The capital of the Terran Star Empire

Also, who said that wind energy is green? Wind enegery sucks the energy out of the atmosphere and does not replace it. if lots of countries have 10% of their entire energy supplied by wind....well thats a MASSIVE ammount of energy that is not being replaced. Hardly 'green'.

Damn, that's a good point. Who know what kind of damage that could do to the atmosphere. At that volume it could certainly disrupt world weather patterns, right?

mailto:second_chance@cox.net
The Ultimate Guide To Modding: I-War 2 - Edge Of Chaos (on hold during SW MP mod)
cartoons.sev.com.au/index.php?catid=4
.

Some seem to be "fixed" in "traditional" thinking:)
We are used to explain the world, its physics and rules, our economy, technical evolution and society by human discovery and history. That's natural.

Let's bring some light to our civilisation:
daylight - fireplace - torch - candle - oillamp - gaslight - electric bulb - neon tube...
This row is not complete and may be mixed up, but I only want to get you the clou.

Now let's change the evolution because our early ancestor fears the fire so much, but loves those little glowing insects lit by fluorescence. What would have happened? He would have breed them to illuminate his cave? Found out how to extract the light some thousand years later and developed another string of light history for mankind?

Maybe we would never have heared of a neon tube.

All explanations of need for tons of steel, bulbs and stuff are based on our already happened path of technology.
Change it and the needs will change.

Assuming there are some ET's out there, their evolution should have been very different from ours. Maybe they'd travel in big frozen waterspheres and reflect only ultraviolet light?

Rising a "second" human race may result in very different technology.
It will be based on terrestrian resources - no question.

But to second your arguments, I think the early inventions are based on observations of nature and physics. Gravitation, frictional resistance, certain characteristics of homo sapiens environment will be identical. This will create a rather similar platform for further inventions and development. The basics would be the same, but our technology tree would be different.

I guess all of you will confirm to the next:)

Remember one of your first (space)games, where you had to develop your empire/race by collecting raw materials and research. Depending on your decisions what to develop first, your level of development was different - including pros and cons.

Copy this experience to our development...

And don't forget to influence your technological path with politics, social demand and coincidental events.
Gotcha?

edit
The petrochemical industry is one of the mightiest rulers of the world. Who decides actually what happens? Where to be involved in regional conflicts? Where to have an eye on and where to look away?
The industrialized nations are dependent on regular oil supply. Most of the resources are in the Middle East - it's "vital" (or simply lucrative?) important to get control over these supplies.
There are some other conflicts around the world, but they seem to be neglectable. No "international/us intervention" as long as no oil is concerned. Some more or less critical words of the UN shall solve the problems and bring "freedom" for the people.
(the oily guy nods his head to his armed colleague who wants to sell some weapons)
Who decides to give this world the solution for its energy problem, as long as you can make big money with selling oil and the things made from oil?
Maybe there are some great solutions hidden in the tresors of Shell and Exxon, bought or forced to be kept secret? Do you imagine a motivation for that?
As Second Chance mentioned before, altruism is not common, neither for the economy, nor for an individual who wants to make some money, who has been offered a paradise or has been forced to keep its mouth shut.
/edit




There is no safe distance

You guys are "blaming" the lack of an alternativ energy source on supposidly conspiratory efforts of the oil industry. You are using an assumption and a paradox: You can't prove that other sources exist so your asking others to prove thier nonexistance (which is scientifically impossible)

Right! Middle east has oil and American, as well as European, oil companies are economically powerfull but that isn't relevant to the existance of energy itself.
If any other country had something equally cheap to produce and as easy to refine as Oil it would be in use and someone would be selling it. There is no such product.

You can't expect an oil company, who is in the business if making money by selling a source of energy, to spend more money on alternative sources than on the readily avaliable source they already have. That would be contrary to economics.

Oil companies no doubt do conspire, use gullable politicians and even influence wars. They are busy making sure they have access to what they know how to produce and sell best. That is how they deal with thier business. They are not afraid of competition. There simply is no other cheaper source of energy. Otherwise they would be selling it too, using the same methods.

SC, "Cash Rules" is only true if you have a singularily materialistic perspective. You are confusing power with economics. They are two different things.

Tarcoon, there have been several studies that came to the conclusion that any sucessfull alien life would in principal have to be simular to us: Bipeds so they have hands to use tools, an uneven number of fingers and a thumb for grasping objects, 2 eyes, ears and nostrils (for depth and field of perspective as well as orientation).
They would probably go through different stages of technical and social development in much the same manner as we did (or are currently doing).
It's fun to think up alternative ways, but a civilization based on adeptness at breeding Light bugs sounds to me a little like trying to do gene manipulation without a microscope
A German monk (Mendelson?) didn't get too far with that method either several hundered years ago. He was a pioneer and discovered many of the laws used today in the field of genetic manipulation, but at the time he couldn't do anything with his knowledge except breed different colored flowers.
You can skip missions in a PC game or skip courses at school, but you can't skip steps in the process of development.







Iwar2 Multiplayer Fan Site

You can't expect an oil company, who is in the business if making money by selling a source of energy, to spend more money on alternative sources than on the readily avaliable source they already have. That would be contrary to economics.

Well then, change the system. If corperations cannot take advantage of new technolgoies for the benifit of the host human race/ country / people because it 'goes against their style'. Then obviously their style is not suited to that particular enviroment and they should be removed and replaced with a system whos style dictates that newer/better sources of energy are used EVEN IF it means they 'lose profit'. The most viable option I can forsee is a national system which is rewarded for performance, not 'profit'.

Oil companies no doubt do conspire, use gullable politicians and even influence wars. They are busy making sure they have access to what they know how to produce and sell best. That is how they deal with thier business. They are not afraid of competition.

understatement

There simply is no other cheaper source of energy. Otherwise they would be selling it too, using the same methods.

And why do you think that cheaper=better. Nothing is free, everything has a consequence. At the moment it is the very likly distruction of our race though the enviroment going though Global Thermal Chaos (not 'warming', the phrase 'global warming' is an innaccurate statement).

The larger the private companny/busness the higher the probabilty that the said entity will become less efficent/not as functional as a national system, until it gets to the point where the private company business is parastic. The past 30years has been a very clear indication that this is the case, time and time again.

second chance : damn, that's a good point. Who know what kind of damage that could do to the atmosphere. At that volume it could certainly disrupt world weather patterns, right?

Thats what it is like to have a mind like mine, i can look at a systemm, and see the critical weakpoint. I pull the pin and everyone either gets angry, confused or occassionally goes 'damn, that's a good point'. The more effort and energy placed into said system, the higher the probabilty the first event happens and the lower the probabilty that the 3rd event happens, well thats just the way us humans are.

MajorTom, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of alternative sources (although personally, I believe there are many), I was just trying to point out how hard alternatives currently are to develop with the odds stacked so high against you. The Simpsons thing was just for amusement, I thought it would get everybody laughing. (Guess you guys don't love The Simpsons as much as I do .)

A future without the influence of the oil industry would be much more open for the exploration of alternatives. I don't know if anything would ever be found that was as easily used as coal and oil, but finding out wouldn't be the problem it is today.

My Rules of Cash was just me being silly. But will you agree that enough power will influence an economy? It's hard to describe just how oppressive the oil industry is to Americans. They've gone to great lengths to destroy or discredit any attempts at finding a release from our dependence on oil. Any Americans here enjoy that last gas price stunt they pulled when we invaded Iraq? It's up to $3.10 per gallon in Santa Barbara. Interesting that the president gave tax breaks to anyone buying large, gas-thirsty SUV type vehicles just before that.

mailto:second_chance@cox.net
The Ultimate Guide To Modding: I-War 2 - Edge Of Chaos (on hold during SW MP mod)
cartoons.sev.com.au/index.php?catid=4
.

Without the continual "freeing up" of the primary resource (human creativity) other developments would not have been possible. All that takes time and is based on advancement one step at a time.

I agree. In fact, I would be willing to state that the level of technology a society achieves is directly related to availaible energy per capita (per person).

And energy sources are few. Almost all "alternative" energy sources are actually solar energy. Either plants, or direct solar collection. And most "alternative" sources are very low quality.

By quality I mean the amount of energy produced, minus the energy needed to build the energy source. An invented example, if a solar panel takes 10 megawatts to build, it works for 5 years, and each year gives back 2 megawatts, then this energy "source" is actually useless. Because it takes as much energy to build as it will ever give back. This makes it "low" quality.

Windmills rust, dams silt up, photocells corrode, soils erode. All these kinds of factors lower the quality of alternative energy sources. And that means you need way, way more sources to get the same amount of useful power production.

And as a guess, I don't think a wood burning society (or some other solar source) can get the energy densities that are needed to make the technological leap to Fusion. Assuming fusion can be reached by any society. And assuming fusion is a high quality source, which it is not today.

-Gtrout