I guess that's not an option anymore. Anyway, I take it you're being sarcastic towards me. Well, I'll have to put up with that. I simply think that not every mean is justified to get access to new energy supplies (oil drilling in antarctica, for example). I do however understand that the moon is different - there's no life, and nothing that will die or suffer due to 3/2He-mining. I guess it's a philosophical question whether we mankind is allowed to do so, possibly leaving to our children a moon ruin. Whether we are allowed to ruin the world's beauty. Or ruin God's creation (the latter is not my point of view, though).
Fusion reactors would of course be a great achievement (funnily, the element with highest stability/binding energy per nucleon is iron, so we could kind of even produce raw materials while producing energy...). But there's a lot to be achieved in terms of technical advances until this becomes possible. In the mean time, we should harvest what we get for free. Wind. Sun. Tides. River flows. There's plenty of energy out there.
Basil, no sarcasm intended! In fact you bring up the exact point I was attempting to make - we have to make some very fundamental decisions on how we move forward.
I do believe that we are a species that thrives on innovation and exploration, and technology is a very big part of that. At the same time, we are "only human" and make our share of mistakes along the way. Fossil fuels have gotten us this far, but now we know that in order to continue our technological advances, other less harmful sources of energy must be found.
IMO, our future will involve many energy technologies with efficiency/conservation as the foundation. As we make our machines more efficient and adapt lifestyles that require less energy, sources such as solar (which includes wind), tide, nuclear fusion, etc. will be able to supply the power we need.
If we can find useful sources of energy in other places that contain no life, such as the moon, I believe it is imperative that we do so, and as quickly as possible. The sooner we can abandon the widescale use of fossil fuels, the better. The only other alternative is to forsake technology altogether and revert back to a non-technological society. In all honesty, not only do I see that as "not happening" but also as a waste of the technological progress we have made thus far, and a waste of our God-given abilities.
I think if helium-3 fusion can be made into a clean, safe energy source that would help preserve the earth by displacing the use of fossil fuels, mining the fuel on the moon - with guidelines for what would be acceptable procedures - would be a good thing to do.
Does this mean that any future landscape photos with the moon in them will have to go in the Man & Nature gallery?
I disagree that using "lesser" and/or older technologies is any kind of a waste 'our God-given abilities'. I'm reasonably sure those people and socieities who choose to do so would disagree with you, too. On the other hand, I would claim that continuing to use and pursue such destructive technologies as we currently employ is a waste of our God-given consciousness though.
Sorry for being a bit touchy... I guess it's the language barrier (I'm obviously not a native English speaker).
I agree with you that reverting back into the stone age is not an option. And we need to get "off the oil" somhow. So finding alternate energy sources is certainly important. However, going from one limited source (oil - it seemed "unlimited" at the beginning) to another limited source (a noble gas on moon) is maybe not the best way to go, even if right now it looks like there's plenty of Helium available up there. Just think about the efforts involved in getting it back to earth. OPEC will look like bunch of peaceful granpas compared to that kind of monopoly...
One more thing that worries me is that once an alternate source is found, all the efforts to actually limit energy consumption will be forgotten, leading again to wasteful treatment of resources. And wasteful treatment of resources is one thing I really can't stand... It is today possible to build experimental vehicles that drive 3500 miles with one liter of petrol (or an equal amount of energy), carrying one person. Even if this performance were reduced 40-fold, this would equal to something like a 10 or 20-fold improvement compared to today's standards. But well... some people apparently absolutely need a tank to drive the 300 meters to the next grocery store, so I guess that's just wishful thinking on my part...
Well, in short - I hope that the efforts will be directed towards efficiency as much as towards finding alternative energy sources. Would be good for everybody.
Discussion
6 replieshttp://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Google "helium-3" for more links.
Just my opinion...
Basil
Fusion reactors would of course be a great achievement (funnily, the element with highest stability/binding energy per nucleon is iron, so we could kind of even produce raw materials while producing energy...). But there's a lot to be achieved in terms of technical advances until this becomes possible. In the mean time, we should harvest what we get for free. Wind. Sun. Tides. River flows. There's plenty of energy out there.
Basil
I do believe that we are a species that thrives on innovation and exploration, and technology is a very big part of that. At the same time, we are "only human" and make our share of mistakes along the way. Fossil fuels have gotten us this far, but now we know that in order to continue our technological advances, other less harmful sources of energy must be found.
IMO, our future will involve many energy technologies with efficiency/conservation as the foundation. As we make our machines more efficient and adapt lifestyles that require less energy, sources such as solar (which includes wind), tide, nuclear fusion, etc. will be able to supply the power we need.
If we can find useful sources of energy in other places that contain no life, such as the moon, I believe it is imperative that we do so, and as quickly as possible. The sooner we can abandon the widescale use of fossil fuels, the better. The only other alternative is to forsake technology altogether and revert back to a non-technological society. In all honesty, not only do I see that as "not happening" but also as a waste of the technological progress we have made thus far, and a waste of our God-given abilities.
I think if helium-3 fusion can be made into a clean, safe energy source that would help preserve the earth by displacing the use of fossil fuels, mining the fuel on the moon - with guidelines for what would be acceptable procedures - would be a good thing to do.
Thanks for contributing to this conversation!
Does this mean that any future landscape photos with the moon in them will have to go in the Man & Nature gallery?
I disagree that using "lesser" and/or older technologies is any kind of a waste 'our God-given abilities'. I'm reasonably sure those people and socieities who choose to do so would disagree with you, too. On the other hand, I would claim that continuing to use and pursue such destructive technologies as we currently employ is a waste of our God-given consciousness though.
Cheers
Carl
Sorry for being a bit touchy... I guess it's the language barrier (I'm obviously not a native English speaker).
I agree with you that reverting back into the stone age is not an option. And we need to get "off the oil" somhow. So finding alternate energy sources is certainly important. However, going from one limited source (oil - it seemed "unlimited" at the beginning) to another limited source (a noble gas on moon) is maybe not the best way to go, even if right now it looks like there's plenty of Helium available up there. Just think about the efforts involved in getting it back to earth. OPEC will look like bunch of peaceful granpas compared to that kind of monopoly...
One more thing that worries me is that once an alternate source is found, all the efforts to actually limit energy consumption will be forgotten, leading again to wasteful treatment of resources. And wasteful treatment of resources is one thing I really can't stand...
Well, in short - I hope that the efforts will be directed towards efficiency as much as towards finding alternative energy sources. Would be good for everybody.
Basil