Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Obama is pro science and technology and that's what creates wealth

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 6:50 p.m. EST by RAM (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

“Science and technology are the engines of prosperity. Of course, one is free to ignore science and technology, but only at your peril…If you do not master the latest in science and technology, then your competitors will.”-Physics Of The Future p.297 by Michio Kaku



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 12 years ago

We already have incredible wealth. The problem is it is hoarded by a few with an inequitable portion that trickles down to the rest. The science that needs to be explored is the one that can fairly give a fair share of the economic pie to each person

[-] 2 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 12 years ago

I'm sorry... Strictly capitalist ideals are not the only one's in question here. The scope the OWS movement goes far beyond economic progress. You have merit in the idea of scientific and technological advancement, but even progress in those fields needs a watchful eye to prevent its utilization for the wrong reasons. Watching this movement grow globally gives me the sneaky suspicion that the core principle in question is to raise the standard of living right across the board, for the entire human race. It has gone far passed Wall street, it's gone global.

[-] 2 points by unfleecedbysheep (153) 12 years ago

What power sources will be used to facilitate these new technologies production and implementation. There are many technologies that could be utilized that produce no emissions and require little or no energy input, except for the fact that once created there is no further profit after their initial sale. This means there is no incentive to begin using them, and the knowledge of these devices alone would cause the trillion dollar energy markets to become unstable, so they are suppressed. Some inventors include Nikolai Tesla, Stan Meyers, and Paul Pantoni among others. Hydrogen closed loop engines, sterling principle closed loop heat transfer engines, Tesla Coil atmospheric energy absorbers, are some of the most efficient energy sources ever discovered. Others include bio-waste heat pump generators, and of course solar heat pumps, and wind or water turbines.

[-] 1 points by Atomsmasher (8) 12 years ago

There are NO energy technologies that create energy without energy input! It's the first law of thermodynamics. That's why companies don't use those technologies... they don't exist. There are varying degrees of efficiency, and generally speaking higher efficiency has higher up front costs. Depending on the cost of borrowing it can make those systems to expensive, even for big companies. The one thing I'd like to see is solar systems on the roof and above the parking lot of every mall in America. Remember that environmentalists in the 70s thought Hydro power was the way to go, but that's out now because it ruins rivers. As soon as folks figure out wind turbines decimate migrating birds that'll be out as well.

[-] 1 points by unfleecedbysheep (153) 12 years ago

The energy input is heat, The atmosphere we live in is superheated gaseous vapor of nitrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide. The atmosphere is also charged with electrons from solar radiation and electromagnetic frequencies. Potential energy is shown to be 30 volts per foot above the ground. Hydro power on massive scales and giant turbines are destructive and consume large amounts of energy to produce, besides they require long transmission line losses. I am talking small scale individually owned independent infrastructures that require much less time and materials to produce. They would be much closer to the end user, thus there would be very little transmission line loss. Think about it. and decimate means 1 in 10 or 10%. just pointing that out.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

Good post RAM. I've advocated for science ever since learning that it's closest to the truth that we have. I ditched that silly made bible BS decades ago. Best thing I ever did!!!

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 12 years ago

Rather than reading whatever you wrote, I figured I'd spend about the same amount of time counting the number of exclamation marks you used in your title and at least that way, I knew I'd glean something factual for my efforts.

I count 40. Can't argue with that!

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 12 years ago

nice idea