It'll only happen if some greater threat came along to us all - if that happened then we would band together as a species but given the plot to independence day isn't probably going to happen in the near future we will just squabble over the resources on the planet
Could humans ever live harmoniously
- Thread starter shifty_uk
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 2,964
- Location
- Auckland, New Zealand
No. Our oldest trait - stretching back billions of years is selfishness - everything we do revolves around this inherent 'flaw' that continues to keep our genes alive.
To create a world where everyone got along, we'd need to inhibit that. The only way to actually achieve that would be to create a machine capable of making everyone's most minute decisions for them, after judging that decision to be the best course of action for the whole. The punishment for disobeying the rule would need to be death. Equality would need to be taken to the extreme to stifle jealousy - you'd need to eat the exact same food as everyone else, wear the same clothes. Everyone would have jobs deemed to be equally monotonous (or machines would do that, too) and everyone would be forced to participate in the same activities (though not competitive, of course).
Unfortunately I think the decision-maker would ultimately kill everyone to reach that equilibrium and in such a world, i'd be ok with that (though of course, i'd not be allowed to think as much)
To create a world where everyone got along, we'd need to inhibit that. The only way to actually achieve that would be to create a machine capable of making everyone's most minute decisions for them, after judging that decision to be the best course of action for the whole. The punishment for disobeying the rule would need to be death. Equality would need to be taken to the extreme to stifle jealousy - you'd need to eat the exact same food as everyone else, wear the same clothes. Everyone would have jobs deemed to be equally monotonous (or machines would do that, too) and everyone would be forced to participate in the same activities (though not competitive, of course).
Unfortunately I think the decision-maker would ultimately kill everyone to reach that equilibrium and in such a world, i'd be ok with that (though of course, i'd not be allowed to think as much)
A threat greater than our own (growing) capability to wipe out all mankind at the touch of a button?
Frankly as the number of nuclear reactions/reactors on this planet increases, our ability to work harmoniously had better increase faster!
What is so bad about nuclear reactors?
It's so boring to be an apostle of doom, one of the oldest prophetic professions. 
Some sort of world peace and decreasing levels of violence are inevitable historical trends:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/
Some sort of world peace and decreasing levels of violence are inevitable historical trends:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/
That's a fairly complex question, are we talking about breeder reactors that inherently increase the amount of fissile material on the planet, nuclear energy production programs co-funded with defence and military programs (ala France) that may or may not have aided proliferation of weapons, to an increasing number of nuclear states, or just the rank and file reactors that create a waste product which appear to have no viable program of disposal (beyond bury tiny amounts in giant containers forever) and present threats both from natural catastrophe (Fukushima) or terrorist/external attacks (Stuxnet).
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,367
It's so boring to be an apostle of doom, one of the oldest prophetic professions.
Some sort of world peace and decreasing levels of violence are inevitable historical trends:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/
i wouldn't call those on their own as evidence of decreasing violence- considering the obvious peaks that would be on there if you counted the actions of war.
Just checking as some people seem to think its a trivial step from a nuclear reactor to being able to pump out nuclear bombs.
Certainly not to suggest anyone here are ignorant, nuclear defence and power cheer leaders without a basic grasp of how historically nuclear technology has proliferated which in all probability has made our world an increasingly dangerous place. How many nuclear defence capable states have never had a nuclear energy program?
AFAIK most of those with nuclear weapon capabilities currently developed those before developing a nuclear power industry and many countries like Germany that have or had nuclear power generation haven't had nuclear weapon capabilities.
Its only countries like Iran that have tried to use nuclear power as a stepping stone to nuclear weapons.
So is your position that the proliferation of nuclear energy production had and has no relationship to a "coincidental" proliferation of nuclear defence technology and that the risk of increasing nuclear production sites and nuclear reactors is insignificant?
Most of the current proliferation grew out of the cold war era most of those countries developed their nuclear weapons capabilities well ahead of any established nuclear power capabilities - others like India and Pakistan are due to the balance of power where one couldn't accept the other having that balance.
There are more than 30 countries who have a nuclear power or research program and only 9 with nuclear weapons programs.
I'm not saying the risks associated with increased nuclear reactor capabilities are insignificant but that the link to nuclear weapons proliferation is weak at best.
Civil reactors are really not particularly good machines for manufacturing weapons grade Pu. Even countries with advanced civil programs will still typically use special weapons reactors for cooking up military material.
To get weapons grade Pu from a civil reactor would require one with full on load refuelling capability (CANDU possibly. PWR, No!) and you would be unlikely to be able to get away with using such a reactor for a clandestine project.
Clandestine bomb programs are in any case more likely to go down the HEU route. Easier to hide and easier to make Bombs that work first time.
(Ironically, one possible route for a non-nuclear country to obtain Uranium for a clandestine weapons program is from Coal fly ash. Coal contains significant amounts of natural uranium. The irony is that the energy value of the Uranium in the coal is comparable to the energy value of the coal itself and that the radiation emissions from a Coal station are many times what would be tolerated from a nuclear power plant...)
To get weapons grade Pu from a civil reactor would require one with full on load refuelling capability (CANDU possibly. PWR, No!) and you would be unlikely to be able to get away with using such a reactor for a clandestine project.
Clandestine bomb programs are in any case more likely to go down the HEU route. Easier to hide and easier to make Bombs that work first time.
(Ironically, one possible route for a non-nuclear country to obtain Uranium for a clandestine weapons program is from Coal fly ash. Coal contains significant amounts of natural uranium. The irony is that the energy value of the Uranium in the coal is comparable to the energy value of the coal itself and that the radiation emissions from a Coal station are many times what would be tolerated from a nuclear power plant...)
We're are at historically minimal violence when you factor deaths from conflicts too.
The graph would have a much stronger decreasing trend had it not been for the major conflicts between "Great Powers". Thirty Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, WWI and WWII but the number of conflicts between "Great Powers" is decreasing dramatically:
Trying to remember where/what it was where the chimneys or something from a coal burning plant had a relatively high level of radioactivity.
Civil reactors are really not particularly good machines for manufacturing weapons grade Pu. Even countries with advanced civil programs will still typically use special weapons reactors for cooking up military material.
To get weapons grade Pu from a civil reactor would require one with full on load refuelling capability (CANDU possibly. PWR, No!) and you would be unlikely to be able to get away with using such a reactor for a clandestine project.
Clandestine bomb programs are in any case more likely to go down the HEU route. Easier to hide and easier to make Bombs that work first time.
(Ironically, one possible route for a non-nuclear country to obtain Uranium for a clandestine weapons program is from Coal fly ash. Coal contains significant amounts of natural uranium. The irony is that the energy value of the Uranium in the coal is comparable to the energy value of the coal itself and that the radiation emissions from a Coal station are many times what would be tolerated from a nuclear power plant...)
Genuine question, are you attempting to assert that a proliferation of Civil Nuclear Reactor technology has no meaningful impact on nuclear defence proliferation and even might prevent nuclear defence technology proliferation.
I'm asking because my Professor of Energy and Power production at Southampton (despite his mostly positive stance on nuclear power) really wouldn't have supported that!
Obviously in the case of India the Canadian/Indian reactor, observably it did generate weapons grade plutonium.