or efficent. Your blue-eyed view about government processes is contradicted by political sience.