Your Questions About Solar Power International

Paul asks…

Would it be right to kill 2,000 of the world's best to save everyone else?

After decades of international cooperation, humankind has completed construction on a massive nuclear-powered spacecraft that is designed to carry 2,000 men and women (aged 25-35) to a Earth-like planet in another solar system. The crew were selected because they are the world's best and brightest: all passed strenuous tests of health, intelligence, and stability…and are leaders in fields like engineering, genetics, philosophy, and medicine. They have all the supplies to successfully colonize the new planet. Because the trip is bound to take so thousands of years, the voyagers have been cryogenically frozen and are in a sleep-like state. The ship is on autopilot.

A few hours after the successful launch, the celebration turns into panic when astronomers notice that a massive asteroid (dinosaur-extinction-size) is on a collision course with the Earth. It seemingly came out of nowhere. If something isn't done quickly, it will hit the Earth.

A scientist from ground control proposes that we reroute the spacecraft to crash into the asteroid (killing everyone aboard) in order to knock the asteroid off course. Upon verification, all the physicists agree that the calculations are correct: the massive spacecraft could knock the asteroid off course and save the Earth. You ask if there are any other options. They tell you that they don't have time to do anything else…that this is the only way. But you must decide within the hour or even this plan will fail.

1)What is the right thing to do? Why?
2)If you could unfreeze the passengers and let them decide, would you?

ssadmin answers:

Would it be “right”?

Ethically, certainly not. You do not sacrifice lives for other lives. No matter what the ratio. One to a thousand? One to a million? It doesn't matter. You do everything in your power up until the last moment, and then you are left to your fate. It's simply serendipitous that those people were put in harm's way. You can't abuse that for your own gain.

Rationally, of course it is right. Seven billion to two thousand? A planet versus a spaceship? It's a great shame, but that easily makes the most sense. Sacrifice few for the good of many, yadda yadda. They learned their skills somewhere, and we would have many more generations of brilliant people to come.

There is this fascinating gray territory in defining “right.” We generally see in history that the most successful, productive leaders are those with questionable morals, but infallible logic skills. (Though, successful does not necessarily mean in a direction that history smiles upon. Some have done great good. Some have done great bad.) When remembering our favorites, they are given a shiny coat of “for the good of mankind! For the love of all that is pure!” But in reality, most made brutal decisions during their “reign” that are glossed over. They were still great leaders.

So, are you led by reason or morals? Unfortunately, they don't always match. People I want as my friends would be led by morals. People I want in charge of my country would be led by reason.

Personally, I would sacrifice the ship. I would know it's unethical, and it wouldn't sit well with me at all. However, I wouldn't doubt my decision. I would not leave the choice up to passengers, but I would let them know.

I find your questions very intriguing. Well done.

Charles asks…

what do you think of my explanation of global warming?

A phenomenon (otherwise known as ‘climate change’ or ‘the greenhouse effect’) whereby solar radiation that has reflected back off the surface of the earth remains trapped at atmospheric levels, due to the build-up of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, rather than being emitted back into space. The effect of this is a warming of the global atmosphere.

Climate change is a long-standing phenomenon, as the mix of the various gases that make up the earth's atmosphere have changed over long periods of time, so average global temperatures have fluctuated. What is alleged to be different about the current spell of global warming is that it is taken to be (1) caused by human action and (2) occurring at an unprecedented rate. The consequences of global warming remain uncertain, but climate change models predict deforestation, desertification, a poleward shift of vegetation and animal populations, rising sea levels, and decreased precipitation.

Global warming has received increasing political attention over the past thirty years, having constituted one of the key themes in the rise of green politics over the same period. This increasing political salience resulted in an intergovernmental meeting in Kyoto in 1997, at which 38 industrialized countries signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. The terms of this agreement were that these nations would reduce their atmospheric emissions of CO2 by an average of 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. This is well below the 60 per cent target that scientists working on climate change claim is necessary to present further global warming, but the agreement was seen by many campaigners as a useful first step that established the framework necessary for further cuts in the future. The Kyoto Protocol will not, however, become effective until it has been ratified by 55 per cent of the signatory nations, and only then if these nations contribute 55 per cent or more of global carbon emissions.

There have been three crucial intergovernmental meetings in the attempt to transform the original protocol into a ratified treaty with legal powers of enforcement. The first of these was at The Hague in November 2000. This meeting broke down over disagreements between the European Union (EU) and the United States—in particular over American proposals to count forests and other vegetation as ‘carbon sinks’, against which their fossil fuel emissions could be set. The EU feared that this would create significant loopholes in the agreement, as the carbon storage capacity of vegetation is uncertain, temporary, and unstable. Following the election of George W. Bush the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that it would inflict disproportionate damage on the US economy. Given that the US produces 24 per cent of global CO2 emissions, its non-participation in any binding agreement remains a serious handicap.

Further climate change negotiations took place in Bonn in July 2001, involving 186 nations, where the Kyoto protocols were successfully translated into an international treaty. In order to achieve agreement the EU nations had to make concessions to Canada, Australia, Japan, and Russia over the extent to which forests could count as ‘carbon sinks’, and over the mechanisms by which any agreement could be enforced. By some estimates this cut the effective size of emission reductions from the proposed 5.2 per cent on 1990 levels to between 1.8 and 3 per cent.Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.2 – 7.2 °F (1.8 – 4.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Gases created through human industrial and agricultural practices (primarily carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and wood, as well as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) increase the hea

ssadmin answers:

This isn't right:

“A phenomenon (otherwise known as ‘climate change’ or ‘the greenhouse effect’)”

Global warming, climate change, and the greenhouse effect are not synonymous. Global warming refers strictly to the increase in temperatures, whereas climate change refers to all of the various changes in the climate that occur as a result of the warming: like changes in wind patterns, precipitation patterns, ocean currents, etc.
Http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#q1

Global warming causes climate change, and global warming is caused by an *enhancement* of the greenhouse effect. Most of the greenhouse effect is natural.

Also it's a bit of an over generalization to say models are predicting “decreased precipitation”. It may be more accurate to say “increased precipitation in some areas and decreased precipitation in others.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/executive-summary.pdf

The policy part seems ok, but I don't really follow that closely enough to be able to say. You should probably mention something about Copenhagen though.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference_2009

Nancy asks…

In Australia wealthy folks have put solar generators on roof! power prices increased massively! poor vs Rich?

Do you think its fair The Australian Labor Party NB foreignors they spell labour funny as the social justice party?

So why on earth have champions of social justice abandoned the poor where the rich rip off the broke so badly?

Its what I call neuveriche new money? Because julia and Kevin are both extremely wealthy and focussed on economic rationalism? They've completely damaged the underclass to abandon traditional working class ideals to care for less fortunates we've in fact got 2/3 caucus not caring votes Kevin could win has what appears delluded behaviours? Three fears exist? 1. That they hurt Julia's feelings coz she's hypocritical and we really dont know who there leader next week? 2. Fear of failure? They identify with being manipulated by fear and loathing? Spiteful mallice from julia? No? We cant hurt her feelings? 3. I think Therese Rein chatted with Christina Kenneally about what it means to allow new blood in? Again? Kevin as a former Prime Minister must be getting fed up of distrust spite and undermining whilst overseas? Maybe Julian Assange should be employed by kevin the way julia fears international transmission???

All these 3 fears are irrational and cannot accept either Kevin julia or Simon Creen are insanely dysgunctionality? They could be narsarcistic psychopath but I doubt it? Wishful thinking its better than what appears to be?

GIVEN THE ABOVE EXCLUDING DEMEANING PUT DOWNS ASKING FOR CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT IN THE POSITIVE ONLY?

Have Labor become criminally insane because if social justice. Is abandoned eustom generous? Meaning same gene? They're soft on crime? YOUR COMMENTS? Its the only thing driving Kevin he doesn't want federal labor no longer a major party like nsw? He's a hero??????

ssadmin answers:

Yep, ever since George Bush privitized the grid in Texas as Governor of Texas, every politician seems to be doing the same. In Texas, the energy costs went from 7 cents a kwh to 25 cents a kwh if you didn't sign a contract, 13 cents a kwh if you did. However, the state capital where the politicians were did not privatize and stayed at 7 cents a kwh. When Bush became President, he boasted about how he saved Texans money. I don't know anything about Australian politics but people are people and will buy into this nonsense too.

Note “Labor” is the American spelling and only Americans spell it that way, you may want to look deeper into where their financing is from.

John asks…

Have You Felt Or Experienced Any Effects From The Solar Flares?

The Sun operates on an approximate 11-year cycle (getting more active for about 11 years, then becoming calmer over the next 11 years). It is now in a period of high activity. This activity is resulting in huge solar flares. Earth is primarily protected from solar flares by its magnetosphere but when the magnetic fields of both the earth and the Sun are aligned in a certain way (anti-parallel), radioactive particles do enter the atmosphere and cause damage to electronics, communication, etc. Large solar storms wiped out entire power grids in Quebec in 1989. In 1859, a “perfect” solar storm fried telegraph wires in Europe and the US, causing fires and injury. Studies are now being done on how this affects humans since the human body has magnetic fields as well. Some studies have been studying how the physical effects can trigger emotional effects as well such as depression.

So do you think you've felt anything or has your smart phone or internet or cable been acting up? A friend of mine just complained to me last week that she was receiving all sorts of weird calls being directed to her phone – international calls. Last night, a guy who relied on his GPS to get him to where one of our meetings was being held found himself 20 miles off course.

Have you seen the aurora – the northern lights which become brighter and more spectacular when charged by these particles that enter our atmosphere?

ssadmin answers:

I've gotten some random out of state phone calls and internet strangeness in the last few months, but I'm not going to automatically attribute those things to solar flares. Correlation doesn't imply causation. I'm not doubting that solar flares can have such affects, I'm just reserving judgement about the causes of individual incidents.

Jenny asks…

How does this sound as a possible future timeline?

For those of you familiar with the work of Neil Howe and William Strauss and their book, “The Fourth Turning,” I would like your opinion on my little time line of U.S. events, then world events through the year 2030. Here it is:

The Fourth American Revolution
America’s:
Debt Crisis
Demographic Crisis
Resource Crisis
Imperial Crisis

2010-2015: Commodity prices spiral upward
Economy mired in stagnation/recession
Debt burden rises for households, corporations, governments
Interest rates surge, financial implosion ensues
Economy crashes into major depression
Federal government bankrupt, dollar collapses, hyperinflation takes hold
Economic collapse continues, unemployment skyrockets, incomes plunge
Entitlement programs cut, military downsized, social unrest explodes, protests, riots, etc…
Government clamps down, martial law, authoritarian establishment
Social revolution, political corruption exposed, government officials overthrown

2015-2020: New government officials elected, constitutional amendments ban political/monetary corruption and career politics, new dollar established
Economic bill of rights passed, total overhaul of financial system and corporations
Plans made for rebuilding infrastructure using new technologies
Attempts made to spread responsibility of world policing to other democratic countries
Authoritarian countries, i.e. China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, reject this
Ideological confrontation ensues between “free” countries and dictatorial countries
Global cold war/trade war begins over power and resources, with sanctions, embargoes
International technology race occurs

2020-2025: Cold war turns aggressive/violent, attack threats are made
“Spark” triggers World War III
“Free” countries form allied power, dictatorial countries form axis power
Combination of demographic and technological headwinds compromise axis powers
Allied powers defeat axis powers
Treaties signed, demobilization begins

2025-2030: New world order established, defends freedom and democracy, abolishes war
World constitution created
Globalization completed
Oil replaced with solar power, food/water production revolutionized, medical revolution
Aging crisis solved with new biotechnology/nanotechnology breakthroughs
Global conscious forming through power of the Internet
Economic prosperity returns

ssadmin answers:

I don't think this could happen over the next two decades. The end sounds like an easily possible eventuality, but I don't think it's gonna happen this way, especially stemming from today's events.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Solar Panel

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments are closed.