Tech tree statistics and ingame tech tree.

[Thunderbrd]

winnable nuclear war and safe nuclear power.

Absolutely nobody here, least of all myself, is calling nuclear war 'winnable' (that's actually quite the opposite of reality) and nuclear power 'safe'. I've loudly argued with many here that I really don't care how safe any scientists wish to call it, no nuclear generator is worth the risk, ever, imo. I take a very hard line approach to being entirely opposite to what you're calling is indoctrination. If anything, I may be 'indoctrinated' into an extremely anti-nuclear view regarding it's power and energy.

All that said, the tech changed things about every layer of society and about every technology built onto the same understanding. As Toffer is making clear. Whether we had launched a nuke at an enemy or not, it would still be a fair name for this age.

 

[pepper2000]

If you've played SimEarth, I borrowed some of the era naming convention from that (Industrial, Atomic, Information, and Nanotech are the four "high tech" eras in SimEarth).

 

[raxo2222]

....and nuclear power 'safe'. I've loudly argued with many here that I really don't care how safe any scientists wish to call it, no nuclear generator is worth the risk, ever, imo. I take a very hard line approach to being entirely opposite to what you're calling is indoctrination. If anything, I may be 'indoctrinated' into an extremely anti-nuclear view regarding it's power and energy.

Nuclear energy is dead last in those stats.
Even 100 fold increase of death rate from nuclear power still would be not much - this would make nuclear power roughly as deadly as UK wind power.
Thankfully most unstable countries have good conditions for renewable energy - biomass, wind, solar and so on.

Both radiation and pollution are accounted for.
As for fossil power plants their death rate may increase even more if climate change is accounted for.
Coal is bit radioactive too.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Even 100 fold increase of death rate from nuclear power still would be not much - this would make nuclear power roughly as deadly as UK wind power.

No wind power accident could ever corrupt an entire plot of territory for thousands of generations to come. No nuclear plant is safe from a random massive earthquake or meteor strike. They all have the potential for incredible blight, and even if that potential is EXTREMELY unlikely to ever happen, the severity of the damage that can be caused makes it too great a risk. We aren't gambling with just the damage it could do to us but the damage it could do to everyone who comes after us. Everyone. Forever. Despite the odds being 1 in some billions or trillions, people do win the lottery now and then. We cannot responsibly make it possible for meltdowns to happen. At all. It's radically arrogant of us to think we can design something foolproof.

 

[raxo2222]

No wind power accident could ever corrupt an entire plot of territory for thousands of generations to come. No nuclear plant is safe from a random massive earthquake or meteor strike. They all have the potential for incredible blight, and even if that potential is EXTREMELY unlikely to ever happen, the severity of the damage that can be caused makes it too great a risk. We aren't gambling with just the damage it could do to us but the damage it could do to everyone who comes after us. Everyone. Forever. Despite the odds being 1 in some billions or trillions, people do win the lottery now and then. We cannot responsibly make it possible for meltdowns to happen. At all. It's radically arrogant of us to think we can design something foolproof.

Well techs to come are even more dangerous potentially - I bet if you were born 200 years later you would be full blown Luddite.

That is what if someone uses spaceship with ton of antimatter spewing radiation (gamma rays, neutrons and some other radiation) everywhere to park 100 km sized asteroid somewhere near Earth?

Something could happen and in worst case asteroid crashes on Earth and in best case Earth and colonies are rained with radiation.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well techs to come are even more dangerous potentially - I bet if you were born 200 years later you would be full blown Luddite.

That is what if someone uses spaceship with ton of antimatter spewing radiation (gamma rays, neutrons and some other radiation) everywhere to park 100 km sized asteroid somewhere near Earth?

Something could happen and in worst case asteroid crashes on Earth and in best case Earth and colonies are rained with radiation.

I agree that we need to take the greatest of care with technology moving forward from here. Thankfully space is vast and should give us room to do some things in that can be far enough away from home to make it safe enough to be attempted.

 

[raxo2222]

I agree that we need to take the greatest of care with technology moving forward from here. Thankfully space is vast and should give us room to do some things in that can be far enough away from home to make it safe enough to be attempted.

Fun fact: In France 40% of generated electricity comes from nuclear power.

Worldwide nuclear power provides 10% of electricity production.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

It really isn't the worst thing that happened. But it WAS the most profound, and what changed the perspective of all people living in that time in a dominant manner.

It might be equally as possible to name the Medieval era to the Plague Era, except that the plague wasn't an invention, something we earned, a marked achievement. And we largely did wrap that concept up as a large part of what it means to live in Medieval times. It was also called the Dark Ages and the plague was a big reason for that. Nevertheless, it wasn't a human accomplishment but something we encountered. The atomic revolution created revolution on a scientific, military, social level.

As for Classical being termed the Tyranny age, I suppose it could be named that. The more standard term would be the Iron Age, again, for what new technology had changed everything about life for all people everywhere. And I certainly wouldn't be against calling it that but we've long settled on Classical and there's no good reason to change it, whereas you can NOT call an age the Now Age, particularly when it isn't now.

Being old and growing up with the idea that two foreign countries may wipe me and all life off the planet I am not sure profound is the word I would use. Computer Age might be just as reasonable since it refers to both the people and the machines that later replaced them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Being old and growing up with the idea that two foreign countries may wipe me and all life off the planet I am not sure profound is the word I would use. Computer Age might be just as reasonable since it refers to both the people and the machines that later replaced them.

Computers weren't introduced until significantly into this era. And I'd say that 'profound' sounds like it was the perfect term to use, since profound purely caries no positive nor negative connotation so much as a powerful presence. Your statement validates that it was indeed profound.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Fun fact: In France 40% of generated electricity comes from nuclear power.

Worldwide nuclear power provides 10% of electricity production.

I'm aware we're being reckless with this. So are folks in Japan.

 

[raxo2222]

I'm aware we're being reckless with this. So are folks in Japan.

How severe climate change has to be to change your mind?
Renewable energy while nice it has its own problems. Alternative to nuclear power would be natural gas.

Also fossil fuels industry has a lot reasons to make people hate nuclear energy, as it directly competes with fossil fuels when it comes to electricity generation.

 

[Thunderbrd]

How severe climate change has to be to change your mind?
Renewable energy while nice it has its own problems. Alternative to nuclear power would be natural gas.

Also fossil fuels industry has a lot reasons to make people hate nuclear energy, as it directly competes with fossil fuels when it comes to electricity generation.

My answer to the energy scenario is to ditch both nuclear and fossil fuels entirely and collect and harness vast amounts of solar power with satellites. Tesla invented the means of distribution from there but we sit on that tech without accessing it. Once setup, the system would cost very little to continuously maintain in relation to what we do now and would be 100% clean.

 

[pepper2000]

My answer to the energy scenario is to ditch both nuclear and fossil fuels entirely and collect and harness vast amounts of solar power with satellites. Tesla invented the means of distribution from there but we sit on that tech without accessing it. Once setup, the system would cost very little to continuously maintain in relation to what we do now and would be 100% clean.

Unfortunately, we won't get full-on Tesla transmission towers until Electromagnetic Voltage near the end of the Nanotech Era.

 

[raxo2222]

Unfortunately, we won't get full-on Tesla transmission towers until Electromagnetic Voltage near the end of the Nanotech Era.

So fusion power plants - safest of all possible power sources - will be widespread by then.

Easiest reaction is deuterium + tritium - hydrogen isotopes with single and two neutrons - when it comes to generating energy.
That is first fusion reactors will be of this type - with desalinization plants and other such buildings it can provide fresh water for nearby city and fuel (deuterium) for itself.
Tritium is generated when neutrons bombard certain isotope of lithium.

He3 fusion power plants require colony on Moon or magnetic scoops to collect solar wind in orbit.

Fusion reactions were discovered in 1920's in 1930's

 

[Thunderbrd]

Unfortunately, we won't get full-on Tesla transmission towers until Electromagnetic Voltage near the end of the Nanotech Era.

Thanks to the powers that be sitting on the tech and not letting it develop when it was invented.

 

[raxo2222]

Thanks to the powers that be sitting on the tech and not letting it develop when it was invented.

Same powers, that caused Chernobyl accident and caused massive trust issues concerning nuclear power

 

[Thunderbrd]

Same powers, that caused Chernobyl accident and caused massive trust issues concerning nuclear power

Human error, a quite natural thing, caused the Chernobyl accident.

 

[raxo2222]

Human error, a quite natural thing, caused the Chernobyl accident.

I know, I was joking - I made it clear.

 

[tmv]

Thanks to the powers that be sitting on the tech and not letting it develop when it was invented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

[Thunderbrd]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Wouldn't have a clue how to prove it but I think we all understand the government has been sitting on Tesla tech ever since his death. That this technology exists and has for a long time was something that was explained to me a long time ago and I was not left doubting. I've read a few books since that alluded to it as well. I don't catalog the sources of information I run across in my travels.

Even if it just took wiring the power back down through a space elevator approach, solar would still obsolete on-ground generators rather easily I believe.