Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

The horror of Malthus' predictions never happened.
I'm surprised to see anyone repeating that failure.
THe fact is that the rate of population growth is now in decline.

Human behaviour has affected the deliberate breeding of food animals. For instance the Aberdeen Angus has been bred to yield a lot of back and rump for its weight and moreover to grow muscle tissue that is marbled with fat.The efficient food animal is also a good doer, as is the case with AA beasts.Many modern beef herds have admixture of AA genes.

Production methods are impartially investigated by animal charities, and general investigative journalists from reputable media. Moreover, people who have to live close to feed lots pay less for their homes due to smells from over crowded and dead animals. Good pasturage and good veterinary welfare costs a lot of money:quality meat costs a lot of money.

It's well known that feed lot animals are dosed with antibiotics so they can stay alive in their horrendous conditions until slaughter. This practise has resulted in many precious antibiotic therapies becoming useless for humans.

"It is well known" amongst those that are rabid vegans who relish in conspiracy theories. THe truth is otherwise.

Wonderfully the breeding of farm stock only enhances the nutrition of the meat.
(Not so for many plant species.)
Whilst SOME animals are kept without scant regard to welfare this is not the norm and in the UK, and EU they are protected by law.
Antibiotics used for animals are not the same as those applied to humans and since there are very few zoonotic diseases their uses have not in any way affected the value of antibiotics for humans.
If you have any evidence to back up these hysterical assertions please furnish the thread with them.

Veterinary antibiotics are the same as those used for humans. Food animals get these antibiotics prophylactically and to help to get them fatter sooner. We eat flesh which contains antibiotics and consequently we get antibiotic-resistant infections. Organic meat is obtainable but is much more expensive. People want to pay as little as possible for meat . The industry in order to profit from public demand will continue to provide cheap low welfare meat .

https://www.saveourantibiotics.org/the- ... k-farming/

I nursed people with acute infectious fevers in the late 40s early 50s and I and my colleagues were made very aware of the danger of overuse of antibiotics causing antibiotic -resistance. These were amazing wonder drugs which saved children dying from horrible bacterial infections. I feel disappointed that us young girls' care not to provoke antibiotic-resistance has been rubbished by greed.

Your link does not support your contention.

[Sculptor1]

The horror of Malthus' predictions never happened.
I'm surprised to see anyone repeating that failure.
THe fact is that the rate of population growth is now in decline.

Human behaviour has affected the deliberate breeding of food animals. For instance the Aberdeen Angus has been bred to yield a lot of back and rump for its weight and moreover to grow muscle tissue that is marbled with fat.The efficient food animal is also a good doer, as is the case with AA beasts.Many modern beef herds have admixture of AA genes.

Production methods are impartially investigated by animal charities, and general investigative journalists from reputable media. Moreover, people who have to live close to feed lots pay less for their homes due to smells from over crowded and dead animals. Good pasturage and good veterinary welfare costs a lot of money:quality meat costs a lot of money.

It's well known that feed lot animals are dosed with antibiotics so they can stay alive in their horrendous conditions until slaughter. This practise has resulted in many precious antibiotic therapies becoming useless for humans.

"It is well known" amongst those that are rabid vegans who relish in conspiracy theories. THe truth is otherwise.

Wonderfully the breeding of farm stock only enhances the nutrition of the meat.
(Not so for many plant species.)
Whilst SOME animals are kept without scant regard to welfare this is not the norm and in the UK, and EU they are protected by law.
Antibiotics used for animals are not the same as those applied to humans and since there are very few zoonotic diseases their uses have not in any way affected the value of antibiotics for humans.
If you have any evidence to back up these hysterical assertions please furnish the thread with them.

Veterinary antibiotics are the same as those used for humans. Food animals get these antibiotics prophylactically and to help to get them fatter sooner. We eat flesh which contains antibiotics and consequently we get antibiotic-resistant infections. Organic meat is obtainable but is much more expensive. People want to pay as little as possible for meat . The industry in order to profit from public demand will continue to provide cheap low welfare meat .

https://www.saveourantibiotics.org/the- ... k-farming/

I nursed people with acute infectious fevers in the late 40s early 50s and I and my colleagues were made very aware of the danger of overuse of antibiotics causing antibiotic -resistance. These were amazing wonder drugs which saved children dying from horrible bacterial infections. I feel disappointed that us young girls' care not to provoke antibiotic-resistance has been rubbished by greed.

Antibiotics are denatured by gentle cooking, and do not get into the human diet.
Neither do they reside in any significant quantities in the flesh of animals.
Antibiotics are most commonly flushed by the kidneys are soon as they are present in the blood supply.
Are you just making this stuff up as you go along, or are you the conduit of vegan propaganda?

[Belindi]

Human behaviour has affected the deliberate breeding of food animals. For instance the Aberdeen Angus has been bred to yield a lot of back and rump for its weight and moreover to grow muscle tissue that is marbled with fat.The efficient food animal is also a good doer, as is the case with AA beasts.Many modern beef herds have admixture of AA genes.

Production methods are impartially investigated by animal charities, and general investigative journalists from reputable media. Moreover, people who have to live close to feed lots pay less for their homes due to smells from over crowded and dead animals. Good pasturage and good veterinary welfare costs a lot of money:quality meat costs a lot of money.

It's well known that feed lot animals are dosed with antibiotics so they can stay alive in their horrendous conditions until slaughter. This practise has resulted in many precious antibiotic therapies becoming useless for humans.

"It is well known" amongst those that are rabid vegans who relish in conspiracy theories. THe truth is otherwise.

Wonderfully the breeding of farm stock only enhances the nutrition of the meat.
(Not so for many plant species.)
Whilst SOME animals are kept without scant regard to welfare this is not the norm and in the UK, and EU they are protected by law.
Antibiotics used for animals are not the same as those applied to humans and since there are very few zoonotic diseases their uses have not in any way affected the value of antibiotics for humans.
If you have any evidence to back up these hysterical assertions please furnish the thread with them.

Veterinary antibiotics are the same as those used for humans. Food animals get these antibiotics prophylactically and to help to get them fatter sooner. We eat flesh which contains antibiotics and consequently we get antibiotic-resistant infections. Organic meat is obtainable but is much more expensive. People want to pay as little as possible for meat . The industry in order to profit from public demand will continue to provide cheap low welfare meat .

https://www.saveourantibiotics.org/the- ... k-farming/

I nursed people with acute infectious fevers in the late 40s early 50s and I and my colleagues were made very aware of the danger of overuse of antibiotics causing antibiotic -resistance. These were amazing wonder drugs which saved children dying from horrible bacterial infections. I feel disappointed that us young girls' care not to provoke antibiotic-resistance has been rubbished by greed.

Antibiotics are denatured by gentle cooking, and do not get into the human diet.
Neither do they reside in any significant quantities in the flesh of animals.
Antibiotics are most commonly flushed by the kidneys are soon as they are present in the blood supply.
Are you just making this stuff up as you go along, or are you the conduit of vegan propaganda?

I told you already. "This stuff" was known not only to scientists but also to junior nurses in the late 40s early 50s.

It's not the antibiotics that persist. It's the antibiotic- immune disease germs that persist. That is why we young nurses were not allowed to salve our sore red hands with penicillin cream.

[Sy Borg]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

[Belindi]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

Hence we will see a rise in right wing regimes. The very rich will rule from their luxury bunkers. Civilisation decreases in the fight for survival amid decreasing natural resources.

[Mercury]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

Hence we will see a rise in right wing regimes. The very rich will rule from their luxury bunkers. Civilisation decreases in the fight for survival amid decreasing natural resources.

The idea that the rich can remain rich without any basis in the real economy is a fallacy. It cannot work because the value of money is relative. What is a gold bar worth to a man in the desert dying of thirst? A glass of water! Money does not have inherent value. It is a token of the value of the things that can be purchased with it.

If the rich neglect society such they need to retreat to bunkers they won't be rich anymore. Their money will be worthless because it cannot buy anything of value. Hence, the rich cannot afford for society to fail - and that so, faced with climate change, must apply magma energy technology. Supplying limitless clean energy is the only way to maintain the living standards of the general population, and so maintain the value of money.

Any shift toward left wing or right wing autocracy that regards the people as the enemy is doomed to failure; a spiral of entropic decline with less energy, at greater cost, in face of increasing challenges. The only conceivable path to a long term future is to maintain and extend capitalist democratic freedom and prosperity powered by limitless clean energy from magma.

[Belindi]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

Hence we will see a rise in right wing regimes. The very rich will rule from their luxury bunkers. Civilisation decreases in the fight for survival amid decreasing natural resources.

The idea that the rich can remain rich without any basis in the real economy is a fallacy. It cannot work because the value of money is relative. What is a gold bar worth to a man in the desert dying of thirst? A glass of water! Money does not have inherent value. It is a token of the value of the things that can be purchased with it.

If the rich neglect society such they need to retreat to bunkers they won't be rich anymore. Their money will be worthless because it cannot buy anything of value. Hence, the rich cannot afford for society to fail - and that so, faced with climate change, must apply magma energy technology. Supplying limitless clean energy is the only way to maintain the living standards of the general population, and so maintain the value of money.

Any shift toward left wing or right wing autocracy that regards the people as the enemy is doomed to failure; a spiral of entropic decline with less energy, at greater cost, in face of increasing challenges. The only conceivable path to a long term future is to maintain and extend capitalist democratic freedom and prosperity powered by limitless clean energy from magma.

That is all true. However in "luxury bunkers" I include a subordinate class of men who serve the rich overlords.

[Sy Borg]

I don't see an issue. If there comes a time when over 90% of wealth is contained in the upper echelon, they can drop the rest of us off like a leprotic arm, operating purely B2B. Why bother with the hassle of the poor millions when you can have smooth transactions with peers and professionals who have all the money?

At this stage, billionaires only hold about a third of all wealth, so they still need us. For now.

Imagine being a great ape at the time when Homo sapiens was just starting to become more dominant. It would have been very strange and intimidating. History, or pre-history, appears to be repeating.

[Mercury]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

Hence we will see a rise in right wing regimes. The very rich will rule from their luxury bunkers. Civilisation decreases in the fight for survival amid decreasing natural resources.

The idea that the rich can remain rich without any basis in the real economy is a fallacy. It cannot work because the value of money is relative. What is a gold bar worth to a man in the desert dying of thirst? A glass of water! Money does not have inherent value. It is a token of the value of the things that can be purchased with it.

If the rich neglect society such they need to retreat to bunkers they won't be rich anymore. Their money will be worthless because it cannot buy anything of value. Hence, the rich cannot afford for society to fail - and that so, faced with climate change, must apply magma energy technology. Supplying limitless clean energy is the only way to maintain the living standards of the general population, and so maintain the value of money.

Any shift toward left wing or right wing autocracy that regards the people as the enemy is doomed to failure; a spiral of entropic decline with less energy, at greater cost, in face of increasing challenges. The only conceivable path to a long term future is to maintain and extend capitalist democratic freedom and prosperity powered by limitless clean energy from magma.

That is all true. However in "luxury bunkers" I include a subordinate class of men who serve the rich overlords.

It's difficult to appreciate how having limitless clean energy to spend would change the equation; it would be a new phase in human existence - as different as the industrial age was from every preceding era. We'd have a future to grow into; not a cul-de-sac, but an open road ahead - a vast landscape of previously un-imagined opportunity would be opened to us.

It's universally assumed that resources are a fixed quantity; but that's incorrect. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them - and the energy available from magma is monolithic; up to 10,000 times current global energy demand just from the US alone. Worldwide, the energy available is effectively limitless. And we can get there from here without turning the world upside down.

We could not only meet - but exceed current global energy demand, plus have power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and new urban landscapes. We'd have the power available to recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere. We could internalise the externalities of capitalism with limitless clean energy - and so continue to grow economically without destroying the world. The energy is there; the technology to harness it is proven. A prosperous sustainable future is technologically possible; but neither the billionaire class nor anti-capitalist climate change protesters believe that! Both would rather write us off; I'm officially offended!

[Belindi]

Human behaviour has affected the deliberate breeding of food animals. For instance the Aberdeen Angus has been bred to yield a lot of back and rump for its weight and moreover to grow muscle tissue that is marbled with fat.The efficient food animal is also a good doer, as is the case with AA beasts.Many modern beef herds have admixture of AA genes.

Production methods are impartially investigated by animal charities, and general investigative journalists from reputable media. Moreover, people who have to live close to feed lots pay less for their homes due to smells from over crowded and dead animals. Good pasturage and good veterinary welfare costs a lot of money:quality meat costs a lot of money.

It's well known that feed lot animals are dosed with antibiotics so they can stay alive in their horrendous conditions until slaughter. This practise has resulted in many precious antibiotic therapies becoming useless for humans.

"It is well known" amongst those that are rabid vegans who relish in conspiracy theories. THe truth is otherwise.

Wonderfully the breeding of farm stock only enhances the nutrition of the meat.
(Not so for many plant species.)
Whilst SOME animals are kept without scant regard to welfare this is not the norm and in the UK, and EU they are protected by law.
Antibiotics used for animals are not the same as those applied to humans and since there are very few zoonotic diseases their uses have not in any way affected the value of antibiotics for humans.
If you have any evidence to back up these hysterical assertions please furnish the thread with them.

Veterinary antibiotics are the same as those used for humans. Food animals get these antibiotics prophylactically and to help to get them fatter sooner. We eat flesh which contains antibiotics and consequently we get antibiotic-resistant infections. Organic meat is obtainable but is much more expensive. People want to pay as little as possible for meat . The industry in order to profit from public demand will continue to provide cheap low welfare meat .

https://www.saveourantibiotics.org/the- ... k-farming/

I nursed people with acute infectious fevers in the late 40s early 50s and I and my colleagues were made very aware of the danger of overuse of antibiotics causing antibiotic -resistance. These were amazing wonder drugs which saved children dying from horrible bacterial infections. I feel disappointed that us young girls' care not to provoke antibiotic-resistance has been rubbished by greed.

Your link does not support your contention.

From my link:

European Medicines Agency and the WHO say that the overuse of antibiotics in farming contributes to higher levels of antibiotic resistance in some human infections.

Antibiotics used prophylactically by means of natural selection cause antibiotic resistant strains of pathogens in food.

[Belindi]

I don't see an issue. If there comes a time when over 90% of wealth is contained in the upper echelon, they can drop the rest of us off like a leprotic arm, operating purely B2B. Why bother with the hassle of the poor millions when you can have smooth transactions with peers and professionals who have all the money?

At this stage, billionaires only hold about a third of all wealth, so they still need us. For now.

Imagine being a great ape at the time when Homo sapiens was just starting to become more dominant. It would have been very strange and intimidating. History, or pre-history, appears to be repeating.

I don't see how society could exist without us hewers of wood and drawers of water. I think as long as human societies exist there will social classes. The main concern is to lessen the differential between social classes and to promote social mobility. Slavery relates to class differentials .

[Belindi]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

Hence we will see a rise in right wing regimes. The very rich will rule from their luxury bunkers. Civilisation decreases in the fight for survival amid decreasing natural resources.

The idea that the rich can remain rich without any basis in the real economy is a fallacy. It cannot work because the value of money is relative. What is a gold bar worth to a man in the desert dying of thirst? A glass of water! Money does not have inherent value. It is a token of the value of the things that can be purchased with it.

If the rich neglect society such they need to retreat to bunkers they won't be rich anymore. Their money will be worthless because it cannot buy anything of value. Hence, the rich cannot afford for society to fail - and that so, faced with climate change, must apply magma energy technology. Supplying limitless clean energy is the only way to maintain the living standards of the general population, and so maintain the value of money.

Any shift toward left wing or right wing autocracy that regards the people as the enemy is doomed to failure; a spiral of entropic decline with less energy, at greater cost, in face of increasing challenges. The only conceivable path to a long term future is to maintain and extend capitalist democratic freedom and prosperity powered by limitless clean energy from magma.

That is all true. However in "luxury bunkers" I include a subordinate class of men who serve the rich overlords.

It's difficult to appreciate how having limitless clean energy to spend would change the equation; it would be a new phase in human existence - as different as the industrial age was from every preceding era. We'd have a future to grow into; not a cul-de-sac, but an open road ahead - a vast landscape of previously un-imagined opportunity would be opened to us.

It's universally assumed that resources are a fixed quantity; but that's incorrect. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them - and the energy available from magma is monolithic; up to 10,000 times current global energy demand just from the US alone. Worldwide, the energy available is effectively limitless. And we can get there from here without turning the world upside down.

We could not only meet - but exceed current global energy demand, plus have power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and new urban landscapes. We'd have the power available to recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere. We could internalise the externalities of capitalism with limitless clean energy - and so continue to grow economically without destroying the world. The energy is there; the technology to harness it is proven. A prosperous sustainable future is technologically possible; but neither the billionaire class nor anti-capitalist climate change protesters believe that! Both would rather write us off; I'm officially offended!

Is there a political reason or a geological reason magma energy remains untapped?
Is magma energy got from burning something like oil or coal, resulting in environmental pollution as do fossil fuels?

Edited:
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... mal-energy

The main problems seem to be the initial cost of tapping the energy, destabilising surface areas and earthquakes, and sealing in harmful substances to protect clean water sources.

[Mercury]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

Hence we will see a rise in right wing regimes. The very rich will rule from their luxury bunkers. Civilisation decreases in the fight for survival amid decreasing natural resources.

The idea that the rich can remain rich without any basis in the real economy is a fallacy. It cannot work because the value of money is relative. What is a gold bar worth to a man in the desert dying of thirst? A glass of water! Money does not have inherent value. It is a token of the value of the things that can be purchased with it.

If the rich neglect society such they need to retreat to bunkers they won't be rich anymore. Their money will be worthless because it cannot buy anything of value. Hence, the rich cannot afford for society to fail - and that so, faced with climate change, must apply magma energy technology. Supplying limitless clean energy is the only way to maintain the living standards of the general population, and so maintain the value of money.

Any shift toward left wing or right wing autocracy that regards the people as the enemy is doomed to failure; a spiral of entropic decline with less energy, at greater cost, in face of increasing challenges. The only conceivable path to a long term future is to maintain and extend capitalist democratic freedom and prosperity powered by limitless clean energy from magma.

That is all true. However in "luxury bunkers" I include a subordinate class of men who serve the rich overlords.

It's difficult to appreciate how having limitless clean energy to spend would change the equation; it would be a new phase in human existence - as different as the industrial age was from every preceding era. We'd have a future to grow into; not a cul-de-sac, but an open road ahead - a vast landscape of previously un-imagined opportunity would be opened to us.

It's universally assumed that resources are a fixed quantity; but that's incorrect. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them - and the energy available from magma is monolithic; up to 10,000 times current global energy demand just from the US alone. Worldwide, the energy available is effectively limitless. And we can get there from here without turning the world upside down.

We could not only meet - but exceed current global energy demand, plus have power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and new urban landscapes. We'd have the power available to recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere. We could internalise the externalities of capitalism with limitless clean energy - and so continue to grow economically without destroying the world. The energy is there; the technology to harness it is proven. A prosperous sustainable future is technologically possible; but neither the billionaire class nor anti-capitalist climate change protesters believe that! Both would rather write us off; I'm officially offended!

Is there a political reason or a geological reason magma energy remains untapped?
Is magma energy got from burning something like oil or coal, resulting in environmental pollution as do fossil fuels?

Edited:
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... mal-energy

The main problems seem to be the initial cost of tapping the energy, destabilising surface areas and earthquakes, and sealing in harmful substances to protect clean water sources.

Magma is the heat energy of the earth itself, the molten rock beneath our feet. Around 50% of that heat is primordial - meaning leftover from the formation of the earth. The other 50% is radiogenic - meaning the result of the decay of radioactive elements.

Magma does contain dissolved carbon dioxide and other gasses - under pressure, that under certain conditions can be released - explosively. However, tapping a magma energy would not create the conditions for the explosive release of magma, because - it's been shown that a narrow borehole drilled directly into a magma chamber, magma solidifies after a few meters. However, it's not necessary to drill directly into a magma chamber to harness magma energy. The target would be the red hot rock surrounding a magma chamber.

All of the problems you list there are not associated with magma-geothermal energy - but with hydro-geothermal energy. The former taps directly into the energy of hot rock. The latter taps into underground bodies of hot water. Underground bodies of water expand when heated, and contract when cooled by the extraction of energy. This causes earthquakes. That water can become polluted, rise up the pipe and leak into groundwater. There's also the 'replacement rate' problem with hydro-geothermal; in that an underground body of hot water once cooled by energy extraction takes time to heat up again, and this can be difficult to predict making the investment risky. A hydro-geothermal well can 'run dry'!

Magma energy has none of these problems, because the heat transfer liquid is contained in a closed loop system of pipes; with a heat exchanger at the bottom of the borehole. Hot liquid rises, cold water is drawn down to be heated, and the thing runs forever, carbon free, pollution free, no earthquakes, no volcanoes - just heavy duty base load clean energy.

There's a lot of confusion around different forms of geothermal; at least some of which I suspect is deliberate. It's telling that this technology has gone ignored for 40 years; after being proven viable by NASA/Sandia Labs from 1975-1982. It's disappointing that environmentalists have not demanded this technology be applied; but instead pushed the 'Limits to Growth' narrative as an anti-capitalist agenda - they have put ahead of a practical and promising means of reconciling human and environmental welfare.

[Belindi]

The rate of population increase is slowing but, because a rate is a percentage of whole - and the whole is growing - the actual number of people is increasing every year, despite being a reduced proportion of a growing whole.

Hence we will see a rise in right wing regimes. The very rich will rule from their luxury bunkers. Civilisation decreases in the fight for survival amid decreasing natural resources.

The idea that the rich can remain rich without any basis in the real economy is a fallacy. It cannot work because the value of money is relative. What is a gold bar worth to a man in the desert dying of thirst? A glass of water! Money does not have inherent value. It is a token of the value of the things that can be purchased with it.

If the rich neglect society such they need to retreat to bunkers they won't be rich anymore. Their money will be worthless because it cannot buy anything of value. Hence, the rich cannot afford for society to fail - and that so, faced with climate change, must apply magma energy technology. Supplying limitless clean energy is the only way to maintain the living standards of the general population, and so maintain the value of money.

Any shift toward left wing or right wing autocracy that regards the people as the enemy is doomed to failure; a spiral of entropic decline with less energy, at greater cost, in face of increasing challenges. The only conceivable path to a long term future is to maintain and extend capitalist democratic freedom and prosperity powered by limitless clean energy from magma.

That is all true. However in "luxury bunkers" I include a subordinate class of men who serve the rich overlords.

It's difficult to appreciate how having limitless clean energy to spend would change the equation; it would be a new phase in human existence - as different as the industrial age was from every preceding era. We'd have a future to grow into; not a cul-de-sac, but an open road ahead - a vast landscape of previously un-imagined opportunity would be opened to us.

It's universally assumed that resources are a fixed quantity; but that's incorrect. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them - and the energy available from magma is monolithic; up to 10,000 times current global energy demand just from the US alone. Worldwide, the energy available is effectively limitless. And we can get there from here without turning the world upside down.

We could not only meet - but exceed current global energy demand, plus have power to desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and new urban landscapes. We'd have the power available to recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere. We could internalise the externalities of capitalism with limitless clean energy - and so continue to grow economically without destroying the world. The energy is there; the technology to harness it is proven. A prosperous sustainable future is technologically possible; but neither the billionaire class nor anti-capitalist climate change protesters believe that! Both would rather write us off; I'm officially offended!

Is there a political reason or a geological reason magma energy remains untapped?
Is magma energy got from burning something like oil or coal, resulting in environmental pollution as do fossil fuels?

Edited:
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... mal-energy

The main problems seem to be the initial cost of tapping the energy, destabilising surface areas and earthquakes, and sealing in harmful substances to protect clean water sources.

Magma is the heat energy of the earth itself, the molten rock beneath our feet. Around 50% of that heat is primordial - meaning leftover from the formation of the earth. The other 50% is radiogenic - meaning the result of the decay of radioactive elements.

Magma does contain dissolved carbon dioxide and other gasses - under pressure, that under certain conditions can be released - explosively. However, tapping a magma energy would not create the conditions for the explosive release of magma, because - it's been shown that a narrow borehole drilled directly into a magma chamber, magma solidifies after a few meters. However, it's not necessary to drill directly into a magma chamber to harness magma energy. The target would be the red hot rock surrounding a magma chamber.

All of the problems you list there are not associated with magma-geothermal energy - but with hydro-geothermal energy. The former taps directly into the energy of hot rock. The latter taps into underground bodies of hot water. Underground bodies of water expand when heated, and contract when cooled by the extraction of energy. This causes earthquakes. That water can become polluted, rise up the pipe and leak into groundwater. There's also the 'replacement rate' problem with hydro-geothermal; in that an underground body of hot water once cooled by energy extraction takes time to heat up again, and this can be difficult to predict making the investment risky. A hydro-geothermal well can 'run dry'!

Magma energy has none of these problems, because the heat transfer liquid is contained in a closed loop system of pipes; with a heat exchanger at the bottom of the borehole. Hot liquid rises, cold water is drawn down to be heated, and the thing runs forever, carbon free, pollution free, no earthquakes, no volcanoes - just heavy duty base load clean energy.

There's a lot of confusion around different forms of geothermal; at least some of which I suspect is deliberate. It's telling that this technology has gone ignored for 40 years; after being proven viable by NASA/Sandia Labs from 1975-1982. It's disappointing that environmentalists have not demanded this technology be applied; but instead pushed the 'Limits to Growth' narrative as an anti-capitalist agenda - they have put ahead of a practical and promising means of reconciling human and environmental welfare.

Thanks Mercury. I will read up on magma energy.

[Sculptor1]

I'm listening to Greta Thunberg on Channel 4 right now.

How come a 19 year old girl is the most honest and articulate person seen on the news this year?

What the hell is it gonna take?