Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mr.Conley said:Can you understand that the private interests wouldn't have been able to develop the idea if the NSF hadn't been there to fund the basic research first? Its because the NSF is much more willing to invest in projects with no guaranteed profit that a lot of this stuff comes around. Private firms also do a great deal, but the NSF's commitment to basic research and standards is nessicary for the advancement of science as well. The NSF does a lot of good work in science and for the advancement of the nation; they would be an ideal way to get the government involved. Its an ideal combination of massive government resources combined with competition among private companies and high standerds to produce some of the best science on the planet.
Right, the government did, "throw a few billion at," the Big Dig and Boston got an effective transportation system. It was morbidly expensive and took far too long but the job did get done or at least it got more done than if the government hadn't, "throw a few billion at," it. I'm not saying that the government is always perfect whenever it invest money, though private companies aren't either, but government backing tends to make things happen (or at least less of a hassle). Private companies can and should invest in finding new sources of energy, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't get involved to get the process moving.
Fortunately, the NSF has protective measures inplace to prevent coruption. The board that chooses the government is from outside the NSF and is screened to ensure they have no connection with any of the projects up for grants. The process is also kept competitive to keep costs down and see that the best science recieves funding
Kathianne said:I think the government would get a 'bigger bang' just by offering a 'reward' for whichever private company came up with the best solution by such and such a date, then had to 'share' their idea, with the best 'final solution' garnering the most rewards on the open market. I'd put my $$$ on the Japanese or Chinese-best at building off of original ideas.
Mr.Conley said:Actually NASA has begun to implement a program similar to this, but with the construction of actual ships. I suggest you vit their website to find out more.
One reason the NSA does not, and probbly never will, follow this policy is because oftentimes the institutions and companies applying for the grant don't have the money to see it through, hence applying for the grant. Though the NSA would probably get results, it would lock out a lot of the scientific community from participating in research.
no1tovote4 said:NASA has but it didn't compare with the competition to get SpaceShip One into orbit
no1tovote4 said:prefer a mixture. There is no reason not to spend some of the government money to insure a great mix of the best scientists competing for the same prize. Especially in education ventures. We can build a hugely strong economy on inventing the solution to oil and producing it in this nation.
I was disappointed in Bush when he didn't take 9/11 and add to it the impetus and drive of the US to get ourselves off of the oil teat... I imagined a government drive like the Moon Trip from Kennedy but with greater immediate reward. It makes no sense to keep paying people who will turn around and give it to those who might attack us...
no1tovote4 said:NASA has but it didn't compare with the competition to get SpaceShip One into orbit.
I prefer a mixture. There is no reason not to spend some of the government money to insure a great mix of the best scientists competing for the same prize. Especially in education ventures. We can build a hugely strong economy on inventing the solution to oil and producing it in this nation.
I was disappointed in Bush when he didn't take 9/11 and add to it the impetus and drive of the US to get ourselves off of the oil teat... I imagined a government drive like the Moon Trip from Kennedy but with greater immediate reward. It makes no sense to keep paying people who will turn around and give it to those who might attack us...
dilloduck said:Nothing has stopped government employees from "sharing" technology with countries that might destroy us.
Mr.Conley said:Pretty much the same thing goes for people at private corporations. You'll always find someone looking for a quick buck, wherever you go.
So what are you saying? Do you want to put an end to the organization that has financed some of the most important technological advancements of all time because someone could tell the Chinese how an MRI works?rtwngAvngr said:Yep. power corrupts. Government is ultimate power.
dilloduck said:Nothing has stopped government employees from "sharing" technology with countries that might destroy us.
Deornwulf said:Bringing things back to the original discussion,
Mr. Conley - When you stated we will die without oil, you were not entirely honest.
What will really happen is that humans will either adapt or die.
Just because we cannot see an energy alternative at the moment that does not violate how we understand thermodynamic and the conservation of energy today does not mean that we won't in the future.
Civilizations of man existed before the use of petrochemicals for energy, many of which were fairly populous. One would have to agree that our knowledge and technological abilities have progressed far enough that we could survive without oil and even possibly come up with new energy solutions even hampered by a lack of oil.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Mr.Conley said:Deornwolf,
I believe you misread my post. When I stated that without oil we would die, I was responding to a question from Manu1959 asking what would happen if oil disappered tomorrow. If oil did disappear tomorrow, I do believe most people would die, simply because we would be so unprepared for such a monumental shift in our way of life. Fortunately, such a scenario could never occur.
As for the rest of your post, I am a bit confused as to the meaning of, "Just because we cannot see an energy alternative at the moment that does not violate how we understand thermodynamic and the conservation of energy today does not mean that we won't in the future," but I will attempt to respond. In your statement I believe you are saying that just because we do not yet see possible future energy resources does not mean they aren't there. I believe you are correct. However, I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of putting the hopes of the continuation of our society on the belief that we might find some new source of energy no scientist has even dreamed of.
As to your second point, you are also correct; however, you must realize that those civilizations were much different and much poorer than our own. They also had a significantly smaller population. Until the late 18th century, the entire population of the world at any given time was less than that of the current population of the United States. The reason we are able to support such a large population is a combination a oil-derived fertilizers creating food distributed on a oil-based transportation system. If this system collapse we will see what can best be called a 'population reduction.' Fortunately the decline in oil production will be comparatively slow, only 3-8% per year, this gives us time.
As to your other point that technology can provide an answer, I again agree. The problem is that any solution takes time to implement. Imagine having to replace most power plants, cars, trucks, trains, and planes. As you can imagine, this process would take years, if not decades (the average nuclear plant takes 3-5 years to construct, now imagine building 500 of them at once, resources would be streched to say the least). Many solutions already exists, the problem is implementing them on a scale to replace the 20million barrels of oil we consume daily while keeping the economy running.
Civilizations of man existed before the use of petrochemicals for energy, many of which were fairly populous. One would have to agree that our knowledge and technological abilities have progressed far enough that we could survive without oil and even possibly come up with new energy solutions even hampered by a lack of oil.
Mr.Conley said:So what are you saying? Do you want to put an end to the organization that has financed some of the most important technological advancements of all time because someone could tell the Chinese how an MRI works?
If we stopped investing in science and technology, then we may as well hand over the world.
I don't see how your post is related to oil depletion; however, thank you for the uncalled for personal attack. Its not often that people call me a mass murderer for wanting to reduce our dependancy on oil. All I'm saying is that we have a significant problem that can only get worse and we need to start now to fix it or else we're all in for a lot more pain than is necessary.rtwngAvngr said:Yes. We'll give you lefties control so you can kill us all slowly and less jarringly.
rtwngAvngr said:
Mr.Conley said:I don't see how your post is related to oil depletion; however, thank you for the uncalled for personal attack. Its not often that people call me a mass murderer for wanting to reduce our dependancy on oil. All I'm saying is that we have a significant problem that can only get worse and we need to start now to fix it or else we're all in for a lot more pain than is necessary.
Well I must say I have to respect the fact that you are so loyal to your political views as to be willing to oversee the possible the selfdestruction of our most important resource, the free flow of knowledge.
What is the point of posting a link to "Reading is Fundamental?"
rtwngAvngr said:Go peddle your commie whorism somewhere else, Tokyo Rose.
Mr.Conley said:(Begin Sarcasm)
Wow, before I disagreed with you, but now that you've insulted me for having a differing viewpoint than yourself and done nothing to defend your own position, I agree with you.
(End Sarcasm)
I think the fact that the only way you can defend your position is by insulting more than shows that your position is invalid. Hopefully, someone else will come along with something meaningful to say.
(Resume Sarcasm)rtwngAvngr said:I think the fact that you sit hoping on the quality of future posts makes you a lamo.
Mr.Conley said:(Resume Sarcasm)
RightWingAvenger thinks I'm a lamo?!?!?! NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANYONE BUT HIM. MY LIFE HAS NO PURPOSE NOW.
**huddles in corner, cries**
(End Sarcasm)
Congradulations on going 4 insults for 3 posts. Obviously you have nothing else to say concerning the subject. Could you please find something else better to do than insult me? It does not contribute to the thread. Do you have anything else to say about oil depletion?
rtwngAvngr said:Yes. Let's drill in ANWR as soon as possible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174487,00.htmlDrilling would occur on the coastal plane on a 1.5 million acre plot within ANWR's 19.5 million-acre terrain. Available oil reserves are estimated between 4 billion and 12 billion barrels, a six-month to 20-month supply for the entire United States if it were completely dependent on the reserve.
Even with instant approval for drilling, it will take 10 years before the oil from ANWR will be brought to market, and another 10 years after that to get to at most 1 million barrels pumped per day.
The Department of Energy says that drilling in ANWR will do little in the near term and very little in the long term, reducing gas prices by only one penny.
