Science: Fusion Ignition achieved

[HendryTan]

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion-energy-milestone-ignition-confirmed-california-1733238

 

Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL's) National Ignition Facility (NIF) recorded the first case of ignition on August 8, 2021, the results of which have now been published in three peer-reviewed papers.

Nuclear fusion is the process that powers the Sun and other stars: heavy hydrogen atoms collide with enough force that they fuse together to form a helium atom, releasing large amounts of energy as a by-product. Once the hydrogen plasma "ignites", the fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining, with the fusions themselves producing enough power to maintain the temperature without external heating.

 

Ignition during a fusion reaction essentially means that the reaction itself produced enough energy to be self-sustaining, which would be necessary in the use of fusion to generate electricity.

[StockBottom]

......

Edited August 16, 2022 by StockBottom

[sgmaven]

Much as I am interested in the use of nuclear fusion to generate electricity, my fear is that this near "limitless" amount of energy will result in over-exploitation. Mankind has not learnt the lesson with petroleum, so I do fear that we will eventually use so much water to generate hydrogen for fusion, that we run out of water!

[Steve5380]

On 8/15/2022 at 12:40 AM, HendryTan said:

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion-energy-milestone-ignition-confirmed-california-1733238

 

Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL's) National Ignition Facility (NIF) recorded the first case of ignition on August 8, 2021, the results of which have now been published in three peer-reviewed papers.

Nuclear fusion is the process that powers the Sun and other stars: heavy hydrogen atoms collide with enough force that they fuse together to form a helium atom, releasing large amounts of energy as a by-product. Once the hydrogen plasma "ignites", the fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining, with the fusions themselves producing enough power to maintain the temperature without external heating.

 

Ignition during a fusion reaction essentially means that the reaction itself produced enough energy to be self-sustaining, which would be necessary in the use of fusion to generate electricity.

 

This is great!  Sooner or later they will be able to reproduce this result, from last year and ultimately create a continuous fusion. 

 

Then, if we can also find ways to achieve room-temperature superconductivity,  humanity will solve the energy crunch and fend off the threat of climate change.

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:05 AM, sgmaven said:

Much as I am interested in the use of nuclear fusion to generate electricity, my fear is that this near "limitless" amount of energy will result in over-exploitation. Mankind has not learnt the lesson with petroleum, so I do fear that we will eventually use so much water to generate hydrogen for fusion, that we run out of water!

 

You mean the deuterium and tritium needed for fusion?   They are abundant like the air that is needed for our cars with internal combustion engines.   Maybe you refer to the huge issue of cooling, where water is not the only or best solution.  This is being investigated for many years now.  ( Optimist engineers have been designing fusion power plants for a long time )

 

The consumables in fusion have a much higher energy density than the oil we use today.  Huge volumes of oil are extracted from the underground rocks, and this volume must be replenished with salt water.  This has not created a shortage of salt water.  And...  continuing with humor...  if fusion makes huge demands for water,  this can compensate the raise of the seas created by the global warming.   

[StockBottom]

......

Edited August 16, 2022 by StockBottom

[Guest Guest]

So what? 

 

https://www.nccs.gov.sg/faqs/renewable-energy/#:~:text=Singapore's installed solar capacity was,peak solar deployment after 2020.

 

"Singapore’s installed solar capacity was 203 MWp in 2018, and we aim to increase this to 350 MWp by 2020, and 1 GWp beyond 2020,equivalent to powering about 210,000 4-room HDB dwellings." 

 

Even with increased solar capacity in Singapore, do you see our electricity cost go down? Please lah ... Singaporeans are just cows for the milking, especially when the electricity suppliers are all commercial enterprises in one of those PPP (Public-Private Partnership) like the Sports Hub situation now. 

 

[sgmaven]

On 8/16/2022 at 12:36 PM, Guest Guest said:

So what? 

 

https://www.nccs.gov.sg/faqs/renewable-energy/#:~:text=Singapore's installed solar capacity was,peak solar deployment after 2020.

 

"Singapore’s installed solar capacity was 203 MWp in 2018, and we aim to increase this to 350 MWp by 2020, and 1 GWp beyond 2020,equivalent to powering about 210,000 4-room HDB dwellings." 

 

Even with increased solar capacity in Singapore, do you see our electricity cost go down? Please lah ... Singaporeans are just cows for the milking, especially when the electricity suppliers are all commercial enterprises in one of those PPP (Public-Private Partnership) like the Sports Hub situation now. 

 

Installed capacity is not the same as what is really generated. Singapore is not blessed with solar resources, despite being on the equator. The very fact that we have a lot of cloud cover means that our actual potential for generation is far lower than in Chile's Atacama, where the sky is usually cloudless. Also, even if we can generate all of the 350 MWp that is installed, it is only a very tiny part of our overall consumption of electricity. Even the "small" power plants in Singapore generate that much electricity, with the 3 big player generating a few times that.

[sgmaven]

On 8/16/2022 at 9:02 AM, Steve5380 said:

You mean the deuterium and tritium needed for fusion?   They are abundant like the air that is needed for our cars with internal combustion engines.   Maybe you refer to the huge issue of cooling, where water is not the only or best solution.  This is being investigated for many years now.  ( Optimist engineers have been designing fusion power plants for a long time )

 

The consumables in fusion have a much higher energy density than the oil we use today.  Huge volumes of oil are extracted from the underground rocks, and this volume must be replenished with salt water.  This has not created a shortage of salt water.  And...  continuing with humor...  if fusion makes huge demands for water,  this can compensate the raise of the seas created by the global warming.   

I wish that both deuterium and tritium was as common as you said. I know full well the reality of isotope distribution for hydrogen. Only common hydrogen and deuterium are stable, and tritium has a half-life. Common hydrogen is 99.9% of all terrestrial hydrogen, with naturally-occurring deuterium being about 0.03% abundant at best. If you don't believe it, you can look at wikipedia.

 

While the energy density of what nuclear fusion can provide is infinitely more than that of internal combustion engines, it is still not a renewable. It is still a finite resource. And my fear is that when nuclear fusion can be carried out safely and cheaply, there will be a mad rush by everyone to do it, with the thinking of free energy. It will be our new "petrol" and before you know, we will have depleted our resources again. Sure, it might not create greenhouse gas like petrol, but who knows what other side-effects may be discovered down the line, when we have exploited lots of it? I say this, because I believe that mankind has yet to learn to develop in tandem with what resources are available. The capitalist economic model will ensure that we exploit whatever economic opportunities, until it becomes untenable to extract/use.

[Guest Guest]

On 8/16/2022 at 12:43 PM, sgmaven said:

Installed capacity is not the same as what is really generated. Singapore is not blessed with solar resources, despite being on the equator. The very fact that we have a lot of cloud cover means that our actual potential for generation is far lower than in Chile's Atacama, where the sky is usually cloudless. Also, even if we can generate all of the 350 MWp that is installed, it is only a very tiny part of our overall consumption of electricity. Even the "small" power plants in Singapore generate that much electricity, with the 3 big player generating a few times that.

 

Still! You see any decrease in electricity prices after the installation? Do you think they will decrease the electricity bill even after they bring nuclear fusion into Sg? 

[Guest Guest]

On 8/16/2022 at 12:55 PM, sgmaven said:

I wish that both deuterium and tritium was as common as you said. I know full well the reality of isotope distribution for hydrogen. Only common hydrogen and deuterium are stable, and tritium has a half-life. Common hydrogen is 99.9% of all terrestrial hydrogen, with naturally-occurring deuterium being about 0.03% abundant at best. If you don't believe it, you can look at wikipedia.

 

While the energy density of what nuclear fusion can provide is infinitely more than that of internal combustion engines, it is still not a renewable. It is still a finite resource. And my fear is that when nuclear fusion can be carried out safely and cheaply, there will be a mad rush by everyone to do it, with the thinking of free energy. It will be our new "petrol" and before you know, we will have depleted our resources again. Sure, it might not create greenhouse gas like petrol, but who knows what other side-effects may be discovered down the line, when we have exploited lots of it? I say this, because I believe that mankind has yet to learn to develop in tandem with what resources are available. The capitalist economic model will ensure that we exploit whatever economic opportunities, until it becomes untenable to extract/use.

 

Caveman environment is best for you. 

 

[sgmaven]

On 8/16/2022 at 12:56 PM, Guest Guest said:

 

Still! You see any decrease in electricity prices after the installation? Do you think they will decrease the electricity bill even after they bring nuclear fusion into Sg? 

Don't forget that the actual cost of solar does not present a suitable ROI for investment (go check how much it costs to run a solar plant and how much electricity it produces in Singapore, and you know a gas turbine produces cheaper electricity). We are only doing it in hope that we can meet our GHG emissions reduction targets that we have committed to.

[sgmaven]

On 8/16/2022 at 12:59 PM, Guest Guest said:

 

Caveman environment is best for you. 

 

Thank you, but I prefer to be able to leave an earth that is still livable to the next generation, than burning the candle at both ends and "enjoying things while it lasts", leaving the next generation to suffer...

[sgmaven]

Oh! By the way, lots of people think that solar is so "Green" and environmentally-sound. However, few people have considered the waste that is created after the solar panels have reached the end of their useful life. There is a huge problem in the world with what to do with decommissioned solar and wind plant waste.

[Guest Guest]

On 8/16/2022 at 12:59 PM, sgmaven said:

Don't forget that the actual cost of solar does not present a suitable ROI for investment (go check how much it costs to run a solar plant and how much electricity it produces in Singapore, and you know a gas turbine produces cheaper electricity). We are only doing it in hope that we can meet our GHG emissions reduction targets that we have committed to.

 

So, will you use the cost of installation as the excuse to hike up electricity bills if nuclear fusion comes into Singapore? So, again, so what if fusion ignition is achieved? Duh .....

[sgmaven]

On 8/16/2022 at 1:04 PM, Guest Guest said:

 

So, will you use the cost of installation as the excuse to hike up electricity bills if nuclear fusion comes into Singapore? So, again, so what if fusion ignition is achieved? Duh .....

Energy generation is a business, and only the small players in the Singapore market are partially government-owned (through our SWFs). So, of course, to make business sense to install fusion reactors, these operators are going to demand an ROI that will enable them to recoup whatever cost to build such plants! Welcome to the real world, where money talks!

[Guest Guest]

On 8/16/2022 at 1:07 PM, sgmaven said:

Energy generation is a business, and only the small players in the Singapore market are partially government-owned (through our SWFs). So, of course, to make business sense to install fusion reactors, these operators are going to demand an ROI that will enable them to recoup whatever cost to build such plants! Welcome to the real world, where money talks!

 

 

Exactly! It took a while, but you finally got there! So, again, so what if fusion ignition is achieved? Duh ..... BIG DEAL! 

[sgmaven]

Before you go on, do read up a bit about the Electricity Generation business, and how it functions. At least have an understanding of concepts like LCOE, which explains why very few fission plants are still operating in the US, etc. I used to work in that particular industry, and know those business mechanics a little too well.

[Steve5380]

Is there any fundamental reason Singapore cannot install a fission nuclear power plant,  the ones in common use?   I know that there is not much land there, but it is predicted that smaller fission generators will be designed and built that are smaller and safer. 

 

With a nuclear generator,  Singapore could produce plutonium and refine it to weapon-grade concentration.  A few nuclear bombs on nice hypersonic missiles could protect your country from an invasion by China.  

[Steve5380]

On 8/15/2022 at 11:55 PM, sgmaven said:

I wish that both deuterium and tritium was as common as you said. I know full well the reality of isotope distribution for hydrogen. Only common hydrogen and deuterium are stable, and tritium has a half-life. Common hydrogen is 99.9% of all terrestrial hydrogen, with naturally-occurring deuterium being about 0.03% abundant at best. If you don't believe it, you can look at wikipedia.

 

While the energy density of what nuclear fusion can provide is infinitely more than that of internal combustion engines, it is still not a renewable. It is still a finite resource. And my fear is that when nuclear fusion can be carried out safely and cheaply, there will be a mad rush by everyone to do it, with the thinking of free energy. It will be our new "petrol" and before you know, we will have depleted our resources again. Sure, it might not create greenhouse gas like petrol, but who knows what other side-effects may be discovered down the line, when we have exploited lots of it? I say this, because I believe that mankind has yet to learn to develop in tandem with what resources are available. The capitalist economic model will ensure that we exploit whatever economic opportunities, until it becomes untenable to extract/use.

 

Well... I was not too serious to equate the availability of deuterium and tritium to that of air.   But adjusted for their immensely higher energy density, their availability is far superior to that of oil.   And it is not usual to know the difficulties to find and extract the oil from the ground.  In a future fusion reactor there will be enough neutrons to produce tritium from lithium.   And there is enough ocean water to extract the deuterium from it. 

 

With cheap energy, its use may not need to increase dramatically, but still several fold.   If we produce too much energy,  this by itself will increase global warming.   But an energy bonanza will allow to eliminate draughts by de-salinize underground water,  to protect from extreme temperatures by use of air conditioning,  to have plenty of electricity to power all vehicles in the world, all machinery.  But we still need to find a way to concentrate energy beyond petrol to fuel all airplanes.   Maybe an advance in electric batteries could solve this.

 

It is so nice to dream about the potentials in a future,  and forget the shitty world we are living in now... ha ha.

[Steve5380]

On 8/16/2022 at 12:09 AM, Guest Guest said:

 

Exactly! It took a while, but you finally got there! So, again, so what if fusion ignition is achieved? Duh ..... BIG DEAL! 

 

 

Well...  you have the right to think that way,  and not dedicate your immense knowledge of nuclear technology and applied physics to make fusion generators happen.   

[sgmaven]

On 8/16/2022 at 9:20 PM, Steve5380 said:

Well... I was not too serious to equate the availability of deuterium and tritium to that of air.   But adjusted for their immensely higher energy density, their availability is far superior to that of oil.   And it is not usual to know the difficulties to find and extract the oil from the ground.  In a future fusion reactor there will be enough neutrons to produce tritium from lithium.   And there is enough ocean water to extract the deuterium from it. 

 

With cheap energy, its use may not need to increase dramatically, but still several fold.   If we produce too much energy,  this by itself will increase global warming.   But an energy bonanza will allow to eliminate draughts by de-salinize underground water,  to protect from extreme temperatures by use of air conditioning,  to have plenty of electricity to power all vehicles in the world, all machinery.  But we still need to find a way to concentrate energy beyond petrol to fuel all airplanes.   Maybe an advance in electric batteries could solve this.

 

It is so nice to dream about the potentials in a future,  and forget the shitty world we are living in now... ha ha.

The biggest issue is that the "biggest resource" for extracting hydrogen is from water. Something that is already a scarce resource in our world, with experts predicting that wars will break out over water. If we do not learn lessons about sustainable development, I fear that even whatever is left of our water will be rapidly used up for fusion and whatever other purposes. Then, the water crisis will be the next oil crisis, only that it will be far worse.

 

In case you don't know, there were military projects to develop nuclear-powered aircraft, but they were shelved. I am quite sure that if a a fusion-reactor can be shrunk down to a size that could fit inside an aircraft, then nuclear-fusion-powered flight is a possibility.

 

Frankly, I do not see air-conditioning our way out of the climate crisis is a real solution. You are just proposing to treat the symptom, and not the root cause of the problem. So that problem will only get worse as time goes on.

[Steve5380]

On 8/16/2022 at 8:28 AM, sgmaven said:

The biggest issue is that the "biggest resource" for extracting hydrogen is from water. Something that is already a scarce resource in our world, with experts predicting that wars will break out over water. If we do not learn lessons about sustainable development, I fear that even whatever is left of our water will be rapidly used up for fusion and whatever other purposes. Then, the water crisis will be the next oil crisis, only that it will be far worse.

 

In case you don't know, there were military projects to develop nuclear-powered aircraft, but they were shelved. I am quite sure that if a a fusion-reactor can be shrunk down to a size that could fit inside an aircraft, then nuclear-fusion-powered flight is a possibility.

 

Frankly, I do not see air-conditioning our way out of the climate crisis is a real solution. You are just proposing to treat the symptom, and not the root cause of the problem. So that problem will only get worse as time goes on.

 

Unless the world population explodes even more,  there is plenty of water on our planet.  What is becoming scarce is fresh water.  But with energy, we can produce it from dirty, saline water.  There are large desalination plants in the Middle East,  Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other parts of the world.

 

I am all for solving the causes of global warming,  but in the meantime,  a large fraction of humanity is suffering from excessive heat, and this can be remedied with air conditioning units,  preferably the windows units.  Dubai is giving a good example of how to live comfortably in a dessert.

[sgmaven]

On 8/16/2022 at 9:49 PM, Steve5380 said:

Unless the world population explodes even more,  there is plenty of water on our planet.  What is becoming scarce is fresh water.  But with energy, we can produce it from dirty, saline water.  There are large desalination plants in the Middle East,  Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other parts of the world.

 

I am all for solving the causes of global warming,  but in the meantime,  a large fraction of humanity is suffering from excessive heat, and this can be remedied with air conditioning units,  preferably the windows units.  Dubai is giving a good example of how to live comfortably in a dessert.

And what makes you so sure that the world population will not explode again, if we reach this goal? With each "technological revolution" mankind's population has always chosen to "explode". What makes you think we won't this time?

 

There are large desalination plants in the Middle East, and other desert regions. However, I really wonder why we should continue to support places that are originally don't support human life? And I am not even talking about those places that are impacted by climate change, but places like Las Vegas, that are in the middle of a desert, and yet is home to a huge population. If we are going to continue to do this, it will only add further stress to the natural ecosystems.

 

When I talk about tackling issues like climate change, I am afraid that most governments tend to choose the easy way out, with short-term "solutions" that only are cosmetic fixes, rather than tackling the roots of issues.

 

BTW, places like Dubai have one of the highest per capita production of GHGs.

Edited August 16, 2022 by sgmaven

[Steve5380]

On 8/16/2022 at 9:02 AM, sgmaven said:

And what makes you so sure that the world population will not explode again, if we reach this goal? With each "technological revolution" mankind's population has always chosen to "explode". What makes you think we won't this time?

 

There are large desalination plants in the Middle East, and other desert regions. However, I really wonder why we should continue to support places that are originally don't support human life? And I am not even talking about those places that are impacted by climate change, but places like Las Vegas, that are in the middle of a desert, and yet is home to a huge population. If we are going to continue to do this, it will only add further stress to the natural ecosystems.

 

When I talk about tackling issues like climate change, I am afraid that most governments tend to choose the easy way out, with short-term "solutions" that only are cosmetic fixes, rather than tackling the roots of issues.

 

BTW, places like Dubai have one of the highest per capita production of GHGs.

 

You are right that there are many factors conspiring against improvement of life on this planet.

 

Why governments choose the easy way out?   Because their ignorant populations don't want to sacrifice anything to an alleged better future.  I'm afraid that the US has much of this.  You see how the most important bill to help the environment did not get a single vote...  by the republicans!  (they are a cancer, but this is a different story). And some more totalitarian governments try to exploit the "pride" of their citizens,  and so Dubai has invested so much in fight the dessert and bring ice skating rings to the city.

 

About overpopulation,  there is hope that with increased education and standard of living,  a large segment of the poor population will realize the convenience of having few children, one or two,  and instead enjoy life more.

[sgmaven]

Unfortunately, most people are prepared to give up on long-term benefits, if get some short-term comforts. Most of the traditional values of leaving a better future for the next generations has been thrown out of the window, in favour of enjoying things for the now.

[Steve5380]

On 8/17/2022 at 7:18 AM, sgmaven said:

Unfortunately, most people are prepared to give up on long-term benefits, if get some short-term comforts. Most of the traditional values of leaving a better future for the next generations has been thrown out of the window, in favour of enjoying things for the now.

 

It is not even necessary to have this concern of leaving a better future for the next generation.  We should seek a better future FOR OURSELVES.

 

Personally,  I am now in the "better future" of my earlier life.  And in my today's "better future" I already have a next generation,  a son and three grandchildren.    And if I live a little longer I might have great-grandchildren.   These individuals are gift enough I'm leaving to the future.  I hope I live long enough to spend all my money.  They will be busy making their own, and resolving the problems of their own generations.

[sgmaven]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:16 PM, Steve5380 said:

 

It is not even necessary to have this concern of leaving a better future for the next generation.  We should seek a better future FOR OURSELVES.

 

Personally,  I am now in the "better future" of my earlier life.  And in my today's "better future" I already have a next generation,  a son and three grandchildren.    And if I live a little longer I might have great-grandchildren.   These individuals are gift enough I'm leaving to the future.  I hope I live long enough to spend all my money.  They will be busy making their own, and resolving the problems of their own generations.

I beg to differ, and therein lies part of the problem. If everyone only cares for his own today, and possibly his future, and not the future of those who come after, then we have more short-term decisions. That's when more cars are put on the road that guzzle more petrol, to create more carbon dioxide, because I want to get from Point A to Point B quick and comfortable.

[Steve5380]

On 8/17/2022 at 12:49 PM, sgmaven said:

I beg to differ, and therein lies part of the problem. If everyone only cares for his own today, and possibly his future, and not the future of those who come after, then we have more short-term decisions. That's when more cars are put on the road that guzzle more petrol, to create more carbon dioxide, because I want to get from Point A to Point B quick and comfortable.

 

It is fine if you differ.

 

What I wrote is part of my idea the we should FIRST take care OF OURSELVES.   This means not only getting what is necessary for our physical survival,  but also caring for OUR MIND.  Build our ability to be a free thinker,  and cultivate self-confidence in that what we pursue is the good.    This means that we will develop resistance to being indoctrinated.  Starting with our religious education,  we will resist the brain washing and the idea that we are one of the blessed, the ones in possession of the Truth,  while the others are wrong.  We will resist the enticement to join groups of some ideology,  like a church, a mosque, a political party,  to feel gregarious and enjoy the mutual support and care within the group. 

 

If we are free thinkers,  then we can analyze the current issues, problems, realities with an open mind, and not from the point of view of an IDEOLOGY.   Otherwise, we would support those who are republicans like us but who vote down a law that reduces the threat from global warming,  that reduces the cost of prescription drugs, etc.  Not a single republican legislator voted in favor of such a law.  No clear mind can be opposed to the goals of this law.  Only those who have renounced to their independence and have given allegiance to an ideology favor their ideology above everything else. 

 

Only a society of free thinkers will give priority to what is right,  and this usually is what should be done, what will benefit themselves and future generations.  Just listening to one speech by Trump and hearing one of his big lies should disqualify him, regardless of his political party, religion, ethnicity, wealth, etc.   

[sgmaven]

I think part of the trouble is that some seem to think that FIRST taking care of ourselves, means driving petrol-guzzling SUVs, but I get what you mean.

[Steve5380]

On 8/17/2022 at 2:08 PM, sgmaven said:

I think part of the trouble is that some seem to think that FIRST taking care of ourselves, means driving petrol-guzzling SUVs, but I get what you mean.

 

You may not have fully understood.  The idea of FIRST taking care of ourselves is to achieve an individual who is rational, good natured and with good moral.  Meaning that the preservation of nature will be also important for him.

 

My preferred, most driven car is 28 years old, a sedan with good mileage and manual transmission, no frills.  My second car is 27 y.o,  and my newer one is 14 y.o.  They all precede the era of many proven, practical electric cars.   But my next car will be an electric one,  probably bought in 5 years.  I drive so little that the type of fuel is not very important,  and I keep my cars so long to avoid feeding the consumerism machine. 

 

Rushing to discard the petrol-using cars and buy new electric ones increases the environmental damage from production of batteries and new cars. 

[sgmaven]

On 8/18/2022 at 5:48 AM, Steve5380 said:

You may not have fully understood.  The idea of FIRST taking care of ourselves is to achieve an individual who is rational, good natured and with good moral.  Meaning that the preservation of nature will be also important for him.

Unfortunately, it seems a tall order for the average human on earth to achieve that degree of rationality, good-naturedness and morality.

[Steve5380]

On 8/17/2022 at 6:12 PM, sgmaven said:

Unfortunately, it seems a tall order for the average human on earth to achieve that degree of rationality, good-naturedness and morality.

 

I also don't believe in a large change of the average human on earth. 

 

I see only one factor that may save us from eternal repetitions of the evils of humanity: technology.  This can improve the lives of the average human,  especially those at the lower level.  It can increase education.  Better education can reduce the dominance by ideologies.  We see already that organized religions are losing their power in more educated societies.  Maybe political ideologies will also lose some power with electorates that demand increasing accountability.

 

But I see all this because I choose to be optimistic.  There is no guarantee for any of this.

[sgmaven]

On 8/18/2022 at 8:46 AM, Steve5380 said:

I also don't believe in a large change of the average human on earth. 

 

I see only one factor that may save us from eternal repetitions of the evils of humanity: technology.  This can improve the lives of the average human,  especially those at the lower level.  It can increase education.  Better education can reduce the dominance by ideologies.  We see already that organized religions are losing their power in more educated societies.  Maybe political ideologies will also lose some power with electorates that demand increasing accountability.

 

But I see all this because I choose to be optimistic.  There is no guarantee for any of this.

Well, you just have to look at the US, and realise that the church still plays a big part in the education and lives of many people (especially in the GOP-dominated states). We also know that religion has been weaponised to serve political goals. So, while the coastal cities may be awash with more liberal thought, many of the cities in the interior are still very much entrenched in ideas like creationism. Many there still do not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change.

 

So, it really depends on whether there is a real separation of "church" and "state". I guess Europe does a "better" job at this, and society there is much more secularised.

 

However, you also have countries like Saudi Arabia, where the majority of "graduates" have degrees in Islamic Studies, and therefore, are unable to find work in a more secularised work environment. These people will find it hard to find jobs, and really are dependent on the state to subsidise their livelihoods, making them easily radicalised. That is why, I guess, that country has been the birthplace of organisations like Al Qaeda. Many countries with significant muslim populations also have Islamic Schools, where similar things happen. That sort of thing also happens in other non-Islamic religions, where thought is distorted, so as to control their flock.

 

I do believe in education, but it is education in analytical thought, and freedom to critique. Many countries still do not allow for that. My country, Singapore, sadly, still struggles with academic freedom, and so many partner universities from the West, have walked out of partnerships for that very reason. While I can understand that freedom to critique/speech can be abused (just look at Trump and his acolytes), inability to do so only drives otherwise creative energies into unproductive avenues.

 

 

[Steve5380]

On 8/17/2022 at 10:20 PM, sgmaven said:

Well, you just have to look at the US, and realise that the church still plays a big part in the education and lives of many people (especially in the GOP-dominated states). We also know that religion has been weaponised to serve political goals. So, while the coastal cities may be awash with more liberal thought, many of the cities in the interior are still very much entrenched in ideas like creationism. Many there still do not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change.

 

So, it really depends on whether there is a real separation of "church" and "state". I guess Europe does a "better" job at this, and society there is much more secularised.

 

However, you also have countries like Saudi Arabia, where the majority of "graduates" have degrees in Islamic Studies, and therefore, are unable to find work in a more secularised work environment. These people will find it hard to find jobs, and really are dependent on the state to subsidise their livelihoods, making them easily radicalised. That is why, I guess, that country has been the birthplace of organisations like Al Qaeda. Many countries with significant muslim populations also have Islamic Schools, where similar things happen. That sort of thing also happens in other non-Islamic religions, where thought is distorted, so as to control their flock.

 

I do believe in education, but it is education in analytical thought, and freedom to critique. Many countries still do not allow for that. My country, Singapore, sadly, still struggles with academic freedom, and so many partner universities from the West, have walked out of partnerships for that very reason. While I can understand that freedom to critique/speech can be abused (just look at Trump and his acolytes), inability to do so only drives otherwise creative energies into unproductive avenues.

 

 

 

Yes, mentalities in the US center states are still quite retrograde. We just got the example of Wyoming and its GOP primary. 

 

Why should the graduates with degrees in Islamic Studies have problems finding jobs?    Don't they need workers to cut the hands of thief and petty burglars, cane women who forgot to cover their faces,  torture homosexuals and kill them if they had sex,  hang the blasphemous and those who abandon Islam, and coordinate the fatwas against infidels? 

 

I am surprised to hear that Singapore struggles with academic freedom.  Don't Christian churches have religious freedom to attack homosexuals? 

[sgmaven]

On 8/18/2022 at 11:45 AM, Steve5380 said:

Why should the graduates with degrees in Islamic Studies have problems finding jobs?    Don't they need workers to cut the hands of thief and petty burglars, cane women who forgot to cover their faces,  torture homosexuals and kill them if they had sex,  hang the blasphemous and those who abandon Islam, and coordinate the fatwas against infidels? 

 

I am surprised to hear that Singapore struggles with academic freedom.  Don't Christian churches have religious freedom to attack homosexuals? 

I understand why you irk so many on this forum, because of comments like these. Please stick to being more constructive in your comments.

[Steve5380]

On 8/18/2022 at 3:48 AM, sgmaven said:

I understand why you irk so many on this forum, because of comments like these. Please stick to being more constructive in your comments.

 

I'm sorry,  that is the freedom of speech in my culture.  I am by nature optimistic and constructive,  but I cannot avoid being also realistic.

[sgmaven]

On 8/18/2022 at 8:39 PM, Steve5380 said:

 

I'm sorry,  that is the freedom of speech in my culture.  I am by nature optimistic and constructive,  but I cannot avoid being also realistic.

Optimism and constructiveness is fine, and so is realism. However, it does not need to be peppered with snide comments. That is not at all constructive, and you claim to be that!

[Steve5380]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:51 AM, sgmaven said:

Optimism and constructiveness is fine, and so is realism. However, it does not need to be peppered with snide comments. That is not at all constructive, and you claim to be that!

 

All right.  I am sorry. My mistake.