What do you think the next major advancement will be in the next 50 years?

[HUMMER]

Originally Posted by Danske

I dont like the idea of the yeast one because diesel still produces C02...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWiFwqLxy64

It's really good .

thanks. will watch this tomorrow as it almost bed time. if you got anymore of these kind of docos. please mention them as well. absolutely fascinated with these sort of things.

[Kitler]

Originally Posted by Danske

I dont like the idea of the yeast one because diesel still produces C02...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWiFwqLxy64

It's really good .

That was crazy.

[Cpt.J.Sparrow]

Synthetic biology (genetic engineering) is nothing new; we have been making all sorts of proteins this way.

My mother's work in '90s was about giving immortality to these small microbial factories.

[antipody]

Originally Posted by Danske

I dont like the idea of the yeast one because diesel still produces C02...

Haven't watched the doco yet, but if it's biogenic fuel then there's no net increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. The phytomass sequesters carbon from the atmosphere in photosynthesis, the Calvin cycle fixes the C in carbohydrate/lignin or another form of fuel. Burning the fuel then just puts the same carbon back into the atmosphere that was taken out in photosynthesis-carbon fixation. No net increase (aside from external emissions associated with the process).

Even better, is carbon negative fuel generation, where the biomass isn't just processed and combusted as fuel, but some of it is pyrolysed into stable form (charcoal) which can be used for fertiliser and soil improver. Over time, you get energy in the form of fuel with increased plant productivity and a net reduction in carbon in the atmosphere

[Danske]

Originally Posted by antipody

Haven't watched the doco yet, but if it's biogenic fuel then there's no net increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. The phytomass sequesters carbon from the atmosphere in photosynthesis, the Calvin cycle fixes the C in carbohydrate/lignin or another form of fuel. Burning the fuel then just puts the same carbon back into the atmosphere that was taken out in photosynthesis-carbon fixation. No net increase (aside from external emissions associated with the process).

Even better, is carbon negative fuel generation, where the biomass isn't just processed and combusted as fuel, but some of it is pyrolysed into stable form (charcoal) which can be used for fertiliser and soil improver. Over time, you get energy in the form of fuel with increased plant productivity and a net reduction in carbon in the atmosphere

movie

Wow that was a nerd bomb.

I initially read it on the tram and my face squished up trying to understand what you said. I think I might pretend I do. But I still don't understand how burning diesel produced from yeast is C02 neutral ><. Can you dumb it down a little.

[kthomp37]

Originally Posted by Danske

I initially read it on the tram and my face squished up trying to understand what you said. I think I might pretend I do. But I still don't understand how burning diesel produced from yeast is C02 neutral ><. Can you dumb it down a little.

Basically what he was saying was that to store energy the yeast pulls (sequesters) CO2 already present in the atmosphere and uses it in photosynthesis (ie the calvin cycle, which is a series or chemical reactions where energy storing molecules such as glucose are created). When the energy is used (burnt etc) the CO2 that was once in the atmosphere returns. There is no net increase to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

think of biogenic fuel production as essentially identical to the farming of trees. we plant trees, trees store energy and suck in carbon, we then cut down trees and burn them for energy, and plant more trees. For a carbon negative analogy in trees, we use timber in structures and furniture, locking away the carbon contained within the wood.

[Danske]

Originally Posted by kthomp37

Basically what he was saying was that to store energy the yeast pulls (sequesters) CO2 already present in the atmosphere and uses it in photosynthesis (ie the calvin cycle, which is a series or chemical reactions where energy storing molecules such as glucose are created). When the energy is used (burnt etc) the CO2 that was once in the atmosphere returns. There is no net increase to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

think of biogenic fuel production as essentially identical to the farming of trees. we plant trees, trees store energy and suck in carbon, we then cut down trees and burn them for energy, and plant more trees. For a carbon negative analogy in trees, we use timber in structures and furniture, locking away the carbon contained within the wood.

Great. I understand now. That is rather fascinating!!

[Foliage]

Basically its a really indirect way of using solar power

[antipody]

Originally Posted by Foliage

Basically its a really indirect way of using solar power

Yes, all power is ultimately solar (even nuclear).

Just like combustion, the exothermic process of pyrolysis is powered by energy that was chemically captured by that chemical wonder of evolution rubisco, passed along the electron transport chain and through the Calvin cycle in plants and bacteria, from the sun.

Even without fancy purpose grown genetically engineered phytomass, the biosphere's "lung size" is actually large enough so that pyrolysis of around one tenth of the biomass that is currently left to decay naturally would allow humans to actually acheive reductions in global atmospheric CO2 while our emissions grew!

ie physically and chemically (putting aside environmental and economic constraints) this process could offset entirely all our current global emissions and allow us to continue to exhaust our fossil fuel reserves at an increasing rate.

Quite a few groups want to pursue this technology, but few are seriously considering it at such scale though, as it doesn't make any money.

Although here is Aus, through the Carbon Farming Initiative we are the first in the world to create a mechanism by which this activity (to the extent that it improves soil) can begin to be credited though, funded by polluters.

[Danske]

This could warrant a side thread similar to this, but what do all think we'll discover that's to humanity's detriment?

We end up finding out in 20-50 years that say for example, Radiowaves/mobiles actually do cause cancer? Or fluoride in water causes cancer (lol)?

I don't believe in the above, I'm just saying examples .

[Eggbert69]

Probably just realising that we should have been more sustainable and switched energy sources to a better source (such as thorium) much earlier than we will end up doing

[James086]

Originally Posted by Danske

This could warrant a side thread similar to this, but what do all think we'll discover that's to humanity's detriment?

We end up finding out in 20-50 years that say for example, Radiowaves/mobiles actually do cause cancer? Or fluoride in water causes cancer (lol)?

I don't believe in the above, I'm just saying examples .

AI.
Let's face it, it's going to be as smart as a human, then twice as smart 18 months later, then 4 times as smart after 3 years etc. just based on hardware advances (assuming we can continue Moore's law with whatever post-silicon lithography). The software will probably improve even faster once we get the AI working on improving itself.

I don't see how it could possibly be restricted considering people are quite capable of hacking software, wouldn't this thing break its own restraints?

Not that I expect a skynet situation but it certainly has some very serious implications.

I expect AI far smarter than a human before 2050.

[Danske]

Originally Posted by James086

AI.
Let's face it, it's going to be as smart as a human, then twice as smart 18 months later, then 4 times as smart after 3 years etc. just based on hardware advances (assuming we can continue Moore's law with whatever post-silicon lithography). The software will probably improve even faster once we get the AI working on improving itself.

I don't see how it could possibly be restricted considering people are quite capable of hacking software, wouldn't this thing break its own restraints?

Not that I expect a skynet situation but it certainly has some very serious implications.

I expect AI far smarter than a human before 2050.

Yeah I've said this a few times but there's a scenario that's hypothesised as the Intelligence Explosion. Basically we create software/machines that are smarter than us, that build software/machines that are smarter then them, not too long we'd be left behind .

[HunterBunter]

Originally Posted by Danske

Yeah I've said this a few times but there's a scenario that's hypothesised as the Intelligence Explosion. Basically we create software/machines that are smarter than us, that build software/machines that are smarter then them, not too long we'd be left behind .

Yeah there was some singularity hypothesis around this about 10 years ago that talked about this...how once that point is reached within 21 years there will be a singularity based on shortening time frames for improvement (ie next generation is conceived faster on faster hardware), but of course it makes the assumption that the design process is linear, which I don't believe it is.

I wonder why an electronic intelligence (I don't think AI appropriately describes something that births another independent machine) would seek to destroy humans unless we were a threat. I imagine we'd be pets pretty quickly and lol'ed at for our squishy bodies and brains.

[James086]

Originally Posted by HunterBunter

I wonder why an electronic intelligence (I don't think AI appropriately describes something that births another independent machine) would seek to destroy humans unless we were a threat. I imagine we'd be pets pretty quickly and lol'ed at for our squishy bodies and brains.

I don't know either way, just like a pet can't understand my actions we won't understand the electronic intelligence's actions.