gobblox38 t1_jal95lh wrote on March 2, 2023 at 5:48 AM

>>We (humans) weren't around for those 5 mass extinctions.

>So what.

You really don't understand the significance here.

>>The 6th mass extinction will very likely take us with it.

>Doubt it. Humans will be the cause of human extinction. At that rate it's not an extinction it's darwinism. Spending money on diverting astroids is proof of what I'm saying.

We're the apex predator on this planet. If the ecosystem collapses, it'll take us with it. And yes, humans are the main cause of the current mass extinction event.

And no, spending money on research to deflect asteroids does not prove what you're saying.

>Perhaps you've heard of every kind of government funding into research ever is for weaponizing the stated goal.

Yeah, like how the smallpox vaccine program was really about weaponization. /s

>We wouldn't have nuclear bombs if it wasn't for the benevolent purpose of finding clean energy.

You are completely wrong. Nuclear programs came out of advancements in physics. Quantum mechanics showed that there was enormous energy potential locked away in atoms. Splitting these atoms in a controlled reaction would release energy. It was WW2 and the possibility of other belligerent nations building the atomic bomb that spurred American research. It had nothing to do with finding clean energy.

>This goes for any significant government funding into research. Its true purpose is war, under the lie of something more benign.

Sure, a lot space technologies can have military applications. So what? The ability to image the surface of a planet can have military applications, should we have never invested into that even though the same technology is used to find tumors in a living person?

I'm not really seeing the point of your position.

CptHammer_ t1_jalwsjc wrote on March 2, 2023 at 10:58 AM

>And yes, humans are the main cause of the current mass extinction event.

Glad we can agree. So instead of stopping that we keep that moving forward by sending resources to space.

>Yeah, like how the smallpox vaccine program was really about weaponization. /s

You don't know that it wasn't government funded research? Seriously? You put /s as if you think the opposite of what you wrote. Which means you think the government decided to fund medical advancements back in late 1700s. They didn't, specifically England didn't.

Governments have however funded the weaponizing of vaccine technology with little success.

>You are completely wrong.

Then you go on to explain how I'm completely correct... I'm confused. The government poured money into nuclear energy only to weaponize it. Your explanation is out of fear that someone would weaponize it.

Fear realized!

But we'll never do anything like that again, right? We're interested in controlling astroids for good not evil, but if one other person says it could be used for evil you think we'll definitely not repeat an endless cycle of history. I'm sceptical.

>Sure, a lot space technologies can have military applications. So what?

You support war funding. That's all, not peace funding. You should just be honest with yourself. You're about self preservation and "protecting the planet" is incidental if it happens. It's the least important thing to you, but at least it's on the list.

CptHammer_ t1_jamyovq wrote on March 2, 2023 at 4:17 PM

1932 a decade before a government got involved

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_power

1942 a government seeks to weaponize a new technology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

You're welcome

wappleby t1_jan4k0q wrote on March 2, 2023 at 4:55 PM

Holy shit you link Wikipedia articles and then don't even read them. They weren't trying to develop clean energy. That was never the purpose of Fermi's research. Please do explain how weak interaction (Fermi's interaction) was the study of clean energy.

Rutherford's research was never for the purpose of clean energy either.

CptHammer_ t1_jaot0do wrote on March 2, 2023 at 11:41 PM

>That was never the purpose of Fermi's research.

I never said it was.

>Please do explain how weak interaction (Fermi's interaction) was the study of clean energy.

It was the study of its potential use, who said he first that thought of use as an energy source?

Forget that question, how was it research to make a bomb specifically?

In fact so many people were talking about it as a use for an energy source that it seemed like a universal inevitable conclusion to Fermi's findings and therefore it would likely be impossible to point at who said clean energy first.

Should I point out that your favorite weapon making project first produced an energy reactor? Probably not because you don't think clean energy was the focus of the discovery before the government tried to weaponize it. In fact many at the time were saying that an energy reactor could cause it to be an accidental bomb which is what peeked the war machine's interest into turning it into an on purpose bomb.

wappleby t1_jap5q7h wrote on March 3, 2023 at 1:15 AM

In what world was Fermi's research into weak interaction based upon it's use??

>In fact so many people were talking about it as a use for an energy source that it seemed like a universal inevitable conclusion to Fermi's findings and therefore it would likely be impossible to point at who said clean energy first.

Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source. Again proving you don't even read the links you post as both Einstein and Bohr didn't even think it was possible to utilize the atom practically for quite a long time.

>Should I point out that your favorite weapon making project first produced an energy reactor? Probably not because you don't think clean energy was the focus of the discovery before the government tried to weaponize it. In fact many at the time were saying that an energy reactor could cause it to be an accidental bomb which is what peeked the war machine's interest into turning it into an on purpose bomb.

Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding. The prospect of an atomic weapon was literally why the Manhattan Project was started. Have you ever even read the Einstein-Szilard letter?

And in regards to the nuclear reactor it was one of 5 options to make fissile material. It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium. How do you confidently say so many blatantly false things?

CptHammer_ t1_japi7wl wrote on March 3, 2023 at 2:51 AM

>Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding.

Back at you. You really think they didn't prototype an energy reactor?

>It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium.

Wrong it used very expensive natural uranium. About 5 tons with an additional 40+ tons of uranium oxide and several truckloads of graphite. I honestly can't remember those exact details but the reactor was created prior to the bomb because it was inevitable and to test the theory that a reaction wouldn't run away indefinitely. The reactor created by the Manhattan project ran for about a year before being moved and rebuilt and then ran for another decade.

I'm sure a super fan of government war craft can probably look up the specifics.

>Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source.

Here's a nobody that applied for a patent in 1936, you clearly don't know him LEO SZILARD. I didn't have to look up his name, I didn't have to look up the timing of the patent and as I suspected it was a couple years before the Manhattan project started.

This reactor patent did come to him in a dream. It was theoretical for at least a decade with much input from the physical chemistry community as a whole.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=630726&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP

wappleby t1_japkw4r wrote on March 3, 2023 at 3:12 AM

>Wrong it used very expensive natural uranium. About 5 tons with an additional 40+ tons of uranium oxide and several truckloads of graphite. I honestly can't remember those exact details but the reactor was created prior to the bomb because it was inevitable and to test the theory that a reaction wouldn't run away indefinitely. The reactor created by the Manhattan project ran for about a year before being moved and rebuilt and then ran for another decade.

Can you not read at all? The reactor used in the Manhattan Project PRODUCED plutonium. It USED uranium. And it kept running because it was used to keep producing plutonium until '45 and then was used until '63 to produce radioactive isotopes for research. That's 20 years not 10 years.

>Here's a nobody that applied for a patent in 1936, you clearly don't know him LEO SZILARD

Incredible you didn't even read the comment because I literally mentioned Einstein and Szilard's joint letter.

CptHammer_ t1_japyqgr wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:14 AM

Ok then, have fun war mongering. You seem happy to war monger and wish to continue to war monger. I'd wish normal people peace but you're all too happy to fund new ways to kill each other by repeating and repeating the mistakes (sorry that's my opinion, you're probably seeing them as successes) of the past.

But, you know you can't get normal people on board with it unless you lie about the past and of course lie about the future.

Good afternoon.

wappleby t1_japzd6h wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:20 AM

Making up strawmen after being proven wrong over and over again. Absolutely incredible. And I never once mentioned anything about war or wanting war in any of my original comments.

And that's rich coming from someone who can't even get basic facts in their comments right.

CptHammer_ t1_jaq043u wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:28 AM

You didn't prove anything. So there's that. You just want to lie and you offered no proof for your position that the governments of the world don't automatically seek to weaponize any new technology.

There's actually plenty of evidence on your side at least in the short term, but you chose to shit on my rock solid proof that nuclear energy production also wasn't proposed to the public as a weapon first. You chose to ignore actual fact, produce no evidence all the while I took every one of your examples and proved you don't know what you're talking about, or specifically lying.

I don't know which one it is, nor does it matter because either way you clearly enjoy funding war.

I'm done with you.