@@heathsousa5002 and still alive and kicking! I read his most recent book, written at 100 years old: Novacene. Maybe his best book yet, I really recommend it
I need to get some powered speakers for my computer and I mean great big sons of bitches, we're talking Marshall stack type power. Because I want to listen to Mr. Lovelock so I can hear him, and I want the whole motherfucking street to hear him too.
A brilliant mind and a wonderful individual whose scientific research over many years has shown that humanity's industrial fossil fuelled activity has affected the planets atmosphere irrevocably.
Think what could be if Lovelock and Attenborough for Richard Dawkins was to have a chat on the Beeb. One could tell you why, the other, what we lost, and the last, would said it wot make any difference, it's a case of three wise monkeys. We are what we are. Look..! It's not as if where walking to our own oblivion, for we've seen the future. We know, and are happy to pay the hang man. Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day;. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Empty words, of humanity Swan song.
I think the forgotten factor is our capacity to respond; carbon fixation in the semi-arid regions from mimicry of natural herding may restore vast areas and reduce CO2 vastly; shading and climate controlled greenhouses using solar power could defy all this even in deserts.
Interestingly the story of the steam engine/coal mines at 20:00 was something I heard just this morning watching a new video by UA-camr OrinaryThings. Highly recommended on the scandal of "clean coal" and how we owe EVERYTHING to the coal that's killing the planet
He's right about nuclear power. In the mid 1940's the Oppenheimer project produced the 1st Atomic bomb. They also knew at that time that you could make a chain reaction with Thorium instead of Plutonium. With Thorium, you could produce clean energy with minimal waste that would be toxic for a fraction of the time of spent plutonium. There was only one small problem with the stuff. YOU COULD NOT MAKE BOMBS WITH IT! The powers that be had a way to produce cheap and clean energy as far back as the 1940's! Those bastards! Thorium is more plentiful. It also cannot cause a nuclear meltdown.
In this talk or another, he says that ipads were inevitable in human evolution. I thought about this: I don't see why ipads should be any more final or inevitable than Grammer Phones, Record players, Walkman or DVDs , videos or Stereos etc etc. At some point in the next 20 - 40 years, ipads will be replaced by another technology. In the past, Records players and Walkmans were revolutionary and new and everyone used them
You got to have renewerables because you said it yourself, one technologies leads to other greater understanding in new idea's, we maybe at that point of water pump running on steams using coal, but it,s early days for photo electric cells.
"As a scientist: you can never really be certain about anything" True!I In other words: "SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED!" Any body who says otherwise in no scientist. and should be ridiculed.
We have passed the point of independent discovery in hard science, because we no longer have low hanging fruit of science where one can set up an experiment with simple tool and conduct research with limited information. Patent does not have an grudge against science or creativity or whatever, it is their job to justify a contraption for the patent, they have to deal thousands of similar inventions and pick out their differences. Predicting future is not always easy or difficult, human capacity is limited, resource and energy is limited, exponential progress cannot kept on forever. From this point onward, there will not be much changes for the next century or two. Ipads will simply lead to more ipads, singularity will not happen in the foreseeable future. The real purpose against nuclear power has nothing to do with its physical hazard, but rather its potential implication in world politics, the goal is to regulate access to nuclear technology and confine it within the few country that currently dominate world affairs. This is both caused by greed and real concerns of terrorism.
Just cover all the rooftops with solar and super-insulate; why cover good land, except relatively barren deserts? Solutions are low hanging fruit if we take notice...
Quite interesting, and I "liked" it, but as I watched it I thought more and more there should be a "this is weird" button... e.g. -- Nuclear reactors more safe than windmills? Lol....
+Max Cooper - In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources). These are pretty low numbers. By contrast, in 2011 coal produced about 180 billion kWhrs in England with about 3,000 related deaths. Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths.
You make the assumption that Nuclear power is more dangerous than windmills without having done research on the matter? Often human intuition and popular belief fails us.
you should send that helpful info to James Lovelock+ David Freeman c/o Oxford Martin School. I would add that windmills are intermittent, so they dont compare to nuclear, and are very ugly and harm birds as well.
At approximately 30:00 he states that he was a fan of Margaret Thatcher.... lost me right there, and then he wonders who to blame about our current predicament. D'oh!
+Maumau44SP It's not the safest, but it's much safer than any realistic alternative for replacing fossil fuels. Not a single person has even been injured from a nuclear accident in the United States. Coal-fired power plants cause 30,000 premature deaths a year in the U.S. from breathing particulate matter. Fukushima took a massive wave to break down and even then, no one actually died from radiation. Chernobyl resulted from a series of human and mechanical errors in an outdated reactor type that hasn't been constructed for many decades.
rd264 Expensive, yes. That's why I think it must be part of a whole package to transition off of fossil fuels - wind, solar, tidal energy, geothermal heat pumps, nuclear power. India and China are building breeder reactors, the new highly efficient generation, and India is building a thorium reactor with plans for more. Anything to keep a billion people in those countries that are getting on the grid to stay off of coal.
"There are a Hell of a lot more of us" and JL responds 20 or 30%, there were already 50 odd millions. WTF is he talking about. I'm younger than he is and population has tripled in my lifetime to 7.6 billion. Life in the shire? 9:00 He's a real Brit too. Posh about his Greek and Latin, critical of the Romans and Chinese "evolution of artifacts" coming to a grind halt, and superior about the "take off" with the Industrial Revolution in England.
4th gen nuclear is the way to go for base load. Water and Wind power are destructive, visually terrible and ruin the ecology. Solar is limited since it cannot be stored nor efficiently transmitted and requires alot of acreage. This is why renewals [wind, solar] are not impacting fossil fuels and are still only a small fraction of energy production.
Such a humble and pleasant man. Hope I'm like him when I'm 94 (and now 96!). Edit: 99 as of July 2018!
Still here?
sacramentallyill yes he is
100 years old now
@@leonske 102 now
@@heathsousa5002 and still alive and kicking!
I read his most recent book, written at 100 years old: Novacene.
Maybe his best book yet, I really recommend it
I need to get some powered speakers for my computer and I mean great big sons of bitches, we're talking Marshall stack type power. Because I want to listen to Mr. Lovelock so I can hear him, and I want the whole motherfucking street to hear him too.
A brilliant mind and a wonderful individual whose scientific research over many years has shown that humanity's industrial fossil fuelled activity has affected the planets atmosphere irrevocably.
David Freeman goes off on very odd tangents!
Think what could be if Lovelock and Attenborough for Richard Dawkins was to have a chat on the Beeb. One could tell you why, the other, what we lost, and the last, would said it wot make any difference, it's a case of three wise monkeys. We are what we are. Look..! It's not as if where walking to our own oblivion, for we've seen the future. We know, and are happy to pay the hang man. Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day;. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Empty words, of humanity Swan song.
I think the forgotten factor is our capacity to respond; carbon fixation in the semi-arid regions from mimicry of natural herding may restore vast areas and reduce CO2 vastly; shading and climate controlled greenhouses using solar power could defy all this even in deserts.
Interestingly the story of the steam engine/coal mines at 20:00 was something I heard just this morning watching a new video by UA-camr OrinaryThings. Highly recommended on the scandal of "clean coal" and how we owe EVERYTHING to the coal that's killing the planet
He's right about nuclear power. In the mid 1940's the Oppenheimer project produced the 1st Atomic bomb.
They also knew at that time that you could make a chain reaction with Thorium instead of Plutonium.
With Thorium, you could produce clean energy with minimal waste that would be toxic for a fraction of the time of spent plutonium. There was only one small problem with the stuff. YOU COULD NOT MAKE BOMBS WITH IT! The powers that be had a way to produce cheap and clean energy as far back as the 1940's! Those bastards! Thorium is more plentiful. It also cannot cause a nuclear meltdown.
In this talk or another, he says that ipads were inevitable in human evolution. I thought about this: I don't see why ipads should be any more final or inevitable than Grammer Phones, Record players, Walkman or DVDs , videos or Stereos etc etc. At some point in the next 20 - 40 years, ipads will be replaced by another technology. In the past, Records players and Walkmans were revolutionary and new and everyone used them
Interesting people seem to come out of the UK ?!?
You got to have renewerables because you said it yourself, one technologies leads to other greater understanding in new idea's, we maybe at that point of water pump running on steams using coal, but it,s early days for photo electric cells.
"As a scientist: you can never really be certain about anything" True!I In other words: "SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED!" Any body who says otherwise in no scientist. and should be ridiculed.
We have passed the point of independent discovery in hard science, because we no longer have low hanging fruit of science where one can set up an experiment with simple tool and conduct research with limited information. Patent does not have an grudge against science or creativity or whatever, it is their job to justify a contraption for the patent, they have to deal thousands of similar inventions and pick out their differences. Predicting future is not always easy or difficult, human capacity is limited, resource and energy is limited, exponential progress cannot kept on forever. From this point onward, there will not be much changes for the next century or two. Ipads will simply lead to more ipads, singularity will not happen in the foreseeable future. The real purpose against nuclear power has nothing to do with its physical hazard, but rather its potential implication in world politics, the goal is to regulate access to nuclear technology and confine it within the few country that currently dominate world affairs. This is both caused by greed and real concerns of terrorism.
Interesting talk. I think he tends to mix biological evolution with technological evolution.
Just cover all the rooftops with solar and super-insulate; why cover good land, except relatively barren deserts? Solutions are low hanging fruit if we take notice...
Quite interesting, and I "liked" it, but as I watched it I thought more and more there should be a "this is weird" button... e.g. -- Nuclear reactors more safe than windmills? Lol....
+Max Cooper - In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).
These are pretty low numbers. By contrast, in 2011 coal produced about 180 billion kWhrs in England with about 3,000 related deaths. Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths.
You make the assumption that Nuclear power is more dangerous than windmills without having done research on the matter? Often human intuition and popular belief fails us.
you should send that helpful info to James Lovelock+ David Freeman c/o Oxford Martin School. I would add that windmills are intermittent, so they dont compare to nuclear, and are very ugly and harm birds as well.
It's happening now. And at an accelerating rate. 😕
Why don't desert dwellers sell solar panels on all that sand?
At approximately 30:00 he states that he was a fan of Margaret Thatcher.... lost me right there, and then he wonders who to blame about our current predicament. D'oh!
+Maumau44SP It's not the safest, but it's much safer than any realistic alternative for replacing fossil fuels. Not a single person has even been injured from a nuclear accident in the United States. Coal-fired power plants cause 30,000 premature deaths a year in the U.S. from breathing particulate matter. Fukushima took a massive wave to break down and even then, no one actually died from radiation. Chernobyl resulted from a series of human and mechanical errors in an outdated reactor type that hasn't been constructed for many decades.
+Maumau44SP Nuclear energy is far, FAR safer than global warming even taking all its accidents and mishaps into account.
rd264
Expensive, yes. That's why I think it must be part of a whole package to transition off of fossil fuels - wind, solar, tidal energy, geothermal heat pumps, nuclear power. India and China are building breeder reactors, the new highly efficient generation, and India is building a thorium reactor with plans for more. Anything to keep a billion people in those countries that are getting on the grid to stay off of coal.
For the sake of accuracy, no he doesn't say he is a fan of Thatcher. He says she was a fan of Gaia. Thatcher mentioned at 30:45
ok
"There are a Hell of a lot more of us" and JL responds 20 or 30%, there were already 50 odd millions. WTF is he talking about. I'm younger than he is and population has tripled in my lifetime to 7.6 billion. Life in the shire? 9:00 He's a real Brit too. Posh about his Greek and Latin, critical of the Romans and Chinese "evolution of artifacts" coming to a grind halt, and superior about the "take off" with the Industrial Revolution in England.
He was talking about England only.
Free heating from nuclear waste - he meant it… must be senility.
this is weird..
He's very clever about some things, but not nuclear power.
Steffi Reitsch why not nuclear
4th gen nuclear is the way to go for base load. Water and Wind power are destructive, visually terrible and ruin the ecology. Solar is limited since it cannot be stored nor efficiently transmitted and requires alot of acreage. This is why renewals [wind, solar] are not impacting fossil fuels and are still only a small fraction of energy production.