Republican/Democrat 2024 Presidential Candidates

[I-5]

Sorry if there is already a thread for this, but I didn't see it. Just curious what people here think about who the Republicans should support as their candidate in the 2024 election. The easy answer would seem to be DJT...or is it?

Conversely, the Democratic side is just as complicated with Biden enjoying lackluster support even among democrats, not to mention being 80 years old, aka the same age as the average freshman senator (stolen joke).

If I had to make a bet, it would be DeSantis for the GOP, and my pick for the Dems if Biden for whatever reason isn't in would be Pete Buttigieg. I'm done with Sanders, and definitely not interested in Harris.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't think it matters to me who the Republican nominee is, I think my trust in that party is irretrievably broken, but if they want to rescue their party they need to nominate Liz Cheney. Whatever her politics are she's proven herself to be honorable and brave risking her entire career in the name of the truth. And Trump vs Cheney would be the perfect batsh!t crazy neo Nazi nationalism vs traditional honest conservative choice litmus test for the party going forward.

I like Pete but him as a candidate would be a bit much for most independents and some Dems, if we ain't ready to elect a woman I think a gay man would be a hard sell. I'm still a fan of Bernie but I think we need to go younger.

[curmudgeon]

Dems: The Rock. GOP: Kid Rock. The world needs this…..

[Aseahawkfan]

I barely care at this point other than for the general intellectual interest. These parties suck. They've been handed an easy nation to run and have just mucked it all up. Worse and worse generational leadership taking America into stupid land.

Maybe DeSantis can at least get rid of the Trump stink if he wins the nomination and at least go back to the appearance of politics and respect for political traditions. That's about the only advantage I see with DeSantis winning besides the usual Republican respect for your financial assets versus the Democrat "wealth is bad and must be punished because people who make bad decisions with their money aren't really at fault" tax and spend economics. I'll get that from any Republican candidate as the Republican Party in general doesn't punish people who like to use their money to build wealth rather than mindlessly consume.

At this point I want someone besides Trump. Who that is barely matters to me. I want a continuance of washing the Trump stink and stupid out of the Republican Party. He had his shot and acted like a total idiot.

Even should Trump win the nomination and possibly the presidency, I'll endure it like I did the other four years like I do every president. And I won't whine or make it seem like we're on the brink of collapse because of it. America for all the issues the news builds up is doing fine, living well, and relatively quiet given the far worse times in history. We even weathered a global pandemic far better than our ancestors who were fighting a World War while dealing with a far deadlier disease with less medical technology and help than we had.

Now that we're not all locked inside, I expect less crazy this time around. People are busy working and with their lives again. Tends to drain their energy and time to do crazy.

[I-5]

The GOP is quite nervous about Trump being the nominee, despite his popularity. There's a good chance of him being indicted, as evidenced by the DOJ (separate from the Jan 6 House committee) already having had Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob testify for a grand jury. Fox News has stopped televising Trump's rallies, and Murdoch's other papers like the NY Post and WSF have blasted Trump's actions on Jan 6 and called him unfit for the Oval Office, and Pence is all but calling him out without saying his name by saying it's time to look forward. Trump is clearly trying to time his announcement of his candidacy to how it can benefit the legal troubles he's in. This is the most divided we've seen the party in a while. I do like respect Cheney, but she is far far too centrist and reasonable for the radicals who control the party.

[Aseahawkfan]

The GOP is quite nervous about Trump being the nominee, despite his popularity. There's a good chance of him being indicted, as evidenced by the DOJ (separate from the Jan 6 House committee) already having had Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob testify for a grand jury. Fox News has stopped televising Trump's rallies, and Murdoch's other papers like the NY Post and WSF have blasted Trump's actions on Jan 6 and called him unfit for the Oval Office, and Pence is all but calling him out without saying his name by saying it's time to look forward. Trump is clearly trying to time his announcement of his candidacy to how it can benefit the legal troubles he's in. This is the most divided we've seen the party in a while. I do like respect Cheney, but she is far far too centrist and reasonable for the radicals who control the party.

Liz Cheney looks palatable save in comparison to Trump. Her father is one of the most vicious and corrupt politicians in history. It's strange times when people are looking at a daughter of Dick Cheney as a reasonable Republican. It's pretty insane.
C-hawkbob hated her father and George W. Bush back in the days of that administration. He called Cheney and Bush liars who started a war under false pretenses. Now she's the Republican people look to as sensible?

I do agree that there seems to finally be some elements of the Republican Party with juice turning away from Trump. I think even some of his supporters are tiring of him. He can't even tout the vaccine his administration started because his idiot followers refused to take it and now consider it part of the Democratic agenda. I won't say Trump is done until he's done because this guy seems to find a way to crawl back to relevance over and over and over again. But he looks mostly done to me and I think even behind the scenes Republican power brokers are tired of him and his baggage.

[Hawktawk]

Biden needs to declare he’s not running after the midterms . I can’t see a Democrat I’d support other then Manchin . I’d love Liz Cheney . She’s not her dad but she’s a conservative and a Republican with respect for the office of the presidency and the rule of law . I won’t go through all the names but anyone who voted to impeach . Romney would have been excellent . I voted for Joe Biden because my party stood behind a psycho corrupt grifter despite considerable evidence of his unfitness . Now I wish the Democratic Party had the guts to invoke the 25th amendment and remove a senile president . But they won’t . Both parties suck . Both have a few who fight for sanity . Not enough .

[I-5]

Dick Cheney was a devious politician, but I think Liz Cheney has been around long enough to show who she is, and she is her own person. Similar to what I've said about Romney, I don't have to agree with every policy position, but I respect their integrity, so I have no problem with either as president. I don't know DeSantis, but he strikes me as a populist, and I've had enough of populists. Conservatives could probably paint Beto O'Rourke with the same populist brush, and I'd have to agree with them (even though I like Beto).

I agree with HT, I hope Biden bows out of 2024, the sooner the better. He's served his purpose similar to Gerald Ford served his purpose. The dems need someone to lead, and I think it's time for someone younger who can energize the base and capture moderates' support, too. That was the talent of Clinton and Obama.

[Aseahawkfan]

Dick Cheney was a devious politician, but I think Liz Cheney has been around long enough to show who she is, and she is her own person. Similar to what I've said about Romney, I don't have to agree with every policy position, but I respect their integrity, so I have no problem with either as president. I don't know DeSantis, but he strikes me as a populist, and I've had enough of populists. Conservatives could probably paint Beto O'Rourke with the same populist brush, and I'd have to agree with them (even though I like Beto).

I agree with HT, I hope Biden bows out of 2024, the sooner the better. He's served his purpose similar to Gerald Ford served his purpose. The dems need someone to lead, and I think it's time for someone younger who can energize the base and capture moderates' support, too. That was the talent of Clinton and Obama.

DeSantis is a career politician checking all the boxes and riding the trends. He only rolls with Trump if it benefits him. He'll discard Trump if can take power from him. I don't see that as a selling point for many people, but that's what he seems to be. Yale educated Harvard Lawyer and former Naval Officer who served in the JAG. The guy is all about moving up the political ladder and checking all the boxes you usually need to become president. He's riding Trump's coattails to be president and will toss Trump aside once he surpasses him.

I would find this funny myself. I know others might not. I'd like to see a Republican politician use Trump, usurp him, and then throw him down like he deserves. Then smile at Trump knowing he truly beat him at a game Trump thinks he's good at. DeSantis is much, much more intelligent and educated than Trump and knows the political game much better than Trump. Whether or not he can beat Trump's ability to manipulate crowds is when we'll find out if he can pull the votes for the nomination.

Republicans don't have a great deal of love for career politicians right now.

[RiverDog]

My litmus test for any Republican candidate will be do they support DJT. Liz Cheney is the only high profile R so far that has met that standard and I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to vote for her, but she might not even win re-election to her House seat due to her fervent opposition to Trump.

We'll see who emerges after the midterms in November. I see where DeSantis is trying to distance himself from Trump. If he renounces him, then I might consider supporting him.

[Hawktawk]

Desantus is a MAGA creation . He was Trumps poster boy for way too long . He can wash his hands all he likes . I want him less than I want trump . I will not support any MAGA candidate unless they voted to impeach Trump.

[Aseahawkfan]

My litmus test for any Republican candidate will be do they support DJT. Liz Cheney is the only high profile R so far that has met that standard and I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to vote for her, but she might not even win re-election to her House seat due to her fervent opposition to Trump.

We'll see who emerges after the midterms in November. I see where DeSantis is trying to distance himself from Trump. If he renounces him, then I might consider supporting him.

DeSantis will not renounce Trump until it is politically expedient to do so. You're dealing with a Yale educated Harvard Lawyer who did his time in the Navy JAG. DeSantis don't make moves without thinking about that move before he does it. This dude is very careful to read the room before he moves into it. His focus right now is winning another term as governor. If doesn't haven't the support of Florida, be difficult for him to step to the next level and run for president.

Liz Cheney is a one issue vote. I doubt she can win the nomination or even come close to challenging for the presidency. Prior to Trump she was not a popular conservative as far as I know. Her main attraction is her name. I'm sure her father helped her garner support for furthering the agenda of his supporters.

Romney I'd vote for. Romney is much more of a fiscal conservative and social moderate. That's why he did well in Massachusetts, a notoriously Democratic state. I still don't get how these politicians move around so much. How did Mitt go from Governor or Massachusetts to Utah Senator? Or Hilary go from Arkansas to New York Senator? Seems like these politicians get to go around to wherever it is easiest to win an election without having much of an affiliation with the state.

[Aseahawkfan]

Desantus is a MAGA creation . He was Trumps poster boy for way too long . He can wash his hands all he likes . I want him less than I want trump . I will not support any MAGA candidate unless they voted to impeach Trump.

I'll support anyone in the Republican Party who usurps Trump. Thing about Trump is once someone takes the crown from him within the Republican Party, he's all done. Republicans will forget him and move on. DeSantis has a way better chance of doing that than Liz Cheney or Romney.

All Republicans care about is beating Democrats right now. They barely care who they vote for as long as they get to beat Democrats. Not sure what your Republicans buddies are like right now, but all of mine are just about hating Democrats for all their crazy whether it's defund the police, not believing women are really women with their trans are just as much of a woman as a real woman, wanting to take their weapons while the Democrats overlook crime increases, and the whole crazy BS platform of the Democrats. That's all they give a crap about is raging at the Democrats for taking big old crap on America and all that Americans believe in. That's how they see the Democrats.

Trump is just the current guy that looks like he can beat the Democrats. If that person changes to DeSantis, they'll throw all their crazy Democrat hate behind DeSantis.

Republicans don't care right now. They just want someone who can beat the Democrats to throw their rage behind.

[RiverDog]

The problem with Romney is his age. He's 75, meaning that he'd be 78 a month after inauguration in January of 2025 if he were elected POTUS, same age as Sleepy Joe. I'm tired of these old codgers running things. I'd rather see someone in their 40's or 50's represent the country.

Cheney is the right age, but she's going to get beat like a drum in the primaries.

[I-5]

Cheney losing her house seat has no effect on whether she'd run for president; in fact, it probably would springboard her to focus on 2024. I know I'd vote for her. She has won my respect, and I expect quite a few others. I never thought I'd say that in all these years I've known about her.

Maybe this is her long game.

[RiverDog]

Cheney losing her house seat has no effect on whether she'd run for president; in fact, it probably would springboard her to focus on 2024. I know I'd vote for her. She has won my respect, and I expect quite a few others. I never thought I'd say that in all these years I've known about her.

Maybe this is her long game.

I think it will. If she wins the WY primary, then it would make all the difference in the world as she's going up against a very well funded, Trump endorsed candidate. If she loses badly as the polls have her doing, she will have to realize the futility of her efforts to pull the party away from Trump to where she'd have a chance at winning the nomination in just two years.

The successful R nominee does not necessarily need Trump's endorsement, but they can't openly confront him as Cheney has. They need to duck the issue all together.

An interesting side show is that earlier this spring, the Republican controlled Wyoming legislature killed a bill that would prevent election day cross over voting in their primaries, a measure supported by Trump and that would have almost certainly doomed any chance of Cheney surviving the primary. That could make a difference in a close election. But the last poll I saw had her losing by 22 points, and it's hard to believe that there'd be that many cross over voters to erase that lead or that the polls would be that wrong.

[I-5]

I'm saying if she loses the primary and her seat, how would that affect her running for president in 2024? I don't think it would have any bearing.

Wyoming politics aren't national politics, and right now she is the national poster child for the anti-Trump, which combined with the lack of exciting democratic candidates so far, makes her an appealing crossover candidate for the national election. At least that's how I read it.

[RiverDog]

I'm saying if she loses the primary and her seat, how would that affect her running for president in 2024? I don't think it would have any bearing.

Wyoming politics aren't national politics, and right now she is the national poster child for the anti-Trump, which combined with the lack of exciting democratic candidates so far, makes her an appealing crossover candidate for the national election. At least that's how I read it.

Cheney is way too conservative to attract very many Democratic voters. Even amongst Republicans, she's one of the most conservative members in the House. She is anti abortion, applauded SCOTUS's overturning of Roe v Wade, and introduced a bill to that would cover the pre-born under the 14th Amendment. She is not a friend of the environmental community, having voted to slash the budget of the EPA and has consistently voted against climate change initiatives. She voted against the Dreamers and immigrants fleeing a disaster. And as ASF has eluded to, there's a lot of people that link her to her father, a man that Democrats despised. In a Democrat's eyes, the only thing Liz Cheney has going for her is that she is anti Trump.

[Aseahawkfan]

Cheney is way too conservative to attract very many Democratic voters. Even amongst Republicans, she's one of the most conservative members in the House. She is anti abortion, applauded SCOTUS's overturning of Roe v Wade, and introduced a bill to that would cover the pre-born under the 14th Amendment. She is not a friend of the environmental community, having voted to slash the budget of the EPA and has consistently voted against climate change initiatives. She voted against the Dreamers and immigrants fleeing a disaster. And as ASF has eluded to, there's a lot of people that link her to her father, a man that Democrats despised. In a Democrat's eyes, the only thing Liz Cheney has going for her is that she is anti Trump.

Glad I'm not the only one that sees this. Liz Cheney is only considered "reasonable" when held up against the crazy that is Trump. Dick Cheney was a Big Oil conservative and I doubt his daughter is far off the mark and probably gets some of her financial support from Big Oil supporters.

[RiverDog]

Cheney is way too conservative to attract very many Democratic voters. Even amongst Republicans, she's one of the most conservative members in the House. She is anti abortion, applauded SCOTUS's overturning of Roe v Wade, and introduced a bill to that would cover the pre-born under the 14th Amendment. She is not a friend of the environmental community, having voted to slash the budget of the EPA and has consistently voted against climate change initiatives. She voted against the Dreamers and immigrants fleeing a disaster. And as ASF has eluded to, there's a lot of people that link her to her father, a man that Democrats despised. In a Democrat's eyes, the only thing Liz Cheney has going for her is that she is anti Trump.

Glad I'm not the only one that sees this. Liz Cheney is only considered "reasonable" when held up against the crazy that is Trump. Dick Cheney was a Big Oil conservative and I doubt his daughter is far off the mark and probably gets some of her financial support from Big Oil supporters.

I had to make the following correction: Liz Cheney is only considered "reasonable" by the Dems/left when held up against the crazy that is Trump.

Personally, I would vote for Liz Cheney even if Trump wasn't in the equation. I don't agree with everything she stands for, but she' a lot closer than any other major party candidate that I've examined. The fact that she's willing to sacrifice her political career in order to follow her conscience speaks volumes about her character.

[Aseahawkfan]

I had to make the following correction: Liz Cheney is only considered "reasonable" by the Dems/left when held up against the crazy that is Trump.

Personally, I would vote for Liz Cheney even if Trump wasn't in the equation. I don't agree with everything she stands for, but she' a lot closer than any other major party candidate that I've examined. The fact that she's willing to sacrifice her political career in order to follow her conscience speaks volumes about her character.

Liz would be in your wheelhouse like G.W. She's more of a Bush Era or Reagan Conservative than a Trump Loon. To me like the Republicans chose Trump because they think you need crazy to fight crazy. Right now the Dems are and left are pushing a pretty crazy agenda. I'm still surprised you don't read much on the transgender hardcore push the left up to and including no longer referring to women as women but instead using birthing person to describe a woman so as not to offend transgender females.

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-admin-replaces-mothers-birthing-people-maternal-health-guidance-1598343

A lot of people ignore how crazy the Dems have become and the insane agenda they are pushing up to and including through the public education system. But Trump won because of how crazy the Dems are now. They are not the working class union Dems of the 70s and 80s. This is an elitist liberal socialist group who want to throw out everything American and replace it with their worldview up to and including no longer having gender/sex or whatever you want to call it.

If the right leader came along, I would secede with the right group. I don't want to be hanging with white supremacists and that trash. But I also don't want to be in a country that doesn't acknowledge women. I'd happily split the nation and let the Dems have their liberal fantasy with no gender, defunded police, and drug abusers everywhere they think they can help living in homeless encampments around them. I don't personally want that. Not sure why Democratic voters want it.

[I-5]

“…a country that doesn’t acknowledge women”

Just curious which policy position you’re speaking of here. I assume you’re talking about abortion?

[Aseahawkfan]

“…a country that doesn’t acknowledge women”

Just curious which policy position you’re speaking of here. I assume you’re talking about abortion?

No. I am talking about the transgender movement making it so Democrats refuse to call a woman a woman. It has nothing to do with abortion.

It's like the article I posted where the Dems removed "mother" from maternal health information and put down "birthing persons." Or that anyone including highly liberal people like J.K. Rowling getting attacked for wanting to consider women being something that you are born as and is a real sex, not something you pick because you can get transition surgery.

I'm talking about Dems using Title 9 to force transgender women into female sports. https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-transgender-athletes-rights-9adfe49a8e07f66f07b5e2302bb94730

I'm talking about Dems supporting what are known as "trans youth" for pre-pubescent children and giving them puberty blockers. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

The Dems have basically pushed an Orwellian agenda where we no longer can consider sex or gender something that exists because they don't know how to say no. Basically, women have to just accept that men can now be women and do better at athletics than them and obtain scholarships normally designated for women.

Men generally don't have to worry about this because women who transition cannot compete against males in male sports. So men don't have to care. Unfortunately the opposite is not true. Like we have never had any reason to keep males and females in different sports categories. We just did it because we're all a bunch of prejudiced jerks is why we kept women and men sports apart according to these folks pushing the transgender movement into sports.

[RiverDog]

Liz would be in your wheelhouse like G.W. She's more of a Bush Era or Reagan Conservative than a Trump Loon. To me like the Republicans chose Trump because they think you need crazy to fight crazy. Right now the Dems are and left are pushing a pretty crazy agenda. I'm still surprised you don't read much on the transgender hardcore push the left up to and including no longer referring to women as women but instead using birthing person to describe a woman so as not to offend transgender females.

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-admin-replaces-mothers-birthing-people-maternal-health-guidance-1598343

A lot of people ignore how crazy the Dems have become and the insane agenda they are pushing up to and including through the public education system. But Trump won because of how crazy the Dems are now. They are not the working class union Dems of the 70s and 80s. This is an elitist liberal socialist group who want to throw out everything American and replace it with their worldview up to and including no longer having gender/sex or whatever you want to call it.

If the right leader came along, I would secede with the right group. I don't want to be hanging with white supremacists and that trash. But I also don't want to be in a country that doesn't acknowledge women. I'd happily split the nation and let the Dems have their liberal fantasy with no gender, defunded police, and drug abusers everywhere they think they can help living in homeless encampments around them. I don't personally want that. Not sure why Democratic voters want it.

I'm not nearly as torqued about the transgender movement as you are. Yes, I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to compete in women sports, but it's not a hot button issue with me. What is a hot button issue with me is the Dem's defund the police movement and their handling of the BLM riots. They are one step above anarchists, shirked their responsibilities as leaders just like Trump did during the Capitol riot and for much the same reason: They didn't want to take action that would offend their political constituency even when lives were at stake.

The Dems want to save the planet by not burning fossil fuels, which I am for, but they don't want to consider nuclear and want to breach existing hydroelectric dams that are cheap, renewable, and multi purpose in that they provide environmentally friendly transportation, irrigation for crops, and flood control. Their preferred alternative is to litter the landscape with large solar farms and windmills that are expensive, inefficient, unwanted by the locals, and not reliable during peak periods.

Those are the reasons why I won't ever be a reliable Dem voter. The transgender issue ranks way down my list of priorities.

I am ripe for a 3rd party, which will never happen in my lifetime. But I am not a revolutionary. These are crazy times, but we'll survive.

[c_hawkbob]

Saying that a country doesn't acknowledge women because one politician didn't take the bait is a bit preposterous.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not nearly as torqued about the transgender movement as you are. Yes, I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to compete in women sports, but it's not a hot button issue with me. What is a hot button issue with me is the Dem's defund the police movement and their handling of the BLM riots. They are one step above anarchists, shirked their responsibilities as leaders just like Trump did during the Capitol riot and for much the same reason: They didn't want to take action that would offend their political constituency even when lives were at stake.

The Dems want to save the planet by not burning fossil fuels, which I am for, but they don't want to consider nuclear and want to breach existing hydroelectric dams that are cheap, renewable, and multi purpose in that they provide environmentally friendly transportation, irrigation for crops, and flood control. Their preferred alternative is to litter the landscape with large solar farms and windmills that are expensive, inefficient, unwanted by the locals, and not reliable during peak periods.

Those are the reasons why I won't ever be a reliable Dem voter. The transgender issue ranks way down my list of priorities.

I am ripe for a 3rd party, which will never happen in my lifetime. But I am not a revolutionary. These are crazy times, but we'll survive.

You must not deal with this as much over there in Eastern Washington. If you refuse to acknowledge a transgender person as a woman in every way you can be fired from your job. I'm really surprised you think it is ok to give pre-pubescent children puberty blockers like these children can make a rational decision on their gender at that age. For me it is very concerning the path this is taking along with other things.

It's one thing to ask for general respect for a life decision, which I don't mind. You want me to call you Mrs. or Ma'am or her. Fine. I can do that. I do not expect to be somehow told I'm some terrible, evil person because I consider women a real gender that you are born as and don't plan to adjust that. Or that our entire society should suddenly have to go, "Not sure what gender is. Mother's are birthing persons." That's just not cool.

We've already discussed my view on the Environmental Armageddon movement. I don't like the Armageddon Politics of climate change. The narrow focus is carbon in the atmosphere while we have a multitude of environmental issues that have nothing to do with carbon in the atmosphere occurring that all come down to too many humans stressing the environment in a multitude of ways.

Nuclear energy seems to have a lot of dangerous waste that will increase as the population increases and the more nuclear you have, the more chances of a severe event. Hydroelectric I'm not as focused on but you can only dam up so many rivers before you cause other issues, though better dam technology might ameliorate party of this. Batteries seem to require a lot of materials that will be costly to extract and manufacture.

I already believe there is no path humans have that evades the basic problem of overpopulation and no clear understanding of how much vegetation we require to balance the oxygen and carbon cleaning needs of the planet for human survival. Some are attempting to create carbon capture technology to remove carbon from the air like plants do, but they don't produce the oxygen that plants do. The deforestation, fishing, and water depletion is of great concern as well. These folks claiming we don't have too many people really don't spend much time investigating how much waste, natural resources, and deforestation and water depletion occur over a human life that will lead down the path of self-destruction because we just kept on expanding our population until we reached a tipping point not just with climate change which is the current main focus, but total resource depletion and the inability to replenish food and water supplies due to the overexpansion of humans.

Now fusion nuclear reactions if we can harness them would answer our power concerns with less waste. But a fusion reaction that goes wrong could be absolutely catastrophic. But it would supply nearly limitless cheap, clean power. Fission as nuclear power currently works is a dirty business that though calculated to be less waste than a modern power plant would increase if there were more of them including the chance of them being weaponized by bad actors, malfunctioning, and for nations unprepared to handle nuclear power pursuing nuclear power creating possibly dangerous situations at various places in the world. So not sure I would be onboard with strong nuclear adoption until the world is more settled.

Then again the world as a whole has a lot of problems that are going to be difficult to deal with and easier if there are less people. According to some population experts, we should be seeing major population drops in China by 2050. Though I have trouble believing the will drop by the 600 million estimated. But that is the estimate. If we see across the board population drops, less pressure on the environment. EV adoption should reduce the carbon release, but then we'll see how much material extraction for batteries causes issues.

A very complicated problem.

[Aseahawkfan]

Saying that a country doesn't acknowledge women because one politician didn't take the bait is a bit preposterous.

These are things being done by the liberal left and Democrats that is well-documented, not some single incident with a politician I'm not even aware of.

When I was reading the Bill developed signed by DeSantis that the left was calling the "Don't Say Gay" Bill I found it very odd that they would include a provision in that bill that made it illegal to give pre-pubescent children puberty blockers. My mind was like, "Why would that even be necessary?" Sure enough I looked it up and some parents are apparently letting their pre-pubescent children decide what gender they are including taking them to a doctor to get puberty blockers to start transition as a pre-pubescent child. I don't consider that very rational. It seems almost like abuse of the child putting in their head that they aren't the right gender at an age when they are highly impressionable including giving them medication that blocks their natural hormones from developing through puberty. Apparently this is fully supported by Democrats and the liberal movement including the idea that gender or sex is a valid reality any longer.

I already posted an article that is proves that the Democrats have removed "mother" from maternal health information and changed that to "birthing persons" to directly provide support for the transgender movement because the word mother implies a female that can produce children, but of course in the modern day transgender men can do so as well.

They recently put a transgender female into a female prison where the transgender female impregnated two female prisoners and was moved to a male prison after that because of the Democratic Agenda to push that you are the gender you decide you are regardless of the problems with that which they found out that identifying as a female is much different from being a female in that prison. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/nj-trans-prisoner-impregnated-2-inmates-transferred-mens-facility-rcna38947

I wasn't as concerned about this issue like Riverdog not too long ago because I'm mostly a fiscal conservative. So things like abortion I can have a reasonable discussion on. I'm not religious. I don't care for racists or racism. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring human behavior that has been around since the dawn of humanity, so I was never much concerned with it. I'm normally indifferent to the transgender movement as I consider it "Do what you want with your life and I'll give you polite respect for your life decision." But it's being taken to the extreme for some reason and I'm mot sure why Democrats think this is ok. Seems real strange. Same kind of strange that I see when I look at the Republican Party with Trump taking the crazy up so many notches moderate people are being pushed into looking at themselves as crazy for wanting some sensible behavior from our politicians.

"I want women to be women" and I'm the crazy one?

I don't think white people are on the verge of extinction so I'm crazy?

Hard to look at these two parties as people I want to vote for. The stuff they're pushing is extreme and strange.

[RiverDog]

Nuclear energy seems to have a lot of dangerous waste that will increase as the population increases and the more nuclear you have, the more chances of a severe event. Hydroelectric I'm not as focused on but you can only dam up so many rivers before you cause other issues, though better dam technology might ameliorate party of this. Batteries seem to require a lot of materials that will be costly to extract and manufacture.

The dams are already there, and removing them would cost billions, cause environmental damage as millions of tons of silt washes downstream, and there's no scientific proof that breaching them will restore the salmon runs, which is the major, if not sole, justification for removing them. One generator at one of the Lower Snake River Dams (LSRD), of which there are 6 generators at each one of the 4 LSRD's, produces the same amount of energy as 247 windmills. Plus they can be manipulated in a matter of minutes to increase production at peak times, cut the load when demand decreases. You can't do that with wind and solar. The slack water behind the dams moves millions of tons of wheat and other goods each year that would otherwise have to be transported by truck or rail. They irrigate tens of thousands of acres of farmland and provide flood protection for hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars' worth of property. That's a huge sacrifice to make for a God damn fish that may already be past the tipping point.

I'm not going to waste a lot of space talking about nuclear power, but if you're interested, here's an article that describes the next generation nuclear reactors. They are much safer and more economical than their predecessors.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-nuclear/

We might want to start a thread on this. Cbob works in the energy production business, so he might have some insight into the topic.

I already believe there is no path humans have that evades the basic problem of overpopulation and no clear understanding of how much vegetation we require to balance the oxygen and carbon cleaning needs of the planet for human survival. Some are attempting to create carbon capture technology to remove carbon from the air like plants do, but they don't produce the oxygen that plants do. The deforestation, fishing, and water depletion is of great concern as well. These folks claiming we don't have too many people really don't spend much time investigating how much waste, natural resources, and deforestation and water depletion occur over a human life that will lead down the path of self-destruction because we just kept on expanding our population until we reached a tipping point not just with climate change which is the current main focus, but total resource depletion and the inability to replenish food and water supplies due to the overexpansion of humans.

Now fusion nuclear reactions if we can harness them would answer our power concerns with less waste. But a fusion reaction that goes wrong could be absolutely catastrophic. But it would supply nearly limitless cheap, clean power. Fission as nuclear power currently works is a dirty business that though calculated to be less waste than a modern power plant would increase if there were more of them including the chance of them being weaponized by bad actors, malfunctioning, and for nations unprepared to handle nuclear power pursuing nuclear power creating possibly dangerous situations at various places in the world. So not sure I would be onboard with strong nuclear adoption until the world is more settled.

Then again the world as a whole has a lot of problems that are going to be difficult to deal with and easier if there are less people. According to some population experts, we should be seeing major population drops in China by 2050. Though I have trouble believing the will drop by the 600 million estimated. But that is the estimate. If we see across the board population drops, less pressure on the environment. EV adoption should reduce the carbon release, but then we'll see how much material extraction for batteries causes issues.

A very complicated problem.

I think we've already discussed this in another thread, but the worldwide birth rate has been in decline for decades. The overpopulation problem has been a result not of over breeding, but of people living longer than in the past. The problem with over population will self-correct when the older generations start dying off. That's one of the things that the liberals don't take into account, that our overall carbon footprint will get smaller as time goes on.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think we've already discussed this in another thread, but the worldwide birth rate has been in decline for decades. The overpopulation problem has been a result not of over breeding, but of people living longer than in the past. The problem with over population will self-correct when the older generations start dying off. That's one of the things that the liberals don't take into account, that our overall carbon footprint will get smaller as time goes on.

Large of law numbers makes even a small amount of growth a huge number of people. Worldwide population growth will have to go negative for this to occur. Is this your assumption? At the current 1% growth give or take we're at is still 83 million people a year which is an immense number of people. So you're expecting this number to go negative and sufficient number of the population to die off?

We're at about 7.9 billion people. Even at 1% growth above and beyond replacement, we're looking at a 800 million more people every 10 years. I doubt we'll be dying off faster than we used with advancements in medical tech. Even if we go to .1 percent above replacement that will be about 8.3 million people a year and about a billion people every 100 years, which will still be a lot of people.

So your expectation is eventually this number will go negative?

When I consider things, I consider them very long-term. Average lifespan is currently what? 78 years in America? Probably rising as medical tech gets better. Even with much lower growth, it will still be an immense strain on water, natural resources, and the like.

We may expand into space by that time or have extreme automation, but who can say. We definitely need to focus on sustainable water and housing. They are working on sustainable fish with fish farms and companies like aquabounty who have made fish age faster to maturity for harvesting. Water and sustainable housing both need to be a big focus going forward.

I'd be happy to discuss nuclear energy. I haven't spent much time looking at it. I know a lot of people tout nuclear energy. About all I know is they are working towards fusion which is the holy grail of sustainable clean energy. Fission is very productive, but the waste is dangerous and fission nuclear reactors can be weaponized. Not sure I love that.

[RiverDog]

I think we've already discussed this in another thread, but the worldwide birth rate has been in decline for decades. The overpopulation problem has been a result not of over breeding, but of people living longer than in the past. The problem with over population will self-correct when the older generations start dying off. That's one of the things that the liberals don't take into account, that our overall carbon footprint will get smaller as time goes on.

Large of law numbers makes even a small amount of growth a huge number of people.,,So your expectation is eventually this number will go negative?....Average lifespan is currently what? 78 years in America? Probably rising as medical tech gets better. Even with much lower growth, it will still be an immense strain on water, natural resources, and the like.

Good point. Yes, if the current trend continues, I expect the numbers to go negative at some point, at least in the industrialized nations where carbon use is greatest.

Average lifespan has been going up, but the maximum hasn't. The oldest person ever died in 1997 at 122 years old. The human body can only last so long. As a matter of fact, the average lifespan actually decreased last year, likely due to Covid, so we may have already seen it peak.

I'd be happy to discuss nuclear energy. I haven't spent much time looking at it. I know a lot of people tout nuclear energy. About all I know is they are working towards fusion which is the holy grail of sustainable clean energy. Fission is very productive, but the waste is dangerous and fission nuclear reactors can be weaponized. Not sure I love that.

Here's a snippet from the article I referenced:

These next-generation reactors incorporate several important safety features as well. Being a noble gas, the helium coolant will not react with other materials, even at high temperatures. Further, because the fuel elements and reactor core are made of refractory materials, they cannot melt and will degrade only at the extremely high temperatures encountered in accidents (more than 1,600 degrees C), a characteristic that affords a considerable margin of operating safety.

Yet other safety benefits accrue from the continuous, on-line fashion in which the core is refueled: during operation, one pebble is removed from the bottom of the core about once a minute as a replacement is placed on top. In this way, all the pebbles gradually move down through the core like gumballs in a dispensing machine, taking about six months to do so. This feature means that the system contains the optimum amount of fuel for operation, with little extra fissile reactivity. It eliminates an entire class of excess-reactivity accidents that can occur in current water-cooled reactors.

And that's just one of several next generation processes.

And to your concern that they could be weaponized:

When nations acquire nuclear weapons, they usually develop dedicated facilities to produce fissile materials rather than collecting nuclear materials from civilian power plants. Commercial nuclear fuel cycles are generally the most costly and difficult route for production of weapons-grade materials.

My point is that we aren't even considering nuclear as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Technology in the field has made huge advances in the safety of nuclear reactors and the amount of waste that must be stored, yet every time the word "nuclear" is mentioned, everybody has this image of a mushroom cloud, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Japanese accident. Yet we keep building these unsightly windfarms that has a huge footprint and are unreliable during peak periods.

[Aseahawkfan]

Good point. Yes, if the current trend continues, I expect the numbers to go negative at some point, at least in the industrialized nations where carbon use is greatest.

Average lifespan has been going up, but the maximum hasn't. The oldest person ever died in 1997 at 122 years old. The human body can only last so long. As a matter of fact, the average lifespan actually decreased last year, likely due to Covid, so we may have already seen it peak.

How long will that take? 20 more years at the current rate and we add almost 2 billion more people and reach close to 10 billion and that is with more of the world industrializing. It really all does come down to people on the planet needing space to live, work, water, food, roads to drive, and all the associated production needs to allow them to live as they have become accustomed. How much room do we have to grow?

Here's a snippet from the article I referenced:

These next-generation reactors incorporate several important safety features as well. Being a noble gas, the helium coolant will not react with other materials, even at high temperatures. Further, because the fuel elements and reactor core are made of refractory materials, they cannot melt and will degrade only at the extremely high temperatures encountered in accidents (more than 1,600 degrees C), a characteristic that affords a considerable margin of operating safety.

Yet other safety benefits accrue from the continuous, on-line fashion in which the core is refueled: during operation, one pebble is removed from the bottom of the core about once a minute as a replacement is placed on top. In this way, all the pebbles gradually move down through the core like gumballs in a dispensing machine, taking about six months to do so. This feature means that the system contains the optimum amount of fuel for operation, with little extra fissile reactivity. It eliminates an entire class of excess-reactivity accidents that can occur in current water-cooled reactors.

And that's just one of several next generation processes.

And to your concern that they could be weaponized:

When nations acquire nuclear weapons, they usually develop dedicated facilities to produce fissile materials rather than collecting nuclear materials from civilian power plants. Commercial nuclear fuel cycles are generally the most costly and difficult route for production of weapons-grade materials.

My point is that we aren't even considering nuclear as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Technology in the field has made huge advances in the safety of nuclear reactors and the amount of waste that must be stored, yet every time the word "nuclear" is mentioned, everybody has this image of a mushroom cloud, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Japanese accident. Yet we keep building these unsightly windfarms that has a huge footprint and are unreliable during peak periods.

I'm sure if it becomes desperate, they'll give it a shot. I don't see any way out of this issue other than a massive drop in the population and likely control measures at some point. Humans are naturally driven to reproduce. Humans have no natural predators. We have greater control of our environment and require more space and material than any other animal on the planet to live in the manner we've become accustomed. Humans are often self-centered and not particularly far seeing, at least the majority of humans. So they will move forward until they can't.

I personally expect some real bad times, but we'll see how long humans can stave off the cost of their standard of their living. So far humans have always won against the environment so that predictions by folks like Thomas Malthus proved wrong. But will that always be true? Maybe. But we're sure seeing unprecedented depletion and no easy way to replenish the lost resources. We seem to finding ways to produce more in a smaller space and people complain about that like mistreatment of animals in factory farming or genetically engineered plants and animals. Yet these very advancements in science are a major part of the reason we can sustain this level of humanity spread across such a big area.

[RiverDog]

Good point. Yes, if the current trend continues, I expect the numbers to go negative at some point, at least in the industrialized nations where carbon use is greatest.

Average lifespan has been going up, but the maximum hasn't. The oldest person ever died in 1997 at 122 years old. The human body can only last so long. As a matter of fact, the average lifespan actually decreased last year, likely due to Covid, so we may have already seen it peak.

How long will that take? 20 more years at the current rate and we add almost 2 billion more people and reach close to 10 billion and that is with more of the world industrializing. It really all does come down to people on the planet needing space to live, work, water, food, roads to drive, and all the associated production needs to allow them to live as they have become accustomed. How much room do we have to grow?

It's actually pretty close now in the US. In 2020, the birth rate was 11.0 per thousand, the death rate 10.2. Worldwide will take quite a bit longer as they don't have access to contraceptives, but they also don't use as much carbon. It's not going to be like Elon Musk's population collapse theory, but the rate of increase is going to be significantly slower until it eventually goes negative. It's not the solution, but it's something that needs to be factored in. As population increases slow, so does the burning of fossil fuels.

Here's a snippet from the article I referenced:

These next-generation reactors incorporate several important safety features as well. Being a noble gas, the helium coolant will not react with other materials, even at high temperatures. Further, because the fuel elements and reactor core are made of refractory materials, they cannot melt and will degrade only at the extremely high temperatures encountered in accidents (more than 1,600 degrees C), a characteristic that affords a considerable margin of operating safety.

Yet other safety benefits accrue from the continuous, on-line fashion in which the core is refueled: during operation, one pebble is removed from the bottom of the core about once a minute as a replacement is placed on top. In this way, all the pebbles gradually move down through the core like gumballs in a dispensing machine, taking about six months to do so. This feature means that the system contains the optimum amount of fuel for operation, with little extra fissile reactivity. It eliminates an entire class of excess-reactivity accidents that can occur in current water-cooled reactors.

And that's just one of several next generation processes.

And to your concern that they could be weaponized:

When nations acquire nuclear weapons, they usually develop dedicated facilities to produce fissile materials rather than collecting nuclear materials from civilian power plants. Commercial nuclear fuel cycles are generally the most costly and difficult route for production of weapons-grade materials.

My point is that we aren't even considering nuclear as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Technology in the field has made huge advances in the safety of nuclear reactors and the amount of waste that must be stored, yet every time the word "nuclear" is mentioned, everybody has this image of a mushroom cloud, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Japanese accident. Yet we keep building these unsightly windfarms that has a huge footprint and are unreliable during peak periods.

I'm sure if it becomes desperate, they'll give it a shot. I don't see any way out of this issue other than a massive drop in the population and likely control measures at some point. Humans are naturally driven to reproduce. Humans have no natural predators. We have greater control of our environment and require more space and material than any other animal on the planet to live in the manner we've become accustomed. Humans are often self-centered and not particularly far seeing, at least the majority of humans. So they will move forward until they can't.

I personally expect some real bad times, but we'll see how long humans can stave off the cost of their standard of their living. So far humans have always won against the environment so that predictions by folks like Thomas Malthus proved wrong. But will that always be true? Maybe. But we're sure seeing unprecedented depletion and no easy way to replenish the lost resources. We seem to finding ways to produce more in a smaller space and people complain about that like mistreatment of animals in factory farming or genetically engineered plants and animals. Yet these very advancements in science are a major part of the reason we can sustain this level of humanity spread across such a big area.

The problem is that the technologies that the left is embracing, ie wind and solar, are extremely limited in their ability to respond to peak demand periods and they don't have a method to store their energy in quantities large enough to sustain them through periods of low production. In the case of wind, when it gets over 100 degrees or below zero, times when demand is the greatest, there's hardly any wind. There is no solution in sight yet they insist on tearing out the dams, not to mention the fact that wind farms are extremely unpopular here in eastern Washington, with surveys showing over 75% of the residents not wanting them:

The Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce recently conducted a Public Opinion Survey regarding the Horse Heaven Wind Project which elicited 2,220 responses over a two-week period. The survey aimed to help determine local sentiment about the proposed project and to identify issues of greatest interest and concern to the region.

The results show overwhelming opposition to the project, with 78 percent of respondents expressing that the Horse Heaven Wind Project is not worth the personal, environmental, and economic impacts on the community (view results below), Survey data also reveals community concerns regarding the level of impact that specific Horse Heaven Wind Project outcomes (such as viewshed, turbine disposal, wildlife, etc.) will have on the region.

[Aseahawkfan]

The problem is that the technologies that the left is embracing, ie wind and solar, are extremely limited in their ability to respond to peak demand periods and they don't have a method to store their energy in quantities large enough to sustain them through periods of low production. In the case of wind, when it gets over 100 degrees or below zero, times when demand is the greatest, there's hardly any wind. There is no solution in sight yet they insist on tearing out the dams, not to mention the fact that wind farms are extremely unpopular here in eastern Washington, with surveys showing over 75% of the residents not wanting them:

The Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce recently conducted a Public Opinion Survey regarding the Horse Heaven Wind Project which elicited 2,220 responses over a two-week period. The survey aimed to help determine local sentiment about the proposed project and to identify issues of greatest interest and concern to the region.

The results show overwhelming opposition to the project, with 78 percent of respondents expressing that the Horse Heaven Wind Project is not worth the personal, environmental, and economic impacts on the community (view results below), Survey data also reveals community concerns regarding the level of impact that specific Horse Heaven Wind Project outcomes (such as viewshed, turbine disposal, wildlife, etc.) will have on the region.

They are working on advancing battery tech and power management systems for dealing with this issue. I'm invested in a company called STEM who designs power management and battery systems for companies and possibly as infrastructure using city level power. So you could charge up batteries with wind and water, then store and manage the power to deal with peak demand. We'll see how it goes.

There is a company known as Ameresco which takes waste and turns it into energy. I'm not quite sure how well it does. But so far they have been growing steadily.

There is also geothermal energy converting the earth's core heat into energy. Not sure how widespread that is. The earth's core is apparently almost like a thermal reaction and can supply immense geothermal energy. It's hard to tap as it requires very deep drilling. Not sure how great that would be all over the planet.

Carbon capture technology seems to be advancing. That is allowing them to pull carbon from the air and convert it back into a usable energy form. If carbon capture tech advances far enough, it could solve two problems at once by recycling carbon from the air for use in energy.

That's why I love capitalism and science. A little human ingenuity driven by a desire for profits solving problems always seems to lead us to beating the environment trying to kill us. That's why there is no better system than capitalism. No economic system has solved more problems and provided more value than capitalism. Though it must be regulated and still have a strong moral base to operate well.

[RiverDog]

They are working on advancing battery tech and power management systems for dealing with this issue. I'm invested in a company called STEM who designs power management and battery systems for companies and possibly as infrastructure using city level power. So you could charge up batteries with wind and water, then store and manage the power to deal with peak demand. We'll see how it goes.

There is a company known as Ameresco which takes waste and turns it into energy. I'm not quite sure how well it does. But so far they have been growing steadily.

There is also geothermal energy converting the earth's core heat into energy. Not sure how widespread that is. The earth's core is apparently almost like a thermal reaction and can supply immense geothermal energy. It's hard to tap as it requires very deep drilling. Not sure how great that would be all over the planet.

Carbon capture technology seems to be advancing. That is allowing them to pull carbon from the air and convert it back into a usable energy form. If carbon capture tech advances far enough, it could solve two problems at once by recycling carbon from the air for use in energy.

That's why I love capitalism and science. A little human ingenuity driven by a desire for profits solving problems always seems to lead us to beating the environment trying to kill us. That's why there is no better system than capitalism. No economic system has solved more problems and provided more value than capitalism. Though it must be regulated and still have a strong moral base to operate well.

You're talking about technology on a scale large enough to replace hydro and fossil fuels that is a decade or more out. Besides, it doesn't solve the problem of the huge footprint and other damages to the environment that wind and solar farms create.

I've seen an episode on Nova entitled "Can we cool the planet?" that talked about carbon capture. But like battery technology, it, too, would be extremely expensive to implement on a scale large enough to make a difference. And there's problems to figure out, like where to store the carbon and how to get it to a disposal site. The plants themselves would be a huge energy hog. They're able to do it in Iceland because they're sitting on a huge geothermal hot spot.

Technology doesn't advance very fast unless there is a monetary incentive or we're in a wartime footing. How long have they been messing around with electric vehicles? We've had electric powered vehicles and watercraft for over 100 years and they're just now becoming a viable mode of personal transportation. We're going to have to use off the shelf technology to cover the gap between now and when these other modes you're talking about become viable.

[NorthHawk]

It's starting in some places. Australia and California are beginning to use battery storage to supply energy when extra demands are required.
It's not the complete answer yet but I'm not sure it's too far in the future.

Here's one article
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... constraint

[Aseahawkfan]

You're talking about technology on a scale large enough to replace hydro and fossil fuels that is a decade or more out. Besides, it doesn't solve the problem of the huge footprint and other damages to the environment that wind and solar farms create.

I've seen an episode on Nova entitled "Can we cool the planet?" that talked about carbon capture. But like battery technology, it, too, would be extremely expensive to implement on a scale large enough to make a difference. And there's problems to figure out, like where to store the carbon and how to get it to a disposal site. The plants themselves would be a huge energy hog. They're able to do it in Iceland because they're sitting on a huge geothermal hot spot.

Technology doesn't advance very fast unless there is a monetary incentive or we're in a wartime footing. How long have they been messing around with electric vehicles? We've had electric powered vehicles and watercraft for over 100 years and they're just now becoming a viable mode of personal transportation. We're going to have to use off the shelf technology to cover the gap between now and when these other modes you're talking about become viable.

Who knows how long the tech will take. They are working a lot on alternative energy.

Like we discussed a while ago, time tables on environmental change and damage are wrong, have been wrong, and likely will always be wrong. I'm not sure if you recall, they thought the human race would suffer mass extinction by an inability to increase the food supply, they sold us when younger that environmental change would have already killed us or done way more damage, they told us we would run out of oil (Peak Oil Theory), Y2K, religious Armageddon was supposed to occur, and we were supposed to die from nuclear war. We've been told we were all done for a very long time and it never comes true. Which is why I'm not as worried as others about environmental change killing us in some short time period. It's not going to happen in 12 or 20 or 50 years or even a 100 or 200, so we have time to develop a lot of technologies in that time frame. It's another reason why I hate Armageddon politics as they are wrong as much as religion and once people have had their fear level driven up to extreme levels like people have had done with the left selling the environmental problem as killing in a short time period, people start to become immune to the effects and it has a boy who cried wolf effect on people. It's stupid to sell timetables that you cannot prove and then have to extend them again and again and again until you look like a total idiot that no one should believe.

Technology is advancing faster and faster. We went from ICE to EVs in a little over a hundred fourty years. The personal computer was developed in the 70s and 50 years later you're carrying a computer in your hand as a smartphone more powerful than the most powerful computer 50 years ago. Biotech started out as slow medical advances where it took years to decades to create a vaccine and you just watched a modern company create an effective vaccine in under a year. If you look at the past, the age of electricity and power accelerated all our science. Even flying on a plane from one nation to another was unheard of a little over a hundred years ago, and now we have companies building rockets and ships for space tourism. We just launched a telescope to see light from the origins of the universe. I would say science is pretty fast now and getting faster. I expect lots of alternative solutions developed well before we have to concern ourselves with extinction.

Some of the other technology that is interesting are companies like Aquabounty creating fast growing fish. I imagine at some point someone might produce faster growing trees. Genetic technology is also advancing and might make a leap forward at any point time to do crazy things like regrow bodies, clone limbs, or provide lab grown meat to make the animal loving vegans feel better about eating meat. Lots of interesting science going on in the world. How long it will take to scale and commercialize will vary. CRISPR tech is working on gene editing right now. If that takes off, they could do some real amazing gene modification at some future point.

I think technology advances surprisingly quick at this point. There is massive investment in technology not just by capitalists, but also by the governments. That's why I'd love to live another hundred years or more. Science is really taking off in ways never seen before.

In the end, I think there will be a lot of ways we learn to control our environment. As long as someone doesn't accidentally make a severe mistake that leads to our destruction like creating an uncontrolled fusion reaction that consumes the planet or some kind of genetic poison or drills too much causing the planet to become unstable or an AI that decides we're no longer necessary, we should be fine in the long run.

On a side note, the reason EVs have not been adopted is people made a lot of money off oil. It's also why car companies did not increase MPG until they were forced to. There were financial incentives and interference by Big Oil in EV and much longer MPG technological increases. You can read on how Big Oil slowed the advancement of alternatives to the ICE engine out there. Just like Big Sugar had a plant known as stevia, a natural sugar alternative healthier than artificial sweeteners, so as to preserve the sale of sugar. One of the downsides of capitalism is big corporations can use their money to slow down advancement in competing technologies with lies. Even Big Tobacco lobbied heavily to convince people with governmental support that smoking wasn't harmful, but that was obviously proven wrong. These are some of the downsides of capitailsm.

[c_hawkbob]

There are a LOT of new technologies on the near horizon. The one I'm most excited about burns as it's fuel less than 4% natural gas and 0ver 90% of CO2. It's only emissions are water and high purity, industrial grade CO2 that it can then sell. There is one working plant right now and 4 others under construction. With it's negative carbon footprint I expect that eventually these will be everywhere and along with some of the newer nuclear technologies bear the brunt of the transformation to clean energy. It may take a while, but it's coming.

https://www.powermag.com/breakthrough-n ... rcot-grid/

[Aseahawkfan]

There are a LOT of new technologies on the near horizon. The one I'm most excited about burns as it's fuel less than 4% natural gas and 0ver 90% of CO2. It's only emissions are water and high purity, industrial grade CO2 that it can then sell. There is one working plant right now and 4 others under construction. With it's negative carbon footprint I expect that eventually these will be everywhere and along with some of the newer nuclear technologies bear the brunt of the transformation to clean energy. It may take a while, but it's coming.

https://www.powermag.com/breakthrough-n ... rcot-grid/

That's interesting. I had not heard of that one. And yet another technology looking to solve the problem. Humans are crazy smart when you give them a problem.

[c_hawkbob]

It's even more impressive when you look at that capital cost to build these plants. $1,200/kW compared to up to to $1,500/kW for new nuclear units and $1,800/kW for wind and solar.

[NorthHawk]

Technology often takes big leaps from the consumers pov, but we don’t see even a fraction of the ideas people are working on.
Some will have a future but most will fall by the wayside or be set aside until someone digs it up and perfects it.

I’ve often thought we should have gone big on the hydrogen road instead of electric. It would have been less impactful on the economy as the ICE would still be needed along with mufflers, engine blocks, transmissions, and other industries that will almost assuredly die in the future.

As well, hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the world so supply isn’t beholding to any country. The problem is the cost of breaking the hydrogen molecule but at some point someone would find an inexpensive solution.