ProdigalFrog

ProdigalFrog, 9 days ago

Love me some computer chronicles!

ProdigalFrog, 9 days ago

Homesteads like this are of course better than just plain grass, but compared to a farm, the output per area is probably really low.

I would’ve thought that as well, but, at least according to some studies referenced by the Edinicity project, small urban farming apparently results in significantly higher yields compared to industrial farming. If the figures referenced are correct, then it would seem small urban farming could be quite viable as a source of food for significant amounts of people.

ProdigalFrog, 4 days ago

That was super cool to read about, cheers for sharing your set up!

ProdigalFrog, 5 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

People keep coming back to the free energy discussion and I don’t know why, because it’s moot.

We’re responding to the question in your OP: “Do you think we have had advancements withheld and held back and is the economy more important than the planet?”

The question is, are we ready? When you (you being me) talk about do we believe we’ve had things held back, the answer is of course. But not in terms of technology, but in terms of restraints.

Free energy, by itself, wouldn’t really mean much besides a lower power bill for regular people, and increased profits for corporations due to lower overhead. With no other changes to society, that would incentivize corporations to produce more, which would be a net negative for the environment, though thankfully they wouldn’t be creating much greenhouse emissions anymore.

If you gave every house in your country a battery, solar panels, a rooftop wind turbine and a ground source heat pump, you could revolutionize the grid requirements. But that’s expensive and quickly people would find a way to fleece the average person of their new found financial wiggle room.

Profit incentive always does find a way in capitalism. Similar to the scenario of UBI, where without rent control, it is likely that landlords would try to gobble up most of that free money. I’m not sure how much of that type of leeching would happen if people didn’t have to pay their power bills, probably not quite as much as it would be with UBI.

So again, it comes down to, how can we make it so money doesn’t matter?

Practically, the only real solution is eliminating capitalism, and adopting socialist (and hopefully anarchist) principles societally. Getting to that point in a world where the ruling class will do everything in their power to prevent it, is the ultimate problem to solve.

Someone intent a holodeck so I can experience a world without monetary wealth.

History has shown us such a thing is possible to achieve. The best example we have is from 1936, during the Spanish Civil War. The anarchists in Catalonia created a society free of money and exploitation. It was as close to Star Trek as humanity has ever come.

ProdigalFrog, 5 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

This is a road that’s well traveled for me. I have a family member who became obsessed with alternative/free energy because of what it would mean for society, and how it would be an essential building block toward post-scarcity. I followed along with interest.

What I personally found is that 99.9% of all claims of evidence or proof of free energy were, in the end, perpetuated by charlatans, grifters, and self-deluded nuts (often times incorporating their religion into it for good measure).

Generally, a handful of tactics they use to convince others of their legitimacy.

1. The ‘evidence’ is obfuscated by purposefully difficult to understand pseodo-science that can only truly be debunked by real experts (since laymen simply don’t have the required education to be able to discern truth from fiction), usually in the field of electrical theory. Some examples of those types would be Eric Dollard, Tom Bearden, and Dennis Lee. Their MO is generally that some fundamental aspect of science or engineering was dogmatically and incorrectly followed back when it was still a burgeoning field, or that some other obscure theorist at the time was suppressed or ignored by their peers, so they re-did all the equations/theory to its ‘proper’ state, which would then allow free energy to be created. (also, I don’t want to completely discredit the idea that certain fields can be ignorant due to dogmatism, just that when it comes to energy, it doesn’t seem to apply).
2. They invent a device that creates free energy, and are willing to give public (paid) talks about it, and may even wheel in some small contraption that spins around or lights up something and claim it’s working off free energy, but will always be extremely vague about how it works, or claim they would put their life in danger if they made the plans public. They may even sometimes claim that they’ve given enough information here and there to be able read between the lines and suss out for yourself how to create a similar device, either in their paid talks or in their extremely expensive books, which their followers will eagerly consume. Some examples of this type of grifter would be John Bedini, Bob Lazar, and Peter Lindemann (who, as a fun aside, wrote this article about how bar codes are the mark of the beast, and emit evil energies).
3. They allude to some previous inventor that discovered how to create free energy, utilizing existing myth and legend to convince you the conspiracy is real. The people most often referenced here would be Stan Meyer, Nikola Tesla, or the generalized legend of someone ‘knowing’ a guy who showed them a modified 100mpg carburetor on their car, which they then sold to an oil company to buy their silence, or if they cannot be bought, how they were killed.

---

In all cases, there’s nothing substantive behind any of it, but it would take such dedicated research and education to be able to debunk each one, that most unfortunately cannot dismiss the claims entirely (I was certainly one of those people for many years). It brings to mind an unrelated Noam Chomsky quote, “The information is out there, but only for the truly fanatic.” (paraphrasing).

Just to debunk the hyperefficient carburetor would take a non-trivial amount of time to become familiar with the thermodynamic efficiency of an internal combustion engine, how much potential energy is contained within a given fuel source, and what percentage is truly practical to extract. I don’t claim to be an expert in that area myself, but I’ve learned enough to know that while vaporizing gasoline (and then solving the issue with pre-detonation and sufficient quenching to prevent damaging the valves) would likely increase fuel economy, there are inherent limitations in the internal combustion engine that prevent it achieving truly epic economy.

Going down a different rabbit hole with Nikola Tesla would, if you’re fortunate, eventually reveal that while he made some solid contributions to the field of electronics, his overall prowess and legend was https://youtube.com/watch?v=kSyGFEjoYOM (alternative short version here), as first hand historical documents reveal, all thanks to those few fanatics willing to do the digging in search for objective truth.

Saying all that, there is one energy invention that vested interests attempted to suppress, because it did work: Solar energy.

Exxon was, at one point in time, heavily investing into researching alternative sources of energy, including Photovoltaic and new battery technologies, using their monopoly position and extreme profits to operate research divisions sort’ve in the vain of how Bell created Bell Labs to use up their excess profits that otherwise would’ve been taxed. But once Lee Raymond got into power at Exxon, he cut all funding to those projects (as well as to their climate change research), and then actively engaged the company in suppression of Solar and other renewable energies due to their threat to corporate profits. They were never in a position to completely suppress it (considering how they suppressed their climate research, I’m sure they would have, given the chance), but they certainly slowed its adoption and advancement.

There is one ‘free’ energy concept that, on the face of it, may deserve funding for research to see if it has merit, and that’s Daniel Sheehan’s concept of potentially breaking the second law of thermodynamics at the nano scale. I put a bit more stock into this because he’s an established physicist at the University of San Diego, doesn’t claim that this does work, just that the theory should be tested, and hasn’t tried to grift anything.

And, of course, there’s Nuclear Fusion, which probably would be free energy for practical purposes, but I don’t think it’s being suppressed too much, except maybe by big oil getting congress to defund fusion research.

I’ve already probably written too much on this, so to conclude/TL;DR: Truly ‘free’ energy is, in most cases, an endless rabbit hole of lies, and a gigantic waste of time. It makes for a fun story, one that goes back quite far, even in film, but don’t believe any of it unless there’s some credible peer reviews backing it up.

As a solarpunk, I’m certainly in favor of post-scarcity, and while a limitless free source of energy would be convenient, it’s not really the limiting factor in achieving a post-scarcity society. Even Peter Kropotkin back in the early industrial revolution recognized that we could achieve a partial post-scarcity in many ways with the advent of automation, and it was largely economic and class forces preventing that from occurring back then.

I agree Star Trek had it right, though I dearly wish they had not hand waved away humans achieving post scarcity by aliens giving us replicators. It would’ve been much more interesting if, during those time travel episodes/movies, they had explored how human society could’ve achieved a semi-post scarcity before the Vulcans showed up, but that would’ve made for a much less dramatic story.

ProdigalFrog, 13 days ago

GNU Taler could replace Paypal, we can only hope.