Do humans want to be doomed?

[Mercury]

In 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs published a report entitled Status of the Magma Energy Project in which, they demonstrated the viability of the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma. This technology has not been applied. More than that, the narrative on climate change is polarised between right wing climate change denial, and left wing anti-capitalism - as if in a deliberate conspiracy of ignorance of the fact the earth is a big ball of molten rock!

In my naivety, I imagined that bringing this study to public attention would naturally result in an enthusiastic reception by left and right alike, and a re-direction of policy away from the grim green communistic imposition of poverty to reduce demand and eek out a miserable bicycle riding, tofu eating existence - toward reconciling capitalist prosperity and sustainability through the application of technologies it's not possible to power with fossil fuels - desalination, irrigation, recycling, carbon sequestration etc. I could not have been more wrong. The reception has been something between an embarrassed silence and positive hostility.

Maybe that's because a prosperous sustainable future doesn't fit either political narrative; neither that of right wing, fossil fuel addicted climate change deniers, nor left wing, limits to growth, anti-capitalist green commies. No-one likes being told they're wrong. But maybe it's something else entirely. Maybe it's psychological. Maybe we should be thinking in terms of Freud's 'death drive.'

In Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920) Freud revised his earlier theory of the drives which asserted the primacy of the pleasure principle, that is to say, the theory that our primary motivation as human beings is the fulfilment of pleasure or desire. Clinical experience revealed to Freud that subjects compulsively repeated painful or traumatic experiences in direct contradiction to the primacy of the pleasure principle. Freud called this beyond of pleasure 'the death drive' and suggested that the primary purpose of life is to find the correct path to death.

Are we indulging our jouissance; getting off on the erotic thrill of courting ecological suicide?

[LuckyR]

In 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs published a report entitled Status of the Magma Energy Project in which, they demonstrated the viability of the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma. This technology has not been applied. More than that, the narrative on climate change is polarised between right wing climate change denial, and left wing anti-capitalism - as if in a deliberate conspiracy of ignorance of the fact the earth is a big ball of molten rock!

In my naivety, I imagined that bringing this study to public attention would naturally result in an enthusiastic reception by left and right alike, and a re-direction of policy away from the grim green communistic imposition of poverty to reduce demand and eek out a miserable bicycle riding, tofu eating existence - toward reconciling capitalist prosperity and sustainability through the application of technologies it's not possible to power with fossil fuels - desalination, irrigation, recycling, carbon sequestration etc. I could not have been more wrong. The reception has been something between an embarrassed silence and positive hostility.

Maybe that's because a prosperous sustainable future doesn't fit either political narrative; neither that of right wing, fossil fuel addicted climate change deniers, nor left wing, limits to growth, anti-capitalist green commies. No-one likes being told they're wrong. But maybe it's something else entirely. Maybe it's psychological. Maybe we should be thinking in terms of Freud's 'death drive.'

In Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920) Freud revised his earlier theory of the drives which asserted the primacy of the pleasure principle, that is to say, the theory that our primary motivation as human beings is the fulfilment of pleasure or desire. Clinical experience revealed to Freud that subjects compulsively repeated painful or traumatic experiences in direct contradiction to the primacy of the pleasure principle. Freud called this beyond of pleasure 'the death drive' and suggested that the primary purpose of life is to find the correct path to death.

Are we indulging our jouissance; getting off on the erotic thrill of courting ecological suicide?

I'd like to see what the "viability" this 40 year old study concluded existed in 82.

There is no shortage of rich folks who want to make even more money. If there was energy sector levels of new wealth to be made, I find it odd that someone wouldn't have picked this gigantic supposedly low hanging fruit already.

My suspicion is the "viability" of this project is very low, or at least much lower than your cursory posting implies.

[Mercury]

In 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs published a report entitled Status of the Magma Energy Project in which, they demonstrated the viability of the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma. This technology has not been applied. More than that, the narrative on climate change is polarised between right wing climate change denial, and left wing anti-capitalism - as if in a deliberate conspiracy of ignorance of the fact the earth is a big ball of molten rock!

In my naivety, I imagined that bringing this study to public attention would naturally result in an enthusiastic reception by left and right alike, and a re-direction of policy away from the grim green communistic imposition of poverty to reduce demand and eek out a miserable bicycle riding, tofu eating existence - toward reconciling capitalist prosperity and sustainability through the application of technologies it's not possible to power with fossil fuels - desalination, irrigation, recycling, carbon sequestration etc. I could not have been more wrong. The reception has been something between an embarrassed silence and positive hostility.

Maybe that's because a prosperous sustainable future doesn't fit either political narrative; neither that of right wing, fossil fuel addicted climate change deniers, nor left wing, limits to growth, anti-capitalist green commies. No-one likes being told they're wrong. But maybe it's something else entirely. Maybe it's psychological. Maybe we should be thinking in terms of Freud's 'death drive.'

In Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920) Freud revised his earlier theory of the drives which asserted the primacy of the pleasure principle, that is to say, the theory that our primary motivation as human beings is the fulfilment of pleasure or desire. Clinical experience revealed to Freud that subjects compulsively repeated painful or traumatic experiences in direct contradiction to the primacy of the pleasure principle. Freud called this beyond of pleasure 'the death drive' and suggested that the primary purpose of life is to find the correct path to death.

Are we indulging our jouissance; getting off on the erotic thrill of courting ecological suicide?

I'd like to see what the "viability" this 40 year old study concluded existed in 82.

There is no shortage of rich folks who want to make even more money. If there was energy sector levels of new wealth to be made, I find it odd that someone wouldn't have picked this gigantic supposedly low hanging fruit already.

My suspicion is the "viability" of this project is very low, or at least much lower than your cursory posting implies.

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988.

I think my post fairly reflected the conclusions of the report. According to NASA/Sandia, in 1982 - it was a technologically viable concept. Drilling technology, materials science, geological mapping have all come a long way in the past 40 years. This is do-able! If anyone were interested in doing it! And that's the interesting point. It doesn't seem they are - so why not?

Jouissance - the death drive; the left demanding an obviously impossible policy proscription while making prophecies of doom; the right concocting weak lies in arrogant mocking denial of the climate and ecological threat. It's an all round indulgence of jouissance; picking the existential scab and poking at the wound!

[Mercury]

This morning, Extinction Rebellion posted on youtube a live-stream from their protest on Westminster Bridge in London, and on that youtube channel I posted the following comment, which has received no likes, dislikes or comments whatsoever. The only way to make sense of this is to suppose that yes, humans do want to be doomed.


"Climate change is real, and a serious threat - but 'Limits to Growth' is false, and I cannot support an environmental movement that maintains a Limits to Growth perspective in denial of the fact that resources are a function of the energy available to develop them, and the fact that the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless amounts of heat energy, easily converted into heavy duty electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel.

I'm at a loss to understand why the environmental movement have not demanded application of the technology to harness heat energy directly from Magma, given that the technology to do so was proven by NASA/Sandia Labs in 1982 - and everyone from Al Gore to Greta Thunberg via Greenpeace and others have ignored it for 40 years. Just Stop Oil? How about Just Go Magma?

NASA/Sandia estimated a minimum of 50,000 quads (quadrillion btu) of magma energy just from the US alone. Current global energy demand is a mere 600 quads. Worldwide, there's a genuinely limitless amount of magma energy we could harness, and spend to meet our energy needs carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate deserts to produce food while protecting the forests, recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the air.

Surely you could get more support for a demand we apply the technology to secure a prosperous and sustainable future, than you will for some grim green poverty forever approach to sustainability. Here, look at this:

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988."

[Mercury]

Here is the link to the thread. I wonder if my comment is even visible to other people. If not, then we know XR saw it, and blocked it, because they are putting their political aims before sustainability - and in that sense are no better than the fossil fuel addicted climate change deniers they ostensibly oppose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx_towj3eaM&t=1526s

[Mercury]

Seven hours since my comment was posted at the link above; 15 other comments have been posted in that time, and hundreds of likes given to those posts, but still no responses, no likes, dislikes, nothing whatsoever in response to mine. It must be because my comment is being blocked.

What incarnation of pure evil would possess them to shadow block a post explaining a technology that can replace fossil fuels entirely, and provide abundant clean energy to future generations? Why would they do this? Can someone please explain because I do not understand.

[Mercury]

Let's play shadow banned or simply ignored:

Energy Technology Perspectives 2023
International Energy Agency
16.9K subscribers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUEtFeiZffQ


Karl Stone
18 minutes ago (edited)
Increased wind and solar means less reliable and more expensive energy going forward, in face of increasing challenges - leading to the entropic decline of civilisation, and/or continued dependence on fossil fuels as energy demand increases 50% in the next 30 years, and consequent failure to reign in climate change.
Increased wind and solar means unprecedented pollution associated with mining, and a tsunami of tech waste that cannot/will not be recycled, because the energy to do so is too expensive.
Increased wind and solar means the opportunity to harness limitless clean energy from the molten interior of the earth forgone, for the sake of another exploitative and extractive industrial strategy, enriching a tiny minority at the cost of sustainable prosperity for everyone else.
It means humankind is doomed!

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988.

[Mercury]

Still no replies!

[Mercury]

I got replies from two people in the IEA comments section, both of them advocating for wind and solar power, even though my post was about Magma Energy. We can deduce from this that my comment there is visible to others; though that's necessarily true of the comments sections of other videos. And we can further deduce that people are thicker than the earth's crust! I had a reasonably productive discussion explaining the drawbacks and limitations of wind and solar vis a vis the climate crisis, and the immeasurable superiority of magma energy re supplying the world with limitless clean energy!

Still not a peep from Extinction Rebellion. As I said, they're not interested in answers. They're interested in using the problem as an attack on capitalism, because they're communists first, and not really environmentalists second!

[Mercury]

I got replies from two people in the IEA comments section, both of them advocating for wind and solar power, even though my post was about Magma Energy. We can deduce from this that my comment there is visible to others; though that's not necessarily true of the comments sections of other videos. And we can further deduce that people are thicker than the earth's crust!

I had a reasonably productive discussion explaining the drawbacks and limitations of wind and solar vis a vis the climate crisis, and the immeasurable superiority of magma energy re supplying the world with limitless clean energy!

Still not a peep from Extinction Rebellion. As I said, they're not interested in answers. They're interested in using the problem as an attack on capitalism, because they're communists first, and not really environmentalists second!

[Sy Borg]

When societies are overpopulated, people increasingly want other people gone. It's a natural response as everything becomes more expensive and harder to do. This does not mean people want everyone gone, just enough to keep things running but not so many that finding a job or accommodation is difficult, bordering on hopeless for some.

Most the current debates have the stress of high population density at their root.

[Mercury]

When societies are overpopulated, people increasingly want other people gone. It's a natural response as everything becomes more expensive and harder to do. This does not mean people want everyone gone, just enough to keep things running but not so many that finding a job or accommodation is difficult, bordering on hopeless for some.

Most the current debates have the stress of high population density at their root.

The UK is the 21st most densely populated country with 281 people per Km2, 727 people per mi2. But did you know that only 2% of the landmass of the UK is built upon? 98% of the land is not built upon, and in the world - even more land than that is uninhabited by humans. That so, we have to ask the question - what do we mean by over-population?
In my view, over-population is not a valid concept; just as Limits to Growth is not a valid concept. It all depends upon how technology is applied and how resources and land are utilised. We have not over-populated the world, but the built environment. In order to build more, particularly in places not serviced by rivers, we need abundant clean energy to spend to desalinate sea water and pump fresh water inland - to render land habitable and productive! Just as we need abundant clean energy to meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus recycle all waste and extract carbon from the air, and so transcend Limits to Growth.
There's only one source of energy I know of that can supply all these needs; that is, the heat energy of the molten interior of the earth. It is so vast as to be virtually limitless, and we need it to secure the future. Or you're right; people will turn on each other, like rats trapped in an oil drum!

[Mercury]

* 282 people per km2

[Baby Augustine]

By the operational definition of "how would I score among 1000 non-specialist adults taking a climate science exam?" I am sure it would be the upper 5% at worst. And I think the GW thing is pure bosh.

Come down to earth and answer this question: Is it right that we try to stop Africa from using Fossil Fuels just so they can rise up from poverty and ill health and a primitive society? They are the least polluting continent on Earth and they have the greatest need. It is evil and inhuman to do this yet that is what is happening.

[Robert66]

Are we indulging our jouissance; getting off on the erotic thrill of courting ecological suicide?

There is no "we". Most humans are merely doing what they can with what they have. Some (the relatively wealthy) are being lied to - eg:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... b25fed6858

Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows


The lie is that "we can have our cake and eat it", presented to the wilfully ignorant in the form of greenwashing: actual ecological murder, dressed as "sustainability".

Even a 'big ball of molten rock' has limits. Techo-optimism does not provide immunity to reality. Tapping that molten energy is one thing; surviving ecological destruction, with humans increasingly displacing other species, is quite another.