Is There Enough To Go Around?

[Tony Scott]

When the Shakers “decided” to use water energy to power saw blades and other production devices three specific things had to happen
- consider the work (demand)
- harness the energy (infrastructure)
- implement the mechanics

EVERYTHING ever developed has to at base process those elements.

We’re maybe 1/3 developed on the harness end for EV (tech development not available resources), and I suspect 50% capable of implementing.

The demand part: we’ve not really addressed this- it’s really all reactionary. The demand part is predicated on availability of the energy.

Simple example: I can heat water off-grid with propane and a few milliwatts to initiate ignition. The cost is almost nothing. But how much does it cost to heat that same water with solar electric? At the demand level “we” expect?

Sure, individually we can make it work and people do- but on the same “scale” of BTUs how many of us can produce enough watts to charge an EV to begin with- or economically at all? Can we afford to wait two weeks or mire for two days of vehicle use?

These are odd little thoughts that the mainstream do not consider because they essentially think one can just plug in to limitless power and the world will be doing a happy dance.

Thank you for you insite. Video below explains how much solar is needed to charge Tesla.

Hydrogen fuel cells are an option, In fact the EU Ask Russia about using the pipeline to transmit hydrogen gas and they confirmed it would handle it with no problem. China is working on having One million fuel cell cars on the road by 2030

China goes ahead with hydrogen-powered cars, defying Elon Musk's warnings

In a 15-year plan for new-energy vehicles released on Nov. 2, China's State Council said the country will focus on building the fuel-cell supply chain and developing hydrogen-powered trucks and buses

wap.business-standard.com

 

[McCarthy]

The real problem is over-population. This planet isn't big enough to house, move and feed 8 billion people, let alone more. I think 1 to 2 billion would be long-term sustainable with pretty strict regulations on resources and emissions. So any move to new energy sources will only fight the big picture issue temporarily.

The right thing to do, would be to incentivize less childbearing (I'm not talking about abortions), but that will not fly in most countries because they need future generations to pay the debt they have created, for taxes, and social security for the older generations.

Needless to say, we are doomed, just wait when certain countries run out of certain resources. Human kind will be a thing of the past and survival of the fittest will once again show its true face. And I don't think that Musk will bring us to any other plant in time either. He has the right ideas at times, but he is also a dreamer.

 

[MurphyGuy]

The real problem is over-population. This planet isn't big enough to house, move and feed 8 billion people, let alone more. I think 1 to 2 billion would be long-term sustainable with pretty strict regulations on resources and emissions. So any move to new energy sources will only fight the big picture issue temporarily.

The right thing to do, would be to incentivize less childbearing (I'm not talking about abortions), but that will not fly in most countries because they need future generations to pay the debt they have created, for taxes, and social security for the older generations.

Needless to say, we are doomed, just wait when certain countries run out of certain resources. Human kind will be a thing of the past and survival of the fittest will once again show its true face. And I don't think that Musk will bring us to any other plant in time either. He has the right ideas at times, but he is also a dreamer.

Nature will end up regulating the population soon enough.. From viruses to natural disasters and weather anomalies..

And in the future, it won't be the physically strongest or fittest who thrive.. those days are gone.. It will be the smartest.. the people who understand how to use science in their new environment. The days of monkeys beating each other with swords and sticks is long gone.

If I had my choice in a post apocalyptic world, I think I'd go for being a chemist. A Walter White would do very well.

 

[McCarthy]

Nature will end up regulating the population soon enough.. From viruses to natural disasters and weather anomalies..

And in the future, it won't be the physically strongest or fittest who thrive.. those days are gone.. It will be the smartest.. the people who understand how to use science in their new environment. The days of monkeys beating each other with swords and sticks is long gone.

If I had my choice in a post apocalyptic world, I think I'd go for being a chemist. A Walter White would do very well.

Survival of the fittest is just the mechanism of natural selection, and that includes IQ / EQ. That being said, countries will use military forces to gain access to remaining sources again.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Survival of the fittest is just the mechanism of natural selection, and that includes IQ / EQ. That being said, countries will use military forces to gain access to remaining sources again.

Maybe.. that sounds right. But in the age of nuclear weapons, any fighting between nuclear armed countries will spiral out of control faster than my kid's paper airplane.

 

[McCarthy]

Maybe.. that sounds right. But in the age of nuclear weapons, any fighting between nuclear armed countries will spiral out of control faster than my kid's paper airplane.

Good point, maybe that will keep things under control.

 

[Tony Scott]

Nature will end up regulating the population soon enough.. From viruses to natural disasters and weather anomalies..

And in the future, it won't be the physically strongest or fittest who thrive.. those days are gone.. It will be the smartest.. the people who understand how to use science in their new environment. The days of monkeys beating each other with swords and sticks is long gone.

If I had my choice in a post apocalyptic world, I think I'd go for being a chemist. A Walter White would do very well.

Good point, maybe that will keep things under control.

Dream on WWIII is Inevitable it will be the US that starts it. We still have 6 wars going on now and and antagonizing China and Russia and making threats and we can't backup only adds to our demise. Funny how the so called smart people got us in this situation. People with high IQ's always look to subjugate those they believe are beneath them that's that's the real problem.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Dream on WWIII is Inevitable it will be the US that starts it. We still have 6 wars going on now and and antagonizing China and Russia and making threats and we can't backup only adds to our demise. Funny how the so called smart people got us in this situation. People with high IQ's always look to subjugate those they believe are beneath them that's that's the real problem.

ROFLMAO.. I'm sorry Tony, but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Let me tell you a little story.. and while it might be anecdotal evidence, there's a lot of stuff to back it up.

I grew up going to school with the daughter of one of Michigan's wealthiest families at the time... we're still friends to this day. She has a daughter that got an internship at the Library of Congress and spent a year working there.

On more than one occasion, she says she was asked what time it was in California by one Senator or Rep or another. Let that sink in for a moment.. You're in Washington DC and you can't figure out what time it is in California? And you think these people have high IQ's?

We don't elect people because they're smart.. we elect them because they're charismatic and likable. Most of the really smart people in our country are NOT likable, and the general public will never hear their names.. and when the oddball pops up who is personable, we put them on television to deal with the ridiculously stupid public... that is, the public who's average IQ is closer to a farm animal than it is to their own..

Have you ever known someone with an IQ over 160? I have.. and I had the experience of being with them for an afternoon.. and you'd be surprised at how smart someone with an IQ over 160 really is. its almost supernatural and god-like.. and I'm not religious. To think of someone with an IQ of 180 scares the crap out of me, and they're out there.. kept hidden as national treasures for which the public will never know about.

Get on youtube or google and search for stupid things politicians say, then come back and tell me about how smart you think they are..

 

[Tony Scott]

ROFLMAO.. I'm sorry Tony, but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Let me tell you a little story.. and while it might be anecdotal evidence, there's a lot of stuff to back it up.

I grew up going to school with the daughter of one of Michigan's wealthiest families at the time... we're still friends to this day. She has a daughter that got an internship at the Library of Congress and spent a year working there.

On more than one occasion, she says she was asked what time it was in California by one Senator or Rep or another. Let that sink in for a moment.. You're in Washington DC and you can't figure out what time it is in California? And you think these people have high IQ's?

We don't elect people because they're smart.. we elect them because they're charismatic and likable. Most of the really smart people in our country are NOT likable, and the general public will never hear their names.. and when the oddball pops up who is personable, we put them on television to deal with the ridiculously stupid public... that is, the public who's average IQ is closer to a farm animal than it is to their own..

Have you ever known someone with an IQ over 160? I have.. and I had the experience of being with them for an afternoon.. and you'd be surprised at how smart someone with an IQ over 160 really is. its almost supernatural and god-like.. and I'm not religious. To think of someone with an IQ of 180 scares the crap out of me, and they're out there.. kept hidden as national treasures for which the public will never know about.

Get on youtube or google and search for stupid things politicians say, then come back and tell me about how smart you think they are..

Experience proves I can't be wrong. Intellect can be used many ways. Politicians are smart enough to fools people. I was not using them as a example, I am speaking broadly and have delt with people with high IQ's. There is a difference wbetween a high IQ and a photographic memeory, both I have dealt with. No human can be GOD like and Idea they are more important then anyone one else has deep rooted flaws.

All these IQ people developed the Killer Bees tryimg to improve honey production. The Gypsy Moth tryimg to improve Silk Production. COVID (it has a patent Number) to Gain Function ( Dr. Fauci). Look at all the poisons Sarin, Agent Orange,, pick any industry and you will find they created the problems because of their arrogance. No one is above me but god

 

[MurphyGuy]

Experience proves I can't be wrong.

Watch me make my point.

Intellect can be used many ways. Politicians are smart enough to fools people.

No they're not unusually smart or intelligent.. they are personable and charismatic, there's a big difference.. a world of difference. Those two attributes are so far removed from each other they're as different as sharks and grasshoppers..

I was not using them as a example, I am speaking broadly and have delt with people with high IQ's. There is a difference wbetween a high IQ and a photographic memeory, both I have dealt with. No human can be GOD like and Idea they are more important then anyone one else has deep rooted flaws.

That is not a statement that has any arguable merits to it.

All these IQ people developed the Killer Bees tryimg to improve honey production. The Gypsy Moth tryimg to improve Silk Production. COVID (it has a patent Number) to Gain Function ( Dr. Fauci). Look at all the poisons Sarin, Agent Orange,, pick any industry and you will find they created the problems because of their arrogance. No one is above me but god

Your logic is flawed at the most fundamental level.. Its a common thing within religion as well.

A little relevant comedy..
Have you ever noticed that when you loose your keys and go looking for them that they are always in the last place you look? That's because as soon as you find your keys, you stop looking.

Do you know why its always the high IQ people making big mistakes like killer bees, moths, etc? When you can answer that question, get back with me and it will have destroyed your own argument about high IQ people.

One more thing.. I don't know anything important about the people who created killer bees, gypsy moths, agent orange, or any of those other things you mentioned. But what I do know, based upon your statements, is that you associate these people with having a high IQ, and that is a mistake.. it is a false association that is made because you're assuming someone who created these blunders has a high IQ.

Most people have average IQ's.. (think about that for a moment).. The difference between most (but not all) people like an astrophysicist and a car mechanic isn't their IQ, its their accomplishments and their drive. Where the astronomer or particle physicist had the motivation, curiosity, and drive to further their education and accomplishments, the car mechanic was perfectly content to swap out spark plugs and party with his friends. The fact is, their IQ might well be, and probably is, very comparable to each other...

There are some very gifted high IQ people out there who've done nothing with their lives.. and some average IQ folks who have out shined both you and I combined.

Like I said, I don't know much of anything important about the blunders you mentioned, but you'd have to do a lot of research on the people involved in those blunders to be able to make a statement that high IQ was relevant in any way.

The phrase isn't "High IQ is power", its "Knowledge is power".. Having a high IQ just makes obtaining that knowledge easier.

 

[McCarthy]

Several charming and charismatic personality types are found in the group of psychopaths. Then again, psychopaths tend to have a well above average IQ.

For instance, Hitler’s IQ was estimated to be between 141 and 150.

 

[Tony Scott]

First thing you need to do is understand people have experiences which I referred to in my original statement. Without that mechanic no one would be going anywhere. As long as those two people are happy in what they are doing, nothing else really matters. Your example of people with high IQ‘s makes my point, millions of people followed Hitler and millions still do today. All people have deficits, some good and some bad. Clearly history has shown us a high IQ is not best thing to have and putting them on a pedestal only leads to your down fall.

 

[MurphyGuy]

First thing you need to do is understand people have experiences which I referred to in my original statement. Without that mechanic no one would be going anywhere. As long as those two people are happy in what they are doing, nothing else really matters.

You're talking about the value of a human being.. that is again, a different measuring stick and has nothing to do with one's IQ or their profession.

Your example of people with high IQ‘s makes my point, millions of people followed Hitler and millions still do today.

Wow.. Godwin's law really is a thing....
Why people followed Hitler is not as remotely simple as IQ.. really has nothing to do with it.

All people have deficits, some good and some bad. Clearly history has shown us a high IQ is not best thing to have and putting them on a pedestal only leads to your down fall.

My statement had nothing to do with making a list of "the best things to have". But in the context of your argument, it is always better to have a high IQ than a low IQ.