Michael Shermer with Richard Rhodes - Energy: A Human History (Science Salon # 25)

[@cruelpulse]

Excellent podcast. An interesting and informative perspective on energy and even human decision making.

[@pianomeister40]

This one really exceeded my expectations. Very informative. He's an interesting gentleman.

[@christophercotton7149]

Really impressive discussion. Much appreciated.

[@mikemullenix6956]

Great interview with an expert Rhodes

[@TwistedLemniscate]

Great video. Honestly my only complaint is this didn't last 3 hours.

[@thetasigma75]

Watching this in February 2023 and only a few months ago scientists achieved fusion power where more energy came out than was put in. It was not a lot, and it was only a few seconds, but the next step is to sustain this reaction with a 1:1+ ratio for lengthier and lengthier periods of time, and also, to miniaturize the equipment. It's expected now that the world will have clean cheap energy for all by 2050.

[@thysvanzyl2782]

The Rhodeses' work on violence also very interesting and very heartwarming to hear about. I was wondering whether the Rhodeses consider Trancendental Meditation and Centering Prayer to be valuable tools for the rehabilitation and therapy of perpetrators and victims of violence. Thomas Keating, a Trappist monk gives talks on ao 'The Psycology of Centering Prayer', and the quantum physicist John Hagelin on amongst others the successful Trancendental Meditation programs run in schools and prisons in the United States. (KZbin)

[@PeterMcLoughlinStargazer1877]

Haber Bosch process in making fertilizer uses a lot of energy and it was a big factor in the green revolution perhaps that is what people were thinking about nuclear power being able to feed people.

[@earlgibbs7083]

One of the greatest existential risks of nuclear-based energy is that there is an extreme lag time of many many years is an ability to shut down that complex infrastructure of production and waste disposal will be lethal when a society or civilization collapse occurs.

[@pbredder]

Huh?

[@spec24]

I remember when Skeptic used to be about Skepticism.

[@TwistedLemniscate]

What is skepticism then? They skepticism of Malthustian population collapse, the long term sustainability of wind and solar, the idea that nuclear power plants are dangerous, etc.

[@pbredder]

You can only improve electrochemical battery-stored energy per pound so much, unfortunately. We are not going to see this double or triple.

[@earlgibbs7083]

Humankind has 3 ongoing nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima, Japan contaminating the entire Pacific Ocean, and the food chain that it supplies. Therefore, nuclear toxic waste with no foreseeable end in sight is being internalized by all those who consume anything coming out of the world's largest ocean. If nuclear power plants are to be built in the future, they must be well away from coastlines and the catastrophes that they impose.

[@lsdzheeusi]

Nice interview but stop 👏 talking 👏 over 👏 your 👏 guests

[@NoWay1969]

10,000-ish people die of starvation every day. We produce 10,000 too many people, every day. The counter to this, that we _could_ feed these people is nonsense. We can't feed them and that is demonstrated by the fact that we don't. Population negatively impacts every threat to humanity's continued existence and thriving. Everything is better with less people.

[@spec24]

You hope that educated, intelligent people listen to Skeptic, but you are proof that they do not. There is no more absurd claim than "it's the population that is the problem." We do, in fact, have fewer people starving today than we did in any time in our past. And certainly as a percentage of the population the number who starve is nearly insignificant. There are >7 billion people on the planet! We lose ~ .1% of the population of the planet to starvation annually. That's hardly the threat to our continued existence and thriving that you and other doomsayers would like to believe. What's nonsense is your absurd remark that we can't feed these people. What in the hell are you even basing that on? I'll tell you: absolutely jack squat. In the past century we have managed to feed and clothe almost the entire population of the Earth. In the US alone we manage not only to feed ourselves but export much of our food to foreign countries and we do it with LESS resources than we used to. Those who are starving are starving due to economic and political reasons that have nothing to do with their numbers. "We can't feed them and that is demonstrated by the fact that we don't." Boy this is retarded. Can you say the same thing about the US? No, because almost no one is starving to death in the US (I say almost no one as there is probably someone, somewhere who is being prevented from eating, but that is not the same thing). Why not? Do you think food magically appears out of the ether here in the US? We aren't JUST producing enough to feed people in the US. Nor is any other first world country. People don't starve here because of Capitalism. "Everything is better with less people." We have more people than ever and by and measure the world is better than it was in the past. Part of that reason is the number of minds working on problems. As economists will tell you, the human mind is the ultimate resource, and the more minds we have, the better off we are. There is nothing you can bring to bear to support that inane statement. Every single piece of evidence is against you. However, if you really believe it to be true, no one is stopping you form ending your life and supposedly helping the planet out.

[@bofbob1]

+No Way Care to explain then why the amount of people starving has steadily decreased over the last century while the global population has steadily increased?

[@21nickik]

The people are starving because they live in a place that does not have enough connection and access. It has NOTHING to do with the ability of humans to produce food, rather to transport it. So unless you think 7 billion people are gone move to these places it is irrelevant.

[@cruelpulse]

+No Way. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that as earth's population grows, quality of life goes down, or rates or starvation go up (per capita or otherwise). It seems to be the complete opposite that is the case. Over time the population goes up, more people work and innovate, production goes up as does wealth and prosperity in general.