Space Post - Why is the rate of progress so slow!

[Legion2213]

People will fight for water before they fight for oil...I believe several border conflicts are due to control of water sources. I strongly believe that these oil companies have several alternatives to oil anyway, they will break them out once the oil is gone and continue to make lots of wonga.

[shootemindehead]

For the people who think that having no cheap oil to use is going to have a minimal effect of human lives... Just stop what you're doing right now and take a look 10 ft in either direction and count the number of plastic items on or around you. All made with oil.

[C5NOTLD]

Space exploration won't get us anywhere. That and it's too costly are usually the criticisms for space travel. But the Apollo missions were one the best investments that the US Govt has ever made. A lot of this bailout money would have been better spent on NASA. They returned $8 for every $1 invested (in 1960's money - today that would equal $48 for every $1) along with spreading it's technology on down to business/consumers in the form of robotics, computers, health care, civil/electrical/engineering science, electronics, athletic shoes/Fire fighters breathing systems, cordless tools for the medical/manufacturing, building and home consumer industries. There is more computing power in your desktop PC than there was in the Apollo Space capsule. Yet it will take us years to get back to the moon with today's technology. Advancements/best return on the dollar/inspiring kids in schools with education = the government not being that interested in NASA/space travel. Something is strange in Denmark. But if you believe the conspiracy theories, NASA isn't the only space program .

[Publius]

You're talking of a timeframe of 50 years, and even in 1930, society would still have been dependant on horses - especially in agriculture. I'm talking about a timeframe of less than 50 years. Maybe as little as 10. Well sure, the transition didn't happen all at once. It didn't need to, and neither will the transition away from oil. In 1894, the London Times predicted that London streets would be buried 9 feet deep in manure by 1950. Also in the 1890s one prediction in New York said that manure would reach third-story windows in Manhattan by 1930. What happened? At that time, production cars were already being made by the handful. By 1900, they were being sold in thousands. By 1912, there was more car traffic than horse traffic in New York City. Motor vehicles had replaced horses for freight hauling by the 1920s. In 1930, there still were a lot of horses in use, yes, particularly in agriculture, but horses were clearly on the way out and any talk of a manure crisis would have been viewed as completely insane. As little as 10 years? Yeah, maybe (i.e. it's rationally conceivable, more so than pigs sprouting wings and performing aerial pirouettes). And maybe we'll have commercialized fusion power in 10 years. The history of predictions is similar (i.e. not good). As for all this easing transition period - where is it? It's nowhere. It's not as if we can start that transition period a few months before the oil runs out, we have to start it now (or preferably yesterday). Society doesn't change overnight. The beginnings of it are all around. Advances in biofuel, cheaper solar, safer nuclear reactors. More nuclear reactors would reduce the demand for fossil fuels significantly (pushing out the horizon for "peak oil") but aren't being build for political rather than technological reasons.

[EvilNed]

The beginnings of it are all around. Advances in biofuel, cheaper solar, safer nuclear reactors. More nuclear reactors would reduce the demand for fossil fuels significantly (pushing out the horizon for "peak oil") but aren't being build for political rather than technological reasons. If what we're seeing is the beginning, then we're fucked. THe "beginnings" have lasted a good ten years now. Maybe more. Where have we gotten in that time? Nearly nowhere. Predictions or not, if you want to dismiss this just because some douchebag was wrong about horse manure (and those claims were rather silly to begin with, so I fail to see their relevance) then just accept this: - Our society is wildly dependant on oil. Everytime you, as a person, do something you do something that at one point used up oil. Oil transported your electric alarm clock that woke you up. Oil runs your fridge. Oil brings food to the supermarket. Get it? And! - The oil is running out. (And we're not doing anything about it) If people want to stick their head in the sand and go "La La La, I'm not listening!" then fine.

[Publius]

Predictions or not, if you want to dismiss this just because some douchebag was wrong about horse manure (and those claims were rather silly to begin with, so I fail to see their relevance) then just accept this: - Our society is wildly dependant on oil. Everytime you, as a person, do something you do something that at one point used up oil. Oil transported your electric alarm clock that woke you up. Oil runs your fridge. Oil brings food to the supermarket. Get it? And! - The oil is running out. (And we're not doing anything about it) If people want to stick their head in the sand and go "La La La, I'm not listening!" then fine. I'll certainly accept the first point, while not seeing much difference between the dependence on oil now and the dependence on horses in the past. And I'll accept the second point at least to the extent that we're not doing enough about it (building more nuclear reactors would help in my opinion). And with that I'll leave the last word to you if you care to throw it in. I think we're starting to recycle the same points.

[EvilNed]

There are some differences between a world dependant on horses and one dependant on oil. Horses cannot simply dry out and cease to exist within the timespan of a month (or less). Oil can. Horses did not tie the world together the way oil does. Horses did not play much of a part in the shipping of wares across oceans. They did not really play as big a part in our everyday life as oil does. The world was smaller then. When you go out and buy something in a store, you can thank oil for the large amount of goods and variety. Back when we used horses, no such humungus stocks existed and people simply survived on less food and much (if not all) of it was local. That is essentially what we'd go back to if the oil dries up. Except it'll take a few years of adjustment, hoarding, panicking, looting and rioting as food became scarcer and scarcer. Horses did not feed a world population of 7 billion people.

[Wyldwraith]

I ask this honestly and seriously, Is ANYONE here under the impression that if vital-to-the-continuation-of-their-nation resources ever become extremely scarce, that one or more of the Developed Nations won't trim the world population down to decrease competition for said resources? The way I see it shaking out is the ICBM/Other WMD-possessing nations will ally or at least go N.A.P with each other, and one of the harder core developed nations (probably China) will commit genocide on a level that will make the Holocaust look like a movie trailer for these events, and no other nations (with any power) will do anything but breathe a sigh of relief that 4-5 billion competing mouths have been eliminated. M.A.D still applies, so the WMD-possessing nations likely won't go after each other, but in a world of scarce resources, do you HONESTLY believe America or any other First-World nation would quibble over killing half the planet's people to maintain their quality-of-life? It's human nature to concern yourself with the welfare of "you and yours" first and foremost, and the world second. Create a hyper-competitive world theater and it will get ugly fast, and it won't be America/China/Russia/Japan (they'll survive due to tech-whoring) left holding the bag. It isn't RIGHT, and it CERTAINLY isn't FAIR, but when have those with power ever concerned themselves with Right or Fair?