Afternoon Mike ……Items were once made to last …..be serviceable and repairable ……food scraps were fed to the swine …..Grandmothers used a shopping cart and canvas bag to purchase grocery’s from street markets vendors …….Trolley cars were built to last ….no rubber tires to be replaced ….non polluting …..electric motors ….no gas or diesel fuel ……Walt Disney showcased the Monorail ….futuristic …..fast …efficient ….takes up little real estate ……Safe……yet 60 years after their introduction …..We only have Walt Disneys two very efficient ….Monorails
Dear Michael, what I know is that the Universe moves on - self-correcting and always on time. So you are right - the Earth, our Mother will survive us. Might we look to the Indigenous peoples' Wisdom who always knew our connection to the Earth - honored it, lived within it. I believe it is their time and destiny.
I was fortunate to hear Bucky Fuller speak at Florida State U. on Earth Day (1974 I think) and it really made an impression on me. If the Earth were a 1 foot steel ball, and you breathed on it, the layer of condensation would represent the depth of all Life on this Planet. We live on a pebble in space, tiny compared to some of our neighbors. Yet, we have allowed a tiny minority of mostly men to mess up this literal Garden of Eden for Money!
I pray one day, a global epiphany will happen, and people will wake up to the amazing Life all around us, on us, in us, is us! Will it into being! OM!
You're more optimistic than I am, Michael. I do not think that capitalists have the will to do what they can, and I agree that the largest "green" groups have become polluted by the money they receive from these capitalists. There's no time to go slowly, and I don't believe that a million Gretas will be able to stop what's happening. The rise in depression that people are expressing these days seems, at bottom, to be the realization that we're not going to do this--but this is quickly covered over by the millions of distractions out there that beckon all of us everyday. I'm not usually a pessimist, but this time I can't deny what I see happening.
Humankind is challenged, as it has never been before, to prove its maturity and its mastery - not of nature, but of itself.” - Rachel Carson #SustainableLiving 🌎
Words to think upon. My allegiance to Sierra Club and the auto industries pleas for electric cars fell when I found out where those batteries to fuel the electric cars will come from and what a toll they will take on our planet. REALLY??? There are no easy answers and I am not to blame. My use of the correct light bulb, recycling of food scraps , bottles, cans, etc., will not save the planet nor me. The corporations and billionaires must take our salvation on by making changes we and they may not like, but are essential for survival. I'm tired of trying to save the planet by turning off my lights!
I was born in 1954. In 1974, I made the decision not to have kids. (Actually it was probably way before that. I can't ever remember wanting kids). I knew that I didn't want to bring a human being into this world. Viet Nam, wars between Israel and Palestinians, racial discrimination, pollution too many people on the planet. I am so glad I don't have kids and grand kids. What's life going to be like going forward?
I find it difficult to understand why people still want to bring babies into the world now. They are adding to the problems. It's so much worse than 50 years ago and getting worse faster and faster. When someone tells me so and so is having a baby or grandchild, it makes me sad. I wonder what their life will be like when they're an adult or 68 years old.
I hope climate change can be slowed down but it not looking very hopeful. The human race is too greedy.
I'm with you. I believed in zero population growth when they talked about it in the 60s and never had children either. It makes me sad too to see all the babies being born with no thought for tomorrow. Our world is going to change drastically in the next 10 years and we won't have food to feed out populations.
Pam, I support the right of anyone to procreate, but we also need to normalize being childfree. Once that happens, people may be more inclined not to bow to pressure to have children, and then we may be able to better conserve what resources are left.
I agree with what you are saying. Just because people have the right to have kids, but it doesn't mean they have to. They should seriously consider the state of our earthly problems first.
SIXTY % of US citizens are OBESE. NOT 42% as the authorities claim. Morbid obesity is the fastest growing (no pun) segment. In five years given the real stats and the aging population half of us won't be able to really function. I am organizing all the real data. FATNESS is a big money maker. BUT i it has succeeded too well: DEAD people have very little PURCHASING POWER. Joan Breibart
It’s time for another chapter in the "Thorium Roundup." This time it's back to the basics and the classic elements: earth, water, air, and particularly fire. FIRE -- the most basic form of energy -- HEAT -- the most fundamental resource of modern industry -- an absolute essential for our lives. We can't do without fire, heat, and the fuel to feed the fires of life and industry. Energy density has been evolving: from wood, to coal, to crude oil, to natural gas, and now back to earth, and the uranium and thorium contained in the rocks we stand on.
Yup! Our worldwide population of 7 billion people gets about 14% of the heat they need by "burning" the rocks of the earth in atomic "stoves" -- a process of splitting atoms -- nuclear fission. The other 86% are still burning wood and coal -- but mostly wood. Haiti ran out of wood and is poaching trees in the Dominican Republic. Wood (and anything else that will burn) is vanishing from the fringes of the expanding Sahara desert. Uncontrolled fission in a bomb the size of a basketball will create an explosion powerful enough to level most of New York City. Fortunately we know how to use and control the fission process, to slowly create huge amounts of useful heat from just a very few rocks.
Thousands of years ago someone watched while lightning started a forest fire, and noticed how the forest animals fled from the fire. Aha! Why not use fire to keep the people-eating animals away at night? But, some folks had an overwhelming fear of the fire, refused to learn how to use and control the fire, and were soon eaten by the night predators. Before long only the fire users survived to expand the population. We may be facing a similar situation today as we struggle to learn to use and control the *nuclear* fires provided by modern physics and engineering.
The first thing we need to learn is the distinction between SOLID and LIQUID nuclear fuel. This is similar to the difference between coal and coal-oil (my grandmother's term for kerosene). The fuel, either liquid or solid, can be used in a kitchen *stove* to produce heat.
Nuclear reactors are just another type of *stove* we use to produce heat. Very few people are aware that reactors can use either SOLID FUEL or LIQUID FUEL (which includes thorium) to produce heat. Like the ash and carbon dioxide left from burning coal, a solid reactor fuel (either uranium or thorium, or some combination of the two) leaves 98% of the solid fuel as 10-millenia toxic trash. Like the soot and carbon dioxide left from burning coal-oil, liquid reactor fuel (molten salts) leaves much less that 1% of the liquid fuel as 300-year toxic trash.
Maybe someday we'll be able to convert heat directly to electricity on an industrial scale, but for now we're stuck with using turbines (much like jet engines) to spin the electric generators. The turbines are driven by either steam or high-temperature gas (such as helium or carbon dioxide). Steam is produced by SOLID fuel *stoves* (coal-fired or nuclear), burning either coal (and/or natural gas), or uranium (and/or thorium). High temperature gas is produced by LIQUID fuel *stoves*, i.e., thorium-fueled molten salt reactors (TFMSRs).
In order to get enough heat energy into steam to spin the turbines, the steam has to be produced in a pressure-cooker at pressures several hundred times higher than your kitchen *stove* pressure cooker. Pressure cooker explosions are the riskiest thing about solid fuel reactors, and they account for most of the cost for redundant safety systems. No "soft plugs" can be used for safety in the case of boiling water reactors.
Producing super-heated gas (s-CO2) with a molten (liquid) salt reactor, is a NO-PRESSURE process. The molten salts absorb several hundred times as much heat energy as can be contained in high-pressure steam. The salts are molten (liquid) at atmospheric pressures, and at a wide temperature range far, far below their boiling point. The molten salts transfer heat energy to a non-toxic, non-radioactive gas at extremely high temperature and pressure, which will spin a turbine and generator to convert nearly 50% of the heat energy into electricity. 50% is a really impressive efficiency. The best steam efficiency is around 30%.
So be aware of the SOLID vs. FLUID fuel distinction when you see thorium reactors being criticized. The criticism is probably true in the case of solid fuel, but totally irrelevant and untrue in the case of liquid fuel.
Mike, you are generalizing unfairly about humanity, as though all humans are equally responsible for the climate catastrophes. There are plenty of indigenous people around the world who have been at the forefront of struggles to address the cause of climate disaster. Blaming a collective "we" is close to telling people that it is a result of human nature to destroy much of the rest of nature and thus humanity. Well, if you convince people that is true, you will have succeeded in shutting down struggle because we are not going to change human nature. Yes, everything humans do is part of human nature, including struggling to overcome global capital as the root cause of climate disaster. Einstein reminded us that we cannot change human nature, but we can change institutions, and therein rests our hope for a livable future. That comment is about your reflection up to the italicized ending, where you finally note that we can work collectively to create a decent future... peace, d
Disagree the struggle is bout changing human nature. All the great teachers came to teach us how to do EXACTLY THAT. Our arrogance and superior attitudes are destroying us we are all complicit in many ways. The truth hurts no one wants to hear it much less accept it. We will all die it is the human condition - it is not however our planets condition and she is angry and we are disposable. She us not- suck it up buttercup-we have caused this.
Yes, the truth hurts, but the truth is not that humans are driven by their nature to destroy much of the rest of nature. The question is "under what conditions will some humans work to destroy much of the rest of nature?" The answer to that seems rather obvious: an economic system that is driven to expand, extract, expropriate, and exterminate. The same humans who work in the upper levels of those economic institutions, and are driven to serve and service the climate changing and eco-system destroying imperatives of that system, would, under other conditions, never dream of making decisions that destroy future prospects for a decent life on earth for most if not all. Again, the indigenous folks who have been at the forefront of the struggle possess the same human nature as the rest of humanity; so do the young folks in the Sunrise Movement. If by "human nature," you mean "human behaviors," then the answer is " yes, we must change the nature of the behavior of many humans," and, as far as I can tell, that means changing the institutions that drive some humans to behave in such dangerous, destructive, and deadly ways. The same oil company CEO who is driven by the institution in which he works to make decisions that destroy nature, would, if he had been kidnapped at one day old and raised in an indigenous community in the Amazon, never even dream of making such decisions. Would his human nature be any different? No. He would be the same biological person but much different socially, ideologically, and culturally. So, the struggle is not to change human nature (not possible), but to change the nature of human existence.
Very thoughtful and observant way to look at this, Doug. Makes more sense to me than anything else at all. And hopeful, too. We all know this. No one articulates it quite this way. Genius. Thank you!
Connie, thanks for sharing the thoughts. Out the kitchen window this morning is a giant pear tree in blossom, squirrels and rabbits in the yard, and plenty of kale and lettuce growing in the garden. This part of the world is in Mechanicsburg, PA. in peace and solidarity, d
Thank you for this post. Aside from the personification of nature, I agree with your views 100%. It’s a relief to hear someone else telling the truth, the huge truth that I don’t hear anyone in government saying, which is that we need to drastically change the way we are living here on earth, that with our population size, our lifestyles are not sustainable. Sadly, we seem to to keep revealing how incapable we are of reasoned change. We are a self-centered voracious and destructive species. I just hope we don’t take down too many other forms of life on our way out. How I wish I had been born a tree…
Wildlife in Chernobyl has managed to thrive now that humans left the mess over there for nature to clean up. Maybe there's hope for future life on Earth.
Sad but true. The question is, what can we do about it,and whether its to late to reverse? Hell of a legacy we are leaving our children and grandchildren.
Afternoon Mike ……Items were once made to last …..be serviceable and repairable ……food scraps were fed to the swine …..Grandmothers used a shopping cart and canvas bag to purchase grocery’s from street markets vendors …….Trolley cars were built to last ….no rubber tires to be replaced ….non polluting …..electric motors ….no gas or diesel fuel ……Walt Disney showcased the Monorail ….futuristic …..fast …efficient ….takes up little real estate ……Safe……yet 60 years after their introduction …..We only have Walt Disneys two very efficient ….Monorails
Dear Michael, what I know is that the Universe moves on - self-correcting and always on time. So you are right - the Earth, our Mother will survive us. Might we look to the Indigenous peoples' Wisdom who always knew our connection to the Earth - honored it, lived within it. I believe it is their time and destiny.
I was fortunate to hear Bucky Fuller speak at Florida State U. on Earth Day (1974 I think) and it really made an impression on me. If the Earth were a 1 foot steel ball, and you breathed on it, the layer of condensation would represent the depth of all Life on this Planet. We live on a pebble in space, tiny compared to some of our neighbors. Yet, we have allowed a tiny minority of mostly men to mess up this literal Garden of Eden for Money!
I pray one day, a global epiphany will happen, and people will wake up to the amazing Life all around us, on us, in us, is us! Will it into being! OM!
The world would have been better off if women had run it, their instincts for survival (maternal) could have been in our favor💓
I'm in favor of women being in charge for the next 2000 yrs since men have shown what a great job they can do!
Hope that was said w/sarcasm! Try reading books by Leonard Schlain, for a better type of world 🧠🫀👁
Well, the world is on track to crash humanity and most of the animals due primarily to greed. So yes, sarcasm. Why else have women in charge.
Except Margaret Thatcher of course.
You're more optimistic than I am, Michael. I do not think that capitalists have the will to do what they can, and I agree that the largest "green" groups have become polluted by the money they receive from these capitalists. There's no time to go slowly, and I don't believe that a million Gretas will be able to stop what's happening. The rise in depression that people are expressing these days seems, at bottom, to be the realization that we're not going to do this--but this is quickly covered over by the millions of distractions out there that beckon all of us everyday. I'm not usually a pessimist, but this time I can't deny what I see happening.
I think it's possible that the baby boomers will be the last generation to live to old age.
At least with coffee and chocolate.
Humankind is challenged, as it has never been before, to prove its maturity and its mastery - not of nature, but of itself.” - Rachel Carson #SustainableLiving 🌎
Words to think upon. My allegiance to Sierra Club and the auto industries pleas for electric cars fell when I found out where those batteries to fuel the electric cars will come from and what a toll they will take on our planet. REALLY??? There are no easy answers and I am not to blame. My use of the correct light bulb, recycling of food scraps , bottles, cans, etc., will not save the planet nor me. The corporations and billionaires must take our salvation on by making changes we and they may not like, but are essential for survival. I'm tired of trying to save the planet by turning off my lights!
I was born in 1954. In 1974, I made the decision not to have kids. (Actually it was probably way before that. I can't ever remember wanting kids). I knew that I didn't want to bring a human being into this world. Viet Nam, wars between Israel and Palestinians, racial discrimination, pollution too many people on the planet. I am so glad I don't have kids and grand kids. What's life going to be like going forward?
I find it difficult to understand why people still want to bring babies into the world now. They are adding to the problems. It's so much worse than 50 years ago and getting worse faster and faster. When someone tells me so and so is having a baby or grandchild, it makes me sad. I wonder what their life will be like when they're an adult or 68 years old.
I hope climate change can be slowed down but it not looking very hopeful. The human race is too greedy.
Right now being a parent is very painful. I can't keep my kids safe from what's happening to our planet.
🙏🏻🌎💚😥💚🌎🙏🏻
I'm with you. I believed in zero population growth when they talked about it in the 60s and never had children either. It makes me sad too to see all the babies being born with no thought for tomorrow. Our world is going to change drastically in the next 10 years and we won't have food to feed out populations.
Pam, I support the right of anyone to procreate, but we also need to normalize being childfree. Once that happens, people may be more inclined not to bow to pressure to have children, and then we may be able to better conserve what resources are left.
I agree with what you are saying. Just because people have the right to have kids, but it doesn't mean they have to. They should seriously consider the state of our earthly problems first.
SIXTY % of US citizens are OBESE. NOT 42% as the authorities claim. Morbid obesity is the fastest growing (no pun) segment. In five years given the real stats and the aging population half of us won't be able to really function. I am organizing all the real data. FATNESS is a big money maker. BUT i it has succeeded too well: DEAD people have very little PURCHASING POWER. Joan Breibart
Dear Michael,
It’s time for another chapter in the "Thorium Roundup." This time it's back to the basics and the classic elements: earth, water, air, and particularly fire. FIRE -- the most basic form of energy -- HEAT -- the most fundamental resource of modern industry -- an absolute essential for our lives. We can't do without fire, heat, and the fuel to feed the fires of life and industry. Energy density has been evolving: from wood, to coal, to crude oil, to natural gas, and now back to earth, and the uranium and thorium contained in the rocks we stand on.
Yup! Our worldwide population of 7 billion people gets about 14% of the heat they need by "burning" the rocks of the earth in atomic "stoves" -- a process of splitting atoms -- nuclear fission. The other 86% are still burning wood and coal -- but mostly wood. Haiti ran out of wood and is poaching trees in the Dominican Republic. Wood (and anything else that will burn) is vanishing from the fringes of the expanding Sahara desert. Uncontrolled fission in a bomb the size of a basketball will create an explosion powerful enough to level most of New York City. Fortunately we know how to use and control the fission process, to slowly create huge amounts of useful heat from just a very few rocks.
Thousands of years ago someone watched while lightning started a forest fire, and noticed how the forest animals fled from the fire. Aha! Why not use fire to keep the people-eating animals away at night? But, some folks had an overwhelming fear of the fire, refused to learn how to use and control the fire, and were soon eaten by the night predators. Before long only the fire users survived to expand the population. We may be facing a similar situation today as we struggle to learn to use and control the *nuclear* fires provided by modern physics and engineering.
The first thing we need to learn is the distinction between SOLID and LIQUID nuclear fuel. This is similar to the difference between coal and coal-oil (my grandmother's term for kerosene). The fuel, either liquid or solid, can be used in a kitchen *stove* to produce heat.
Nuclear reactors are just another type of *stove* we use to produce heat. Very few people are aware that reactors can use either SOLID FUEL or LIQUID FUEL (which includes thorium) to produce heat. Like the ash and carbon dioxide left from burning coal, a solid reactor fuel (either uranium or thorium, or some combination of the two) leaves 98% of the solid fuel as 10-millenia toxic trash. Like the soot and carbon dioxide left from burning coal-oil, liquid reactor fuel (molten salts) leaves much less that 1% of the liquid fuel as 300-year toxic trash.
Maybe someday we'll be able to convert heat directly to electricity on an industrial scale, but for now we're stuck with using turbines (much like jet engines) to spin the electric generators. The turbines are driven by either steam or high-temperature gas (such as helium or carbon dioxide). Steam is produced by SOLID fuel *stoves* (coal-fired or nuclear), burning either coal (and/or natural gas), or uranium (and/or thorium). High temperature gas is produced by LIQUID fuel *stoves*, i.e., thorium-fueled molten salt reactors (TFMSRs).
In order to get enough heat energy into steam to spin the turbines, the steam has to be produced in a pressure-cooker at pressures several hundred times higher than your kitchen *stove* pressure cooker. Pressure cooker explosions are the riskiest thing about solid fuel reactors, and they account for most of the cost for redundant safety systems. No "soft plugs" can be used for safety in the case of boiling water reactors.
Producing super-heated gas (s-CO2) with a molten (liquid) salt reactor, is a NO-PRESSURE process. The molten salts absorb several hundred times as much heat energy as can be contained in high-pressure steam. The salts are molten (liquid) at atmospheric pressures, and at a wide temperature range far, far below their boiling point. The molten salts transfer heat energy to a non-toxic, non-radioactive gas at extremely high temperature and pressure, which will spin a turbine and generator to convert nearly 50% of the heat energy into electricity. 50% is a really impressive efficiency. The best steam efficiency is around 30%.
So be aware of the SOLID vs. FLUID fuel distinction when you see thorium reactors being criticized. The criticism is probably true in the case of solid fuel, but totally irrelevant and untrue in the case of liquid fuel.
Rod Clemetson
Holton, KS
785-851-8347
Mike, you are generalizing unfairly about humanity, as though all humans are equally responsible for the climate catastrophes. There are plenty of indigenous people around the world who have been at the forefront of struggles to address the cause of climate disaster. Blaming a collective "we" is close to telling people that it is a result of human nature to destroy much of the rest of nature and thus humanity. Well, if you convince people that is true, you will have succeeded in shutting down struggle because we are not going to change human nature. Yes, everything humans do is part of human nature, including struggling to overcome global capital as the root cause of climate disaster. Einstein reminded us that we cannot change human nature, but we can change institutions, and therein rests our hope for a livable future. That comment is about your reflection up to the italicized ending, where you finally note that we can work collectively to create a decent future... peace, d
Disagree the struggle is bout changing human nature. All the great teachers came to teach us how to do EXACTLY THAT. Our arrogance and superior attitudes are destroying us we are all complicit in many ways. The truth hurts no one wants to hear it much less accept it. We will all die it is the human condition - it is not however our planets condition and she is angry and we are disposable. She us not- suck it up buttercup-we have caused this.
Yes, the truth hurts, but the truth is not that humans are driven by their nature to destroy much of the rest of nature. The question is "under what conditions will some humans work to destroy much of the rest of nature?" The answer to that seems rather obvious: an economic system that is driven to expand, extract, expropriate, and exterminate. The same humans who work in the upper levels of those economic institutions, and are driven to serve and service the climate changing and eco-system destroying imperatives of that system, would, under other conditions, never dream of making decisions that destroy future prospects for a decent life on earth for most if not all. Again, the indigenous folks who have been at the forefront of the struggle possess the same human nature as the rest of humanity; so do the young folks in the Sunrise Movement. If by "human nature," you mean "human behaviors," then the answer is " yes, we must change the nature of the behavior of many humans," and, as far as I can tell, that means changing the institutions that drive some humans to behave in such dangerous, destructive, and deadly ways. The same oil company CEO who is driven by the institution in which he works to make decisions that destroy nature, would, if he had been kidnapped at one day old and raised in an indigenous community in the Amazon, never even dream of making such decisions. Would his human nature be any different? No. He would be the same biological person but much different socially, ideologically, and culturally. So, the struggle is not to change human nature (not possible), but to change the nature of human existence.
Very thoughtful and observant way to look at this, Doug. Makes more sense to me than anything else at all. And hopeful, too. We all know this. No one articulates it quite this way. Genius. Thank you!
Thanks for sharing the kind words... in peace and solidarity, d
Morning Doug,
Thought of you as I read this in April 20 Cape Cod Times-- was posted April 19, yet still in today's paper.
"Sustainable agriculture: Cape Cod food forests produce nuts, fruit".
I didn't know about this effort until today. Right up my alley!
Anyhoo, thought you might be uplifted knowing what's up grass-roots wise.
Don't know what part of the world you occupy. Hope you have a nice view from your kitchen window. (A simple joy for me always.)
Thanks for your comments, too.
Peace.
Connie, thanks for sharing the thoughts. Out the kitchen window this morning is a giant pear tree in blossom, squirrels and rabbits in the yard, and plenty of kale and lettuce growing in the garden. This part of the world is in Mechanicsburg, PA. in peace and solidarity, d
Beautiful.
Listening to Van Morrison's Keep It Simple CD as I write this---then off into the backyard for cleanup / gardening.
Enjoy the moments of today.
listening to "Cubanismo"
Dinosaurs huh? At least they had an excuse! We're the ones with Superior Brains but no excuse. Shame on us!
Thanks Michael.
Thank you for this post. Aside from the personification of nature, I agree with your views 100%. It’s a relief to hear someone else telling the truth, the huge truth that I don’t hear anyone in government saying, which is that we need to drastically change the way we are living here on earth, that with our population size, our lifestyles are not sustainable. Sadly, we seem to to keep revealing how incapable we are of reasoned change. We are a self-centered voracious and destructive species. I just hope we don’t take down too many other forms of life on our way out. How I wish I had been born a tree…
Wildlife in Chernobyl has managed to thrive now that humans left the mess over there for nature to clean up. Maybe there's hope for future life on Earth.
We can all do something to turn around the fossil fuel system: this Friday is EarthDay- you can find something going on near you!
It's more that fossil fuel. Humans are squandering Earth's resources like there's no tomorrow, which ironically is probably the case.
Roger that but good place to start becoming conscious methinks!
Great writer you are
Sad but true. The question is, what can we do about it,and whether its to late to reverse? Hell of a legacy we are leaving our children and grandchildren.