Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (604015)	3/17/2011 1:47:04 AM
From: d[-_-]b	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574628

if 99% of the top scientist say it could possibly destroy the world But not even 1% say it can "destroy the world" - cause change perhaps but never destroy.

To: koan who wrote (604015)	3/17/2011 1:56:32 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574628

>>> When one is screwing around with nuclear power that can destroy the world, as not only a possibility but a probability, you do not put such dangers in peoples hands at all. So, what are you going to power the world with? Windmills? >> And as far a GW goes, if 99% of the top scientist say it could possibly destroy the world, and it is only a 10% chance you take it real fucking seirously. Great scientists are wrong, routinely. Particularly when their paychecks and their life work depends on a particular outcome. It happens all the time. We know today, with 100% certainty, that Keynesianism doesn't work. But Keynes was no dummy.

To: koan who wrote (604015)	3/18/2011 1:55:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574628

And besides that, the real problems are the Black Swans we cannot even see or imagine. To the extent this is true it can reasonably be considered an argument against massive and expensive government intervention to combat global warming. One of those black swans could be global cooling (which few people expect), or it could be something else unconnected to global temperature change, that we will need lots of wealth to prevent, mitigate, or live with. When one is screwing around with nuclear power that can destroy the world If we tried to set up a nuclear plant deliberately to destroy the world it still wouldn't do so. Obviously not in a literal sense (the gravitational binding energy of the planet, or alternatively the amount of energy needed to melt the planet, is many orders of magnitude larger than all the human released energy in any form, power plant or bombs or anything else throughout history). Even if you take a broad non-literal interpretation of destroy (where wiping out life on Earth, or even just humans is enough) it would be hard to do so. I guess the best possibility would be a huge cobalt and other material salted reactor that you deliberately set up to melt down, or worse yet run without any containment vessel, still operating in terms of having fission occur while exposed to the open air, but even this falls far short of what you would need. It would tend to provide overkill in the area around the reactor and immediately downwind but it would sufficiently contaminate the world. Cobalt bombs would distribute the fallout more, but they aren't reactors, and are still somewhat questionable as doomsday weapons, at least for a single bomb, and for anything but the more mild definitions of doomsday. A thousand cobalt salted bombs might do the trick, but that's a pretty serious effort to wipe ourselves out. And as far a GW goes, if 99% of the top scientist say it could possibly destroy the world But they don't.