Please lower resolution a little more.

It would be a good example of how dangerous any political narrative advocating for any form of censoring based on the official truth as per defined by the government truly is.

If in 2020 people claiming it could have come from a lab were accused of spreading misinformation (I wouldn’t have called it “the China virus” either way) and portrayed as conspiracy theorists, as I believe is the case, it also shows the terrible lack of responsibility and accountability of the mass media (not that social media is better).

I think the implications in regards of freedom of speech are obvious, as the excuse to use science as a new legitimate limitation of freedom of speech failed immediately even before this idea was proposed to the public opinion.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/

“Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified how science indicates COVID-19 infections were likely the result of an accidental lab leak in Wuhan. His conclusion is based on the biology of the virus itself and unusual actions in and around Wuhan in 2019, including gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Nicholas Wade—the former science and health editor at the New York Times, and former editor of Science and Nature—testified how Drs. Fauci and Collins used unverified data to dismiss the lab leak theory in favor of natural transmission.

Jamie Metzl testified how China’s government destroyed samples, hid records, imprisoned Chinese journalists, prevented Chinese scientists from saying or writing anything on pandemic origins without prior government approval, actively spread misinformation, and prevented an evidence-based investigation.

The mainstream media downplayed—and even denied—the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV.

Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative.

All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory.”

The committee on oversight and accountability may be one.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/

“Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified how science indicates COVID-19 infections were likely the result of an accidental lab leak in Wuhan. His conclusion is based on the biology of the virus itself and unusual actions in and around Wuhan in 2019, including gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Nicholas Wade—the former science and health editor at the New York Times, and former editor of Science and Nature—testified how Drs. Fauci and Collins used unverified data to dismiss the lab leak theory in favor of natural transmission.

Jamie Metzl testified how China’s government destroyed samples, hid records, imprisoned Chinese journalists, prevented Chinese scientists from saying or writing anything on pandemic origins without prior government approval, actively spread misinformation, and prevented an evidence-based investigation.

The mainstream media downplayed—and even denied—the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV.

Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative.

All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory.”

If empathy is the key here, then we have a problem. We know due the literature of in-group bias that both men and women have more empathy for women, and the number of male psychologists have been reduced from 38% to 28% in the last decade, with male psychologists under 30 being only 5% of psychologists under 30.

We also know that there are between 15-20+ liberals per non liberal working in psychology, and that ideas like privilege and systemic discrimination reduce the empathy toward men.

Seems to me this could easily translate in a situation where the people that are going to need more help in the following decades are the ones that may be receiving less empathy and therefore less effective help.

Well yes, but with a specific energy about three times the one of gasoline and a specific density of about 1/4 of gasoline the reduction in energy per unit of volume isn’t so massive and the benefits on the reduction of negative externalities is very very significant. Please correct me if I am wrong but in theory we would need deposits that are 33% bigger in volume, correct?, the problem is the temperature necessary to keep it liquid of course. And as important volume is, weight may be an even bigger factor for some transport systems, like airplanes.

In any case the point, as you mention, is that with more and cheaper energy we could sintetice the fuel.

Why though? Better make hydrogen, it has higher energy density and it’s use don’t create anything toxic.