Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Work related stress is on the rise.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2019/01/09/workplace-trend-stress-is-on-the-rise/

https://www.stress.org/workplace-stress

Japan is not an outlier, it is demonstrative. Other industrial nations have lower stress rates, but higher birth rates.

Stress and reduced fertility are correlated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3553357/

Worldwide stress has increased dramatically due to the pandemic. Unsurprising to me, the "expected" baby boom did not happen. Further unsurprising, worldwide birthrates are down. Not all of that can be attributed to stress, a good chunk is direct covid induced infertility, but the association holds.

It appears indicative of a stress tolerance limit in human populations, the decline in fecundity in developed countries. Not fully attributable, but enough to warrant study.

[MrRoboto75]

It's having rising costs of living versus decades of stagnant wage growth.  People can't afford 3rd party childcare, can't afford housing, medical costs, etc etc.  And people are well aware of that and aren't bothering to attempt to raise a family.

[Il Palazzo]

Birth rates in the developed world were hovering at below replacement long before covid. Affluent people living the high life don't spew babies like there's no tomorrow. Meh, I don't buy the argument.

What about that energy budget, though? That's what I'm more curious about.

[wierd]

Your envelope figures assumed you can plaster the whoke surface of the planet.

This is where realistically achievable values come into play. You cannot do that without embarking down the 'dead planet' rabbit hole.  Tell a suit a number that assumes a dead world, he will be hell bent on making that dead world.

[Il Palazzo]

Sure, but I've no idea what assumptions you used for comparison. You just made a remark about how much solar energy 'strikes the earth', and that doesn't look like it's right. So why say it?

[wierd]

Reread, i said useful energy that strikes the earth.

Its not really useful energy if it is already being used for a life sustaining purpose. Like food production, or atmosphere regeneration.

[Il Palazzo]

Ok. But what proportion is that? And is it an arbitrary choice?
I really just want to know what the argument is structured like, so I can maybe internalise it if it has meat on the bones.

[wierd]

Well, we can first order approximate it, based on calorimeter data for the necessary reactions, and the volume of reactants involved in mass weight.

One would then have to further restrict the analysis against actually available and suitable surface of the planet for the task. (Antarctica wouldnt be suitable for agriculture, for instance)

When you are done, take that land use and energy use metric, and remove it from the theoretically (thermodynamically useful) available solar energy pool.

Then, finally, determine what remaining surface can be used for solar collection, and rerun your envelope calc against that constrained set.

That will give you a closer approximation of what you can ACTUALLY use.

[Duuvian]

How do you think a fusion age (assuming we can even reach it with a callous bastard like Putin in charge of a largely reliant on petrochemical economy who won't trust that Russia wouldn't have been left behind by a change in energy production) would impact your calculations? Actual question, not saying it's possible at this time as we don't know when (if is seeming more and more likely) power generating sustainable fusion will come about, though I'm looking forward to the new materials test.

I also think the oil and natural gas industry is going to try to make hay before fusion comes around finally. They seem to be clamoring for drilling rights in at least the US again after a series of boom and bust cycles. I think that would be bad long term despite the short term advantages as it will already be like pulling teeth to implement fusion widely with such a vested interest against it.

[wierd]

The issue with over-equilibrium power generation is that jt is over-equilibrium, not so much where it comes from.

consider: earth's temperature was fairly steady for eons before industrialization. Energy in = energy out. [Not quite accurate, as energy was being sequestered as coal, oil, peat, and natural gas]

There are rules about how earth has to eliminate waste energy. Specifically, it has to be emitted via blackbody radiation. That is tied to the temperature of the emitting body. To emit more energy, it has to be hotter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

This means if you dump waste heat into the environment, like fusion would, the planet MUST heat up until it reaches a temperature that can sustainably emit that waste energy into space.

This is on top of the issue with carbon dioxide based greenhouse effects.

To make fusion work, we would need to beam IR energy into space very efficiently, and not rely on natural blackbody emission. Attempting that without a space elevator or something, would cause a lot of collateral climate consequences from local heating from the beamed energy on the way out.

Fusion is a good thing, but not sufficient by itself.

[Il Palazzo]

That will give you a closer approximation of what you can ACTUALLY use.

I was asking what did you use in your argument. Not how to do it myself. If all you did is eyeball it for bounds, as it seems to be the case - that's fine. Just say it.

snip

IIRC waste heat has a negligible effect on global climate. Like two orders of magnitude below greenhouse gasses at current levels. Which is similar to fusion in that it's mostly from releasing stored energy. One could ramp up energy production by a lot before it becomes a problem.

[wierd]

Pretty much, yes I did just eyeball it.  I will own that.


For the localized heating from fusion energy, I am thnking more than just "in the next decade, should fusion take off", I am thinking over the next 50 to 100 years, if people keep on doing stupid shit like bitcoin. (and feel it is "OK!" to do so, because of clean, abundant fusion energy)

[Scoops Novel]

Thanks for getting it EuchreJack.

Everyone else, if you don't understand the flow of my conjecture, say it instead of making assumptions.

Am I included there? I tried to find a conjecture but couldn't really make it out, and so I asked. I hope my suggestions didn't come off as too sarcastic... Honestly, I'm still not sure I am on board, is getting more intelligent equated with getting more technology-dependent (and AI-driven) here? Is better design, adapting systems for human needs, including around our failings and (sometimes) stupidity, not counted as a result of intelligence? "Doing things more intelligently" can (and should imho) mean "doing it the best way", not "adapting stuff for only the already intelligent", so I do not get why you would be against people getting more intelligent on the whole.

Okay, OP, I don’t understand at all, but I’m very interested.
What are the dangers of being too smart for your own good?
(On a personal or a societal level? How smart is too smart?)

It's the development path. It's so easy to get sunk into something whether or not it's actually useful and look around a couple of years later and realise maybe it wasn't the best idea regardless of how interesting it was. You can learn some things which keep provoking you to think to the point of wasting your time - this is why Sage is synonymous with being... sage with information. You can be so wrapped up with smartness you fail to value stupidity... the list goes on.

And these days, smart is never smart enough. You can't resist the sense you can think yourself into being Goku given enough time in this century, despite the evidence to the contrary... and the cooler shit gets the harder that will be to shake.

Oh, and big ideas distract you from the small ideas that could actually make your life better. Then you've got the hiveminds weighing on top of your mind the more you get exposed too, let alone my latest theory that you sprout "brains" from your brain for all the modes you get accustomed to and are encouraged within you, which are an obstacle to being your actual natural self.

It's got its catches.

[McTraveller]

My observation isn't that we (humanity) have a lack of knowledge.  We (humanity) have a lack of resolve to act according to the  knowledge we do have.  I therefore wholly agree with weird here - it's not a lack of technology that is limiting humanity.

Even individually I'd say we don't have the resolve we need. I mean I fight in my own household I struggle with fighting unnecessary purchases (which generates waste in at least packaging, but also other ways), unnecessary extra trips in cars, wasting food, etc.

[dragdeler]

I mean I fight in my own household I struggle with fighting unnecessary purchases (which generates waste in at least packaging, but also other ways), unnecessary extra trips in cars, wasting food, etc.

And you'd show up all conscientious with well sorted boxes, and we'd still wind up butting heads over something unecessary like a helium bottle or because your kids or your wife hid contaminations in your well sorted boxes.


100 companies might be responsible for 71% of emissions but they're not consuming their own stuff. I've seen bicycle riding people who annoy you to know where negligeable 0,4g waste can go, but then cannot accept taking something back to put in the PMK bag, and rather see it burned with the bulky waste.

We wouldn't be able to save ourselves with a philosophers stone if the method didn't coincide with what our instinct decided, before our "will" provided the justification for the method of choice.