Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#101

Post by dagw »

wazoox wrote: post #81
dagw wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree that we aren't building enough nuclear power plants, but that is purely for political reasons. The research is still happening and once there is a change in the political climate we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Also if we look back at the past 1000 (or even just 100) years of human history, we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and…

> we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Maybe if thorium comes on the radar. > we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes. Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.

While Thorium reactors are cool and all, they aren't necessary. It's not like we're about to run out of uranium any time soon. Hell, you can take your basic 1970's uranium reactor, incorporate everything we've learned about nuclear safety over the past 40 years, throw in some generic improvements to basic turbine technology and have a fully functional power plant that will do a splendid job for decades to come.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#102

Post by fleitz »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #80
fleitz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first step to answering that question is to start thinking of Africa as a continent full of individuals rather than through terms like "us" and "them". Most answers in the affirmative involve a lot of rationalization and dehumanization and in the modern world likely some kind of starvation default swap sold by a financial institution. We're all individuals sharing this planet. We are not our government(s). (Unles…

So if a vaccine for a deadly disease is not 100% safe then you wouldn't use it at all as actively killing 1% is worse than passively allowing 80% (say) to die? When making considerations of the well being of whole populations one has to consider the whole population not the individual. A decision to withhold food aid now might kill 10%, but supplying that food and buoying up the population until the next big crisis i…

I would provide access to the vaccine and individuals could choose whether they wanted to take it.

It actually doesn't lead us to overpopulation. Once wealth & education increases to a certain point cultures change and people have fewer children. Paul Ehrlich went over this in the 60s and then made the famous wager with Simon over resources. I think this Malthusian argument has been thoroughly debunked.

The best result for the well being of whole populations is generally achieved by each person in that population doing what is best for themselves.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#103

Post by wazoox »

infinite8s wrote: post #97
wazoox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Maybe if thorium comes on the radar. > we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes. Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.

Except about 200 years of science and math starting from the end of the Renaissance Period.

The Antikythera mechanism (2 century BC) basically reset what we believed of science, mechanics and mathematical knowledge during antiquity. That, and some other things : Hero's Eolipyle, Nero's emerald monocle, Provence "industrial" mills... They had the ability, they lacked the will.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#104

Post by wazoox »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #88
wazoox wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong. So far, there weren't 7 billions humans neither. > Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is currently in a renaissance Absolutely not. This is GE and AREVA PR, but doesn't reflect the truth. We aren't building enough nuclear plants now to compensate for the future closing of the old ones. The numbers aren't even ramping up fast enough. As time goes by,…

"We aren't building enough nuclear plants now to compensate for the future closing of the old ones." Which is an intentional choice, arising from a combination of ennui, defeatism, and witch hunting. Those political movements seem to have run their course. "Fusion research is blooming, but it didn't make much progress, particularly compared to the huge effort (see ITER)." Most of the tokamak megaprojects were done to…

> The barrier to space activity is heavy lift capability to get there at all.

Pipe dreaming. The barrier to space is the _tremendous_ amount of energy required to get anything to low-earth orbit, let alone getting raw material going back from Jupiter's vicinity. Even with 1000 times better technology (which won't arrive soon), your asteroid iron still will be costlier than platinum.

Science-fiction is mostly fiction, you know.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#105

Post by wazoox »

dagw wrote: post #101
wazoox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Maybe if thorium comes on the radar. > we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes. Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.

While Thorium reactors are cool and all, they aren't necessary. It's not like we're about to run out of uranium any time soon. Hell, you can take your basic 1970's uranium reactor, incorporate everything we've learned about nuclear safety over the past 40 years, throw in some generic improvements to basic turbine technology and have a fully functional power plant that will do a splendid job for decades to come.

And still no proper way to manage nuclear waste.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#106

Post by anamax »

wazoox wrote: post #71
dagw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that population growth cannot go on forever (although I consider doubling the current number quite likely). However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear fission, to say nothing about fusion. Things like solar energy in all its variations is also a source we basically aren't using at all. Give us 50-100 years…

> However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear fission, to say nothing about fusion. Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. Industrial nuclear fusion is decades away, probably a century. From…

> Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years.

That's a choice, one that we could change.

There are no technical or economic obstacles to building nuclear plants for far less money and in far less time that are just as safe (or safer) than what we have now. (France is an existence proof for much of the potential savings.)

There are, however, legal and political obstacles.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#107

Post by wazoox »

mbreese wrote: post #100
wazoox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Maybe if thorium comes on the radar. > we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes. Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.

The ancient Greeks even had an initial stream engine, but never put it to practical use, relegating it to parlor/temple game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

That's what I mean : they had the ability to go to industrial age, they lacked the will, the impulse.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#108

Post by anamax »

seabee wrote: post #70
fgf wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nuclear power could deliver far more energy per year than is used yearly now for thousands of years. Innovation makes energy more useful. When the potential for growth these two cause is exhausted there's scifi stuff; solar power from satellites around the sun; fusion; etc.

Right, but it's still finite to some degree, and selling people on growth which we cannot guarantee is possible is just plain irresponsible IMO.

> Right, but it's still finite to some degree, and selling people on growth which we cannot guarantee is possible is just plain irresponsible IMO.

Do you plan as if disk drives won't get more capacity? That ram and cpus won't get cheaper?

It's only irresponsible if you promise growth that won't happen. It's irresponsible to ignore growth that will or can happen.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#109

Post by joeyo »

wazoox wrote: post #107
mbreese wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ancient Greeks even had an initial stream engine, but never put it to practical use, relegating it to parlor/temple game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

That's what I mean : they had the ability to go to industrial age, they lacked the will, the impulse.

Also, they had slavery.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#110

Post by dhimes »

ericb wrote: post #82
fleitz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" won't need to give "them" food aid forever, population growth levels off as wealth increases. Possibly the best thing that could be done for Africa is to end farm subsidies and argicultural tarrifs in the developed world. Here is a great link to the farm subsidies recieved in Manhattan, it's odd how one never notices the wealth of family farms surrounding central park. http://wildgreenyonder.wordpress.com/2007/1…

Possibly the best thing that could be done for humanity in the next hundred years is to solve the lack of empathy for individuals and groups of people we have not met . I think if you had some friends in Africa that would be affected by your solution, you would feel very differently. I am not picking on you here--I think this is a failing in the way we're wired that some part of us (including me) can consider tragedy…

Possibly the best thing that could be done for humanity in the next hundred years is to solve the lack of empathy for individuals and groups of people we have not met

I assumed that was one of the roles of religions, but they seem to have a difficult time getting the idea to stick in the majority of their believers.

Post reply on HN