Comments by "josh fritz" (@joshfritz5345) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

Molten salt reactors... About fifty times as efficient as light water reactors, they not only get almost all of the energy out of whatever fissionable materials they are given, requiring much less fuel to make the same amount of energy, they also produce waste that is significantly less radioactive and toxic due to being far more efficient.
245
i'm sorry to hear that, this video is unlikely to change her mind. people don't like being proven wrong.
79
Merecir the great thing about molten salt reactors is that you can throw in just about anything fissionable into them, and they'll suck just about all the energy available out of it, unlike current reactors which only use around 2% of the available energy stored in fissionable materials.
35
Chandler Chapman-Fong fusion reactors you mean? yeah, science is still working on that one. we've gotten a net gain of energy out of them now, which is a huge step, but they aren't commercially viable yet.
26
Let's be civil about this which studies indicate that gmos cause cancer? which studies indicate that gmos are safe? do not cherry pick studies that support your point of view, this accomplishes nothing. yes, some studies are funded by companies that want to see a certain result, but most labs and most respectable scientists refuse to fudge their results simply because a company wants them to. one out of ten studies saying that consumption of gmo food showed correlation with increased rate of cancer could easily be considered a margin of error, or have irrelevant factors influencing the study. mainstream funded science generally considers GMO food to be safe for human consumption. the majority of the legitimate concern on gmo food is from people who are worried about companies using terminator genes and similar unfair methods to hold a stranglehold on the market, and is not related to the safety of the product at all. if you wish to refute my claim that GMO food is safe, please be polite and scientific about it.
25
Kat :3 enjoy yourself, take risks... Your only purpose in life is the purpose you give yourself. There is no burden, just freedom to choose, and that can be a wonderful thing.
17
agreed, i actually support the use of GMOs, provided proper safety precautions are taken. i am skeptical that they even cause cancer, to me it seems a lot like the claims that vaccines cause autisim. the claims, while scary, have little hard evidence to back them up, yet have caused a lot of paranoia anyways. even if they did cause cancer at a rate of 0.2%, they would still cause more good than harm.
15
@oliviaocasain9980 -sigh The truth
6
To maintain trust in medicine and vaccines, we should avoid government mandates for mild illnesses and use open dialouge, not censorship and scolding to address people with questions. The COVID debacle doubtless created many more people who are vaccine hesitant and who will remain so for a long time.
3
Very few, it's one of the safest forms of energy we have. Also, some types of reactors (molten salt/ breeder reactors) can use nuclear waste as fuel while also producing refined platonium in the process, which is another valuable resource.
3
Maybe dark matter and energy is the leftover remnants of universes that existed with slightly different laws of physics, on a slightly different plane of reality than our own universe. After those universes died to heat death or something similar to the big rip, our big bang happened and our universe now occupies the same space as, and indirectly interacts the remnants of a previous universe. When the cycle repeats itself, perhaps one day In the distant future, the remnants of our universe could become the new dark energy and dark matter for a new universe on a new plane of existence.
2
I think, therefore I am alive. I consider everything that strives to preserve its existence to be alive. I suppose that would mean that alcoholics aren't alive though...
2
1. Launching stuff into space is expensive 2. New reactor types can use it as fuel Not an answer but a statement. Nuclear energy is the best power source we have and we should be doing more of it.
2
Move out of their way? Oh hell no! We're gonna nuke the s**t out of them for daring to cross our paths, and here's how we do it! Instead of directing the energy of the sun broadly in one direction, we use the Dyson sphere to shoot it in a tight beam at the target, scorching it and pushing it off course. Heck, we could even use the beam to accelerate a projectile up to ludicrous speed to shatter the target on impact through sheer kinetic force. There's actually a name for that concept, it's called the Nicoll Dyson beam. Our sun can indeed become our very own Death Star.
2
i consider myself a lazy person, and while there are some people who really, truly do not want to work and will do anything to avoid doing so, many people would be willing to work for a more comfortable standard of living. i believe that we should give everyone the bare minimum, just enough to live by, and encourage them to seek employment to supplement their basic income. the majority of people would be willing to work for the extra money. many low wage workers actually cannot consistently afford food, running water, electricity, or even sometimes rent, and a universal minimum wage would give them the boost necessary to actually make a living rather than just barely scraping by. the universal minimum income doesn't even necessarily need to be enough to afford all of the basics of living a normal life, it just needs to be sufficient to allow someone working full time making minimum wage to live.
2
The earth's temperature fluctuates naturally with time. Why do we assume that the exact temperature that we are at now is the perfect temperature? The earth was much warmer and cooler at various points throughout history, and life has flourished regardless. Our push for green energy solutions is largely a political one, and the proposed solutions such as electric cars and solar farms will not eliminate carbon emissions, nor even reduce them by very much. The amount of fossil fuels burned in the mining and manufacturing processes necessary to produce a solar panel is only slightly less than the amount of energy generated by the average solar panel's expected lifetime. Put simply, it would be just as environmentally friendly and much more cost efficient to burn oil for power than it would be to use that oil to build solar panels. Additionally, solar and wind power don't work. Sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and sometimes the sun doesn't shine. When the sun stops, we need backup (likely fossil fuel powered) generators to make up the difference. And no, giant banks of batteries are not the solution. Batteries are enormously expensive, and require huge amounts of toxic rare earth elements on the scale necessary to store cities worth of energy. We do actually have an environmentally sound method for producing energy. Nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is, in many ways, the perfect power source. It produces few pollutants, and it generates huge amounts of power for a comparatively small investment. France uses large amounts of nuclear power for its energy needs, and they have some of the cheapest energy in Europe. Germany uses large amounts of solar, wind, and similar renewables, and they suffer from some of the highest energy costs in Europe.
2
@Anonymous______________ That's a good question. Yes, oil gets subsidies and has huge lobbyist backing, but so do renewables. Subsidies are the only reason why privately owned solar panels are an affordable option for citizens and businesses in the US. Electric powered cars don't exist. There are coal powered cars full of expensive and toxic batteries. "Electric" cars are only as green as the power grid they are charged from, and frankly even less so considering the fact that they are heavy users of decidedly non-environmentally sound batteries.
2
fuck you. not because i hate you, and your probably ironic or sarcastic comment, but because other people's blind faith in things that they do not understand has ruined my life in more ways than i can count, and i need one person to blame.
2
Same the earth because it's the only planet we'll ever have Uh... Says who? Sure, protecting the earth is important, but if we want to survive as a species, we need to strive to move elsewhere. Using nuclear pulse drive technology, we could reach alpha centuari within 120 years or so. I don't know what you just said but I heard the word nuclear and nuclear is icky and makes scary green radioactive goo ... Please stop talking
1
are humans anything more than complex biological machines?
1
sAnimosity people have different ways of coping. sometimes coping methods are more destructive than the problem itself. you can't blame a stranger for making an ignorant joke who might have offended someone who read his comment. well, you can blame me, but there's no real point. and no, it wasn't really even meant to be a joke. all i'm saying is that life is hard to define sometimes.
1
***** i wasn't quoting directly, i was using my own version of the phrase
1
This video actually perfectly described my outlook on life, even the small details matched up flawlessly. I thought I was the only one. Everything you do will be forgotten, so aim not to be remembered, but rather to achieve your own goals no matter how small they may seem in the vastness of the universe. Life has no purpose but the purpose that we give it. We will never know the extent of the universe, but that means that we will never need to stop learning.
1
i am surrounded by idiots who blissfully try to push things onto me that will not cure me as i did them because i know that they only work on those who believe in them. explaining this to them archives nothing because changing someone's mind about something they believe in is a near-futile waste of time.
1
@thewaterdude Mandating it is exactly why so many people have so little trust in the medical establishment right now. Vaccine hesitancy was very low but rose sharply as a direct result of government mandates for the Covid vaccine, which turned out to be much less effective than initially claimed. The mandates and discrimination against people not vaccinated for Covid validated people's fears, and created doubt where there was none before. I'm not even remotely anti vaccine. I recognize that they have done much to prolong life expectancy by preventing serious disease. I am strongly anti-mandate, and anti authoritarianism. When the government tries to use force to gain compliance, it doesn't matter how well intentioned they are, people will grow suspicious and resist whatever the government is pushing, even if it is genuinely helpful.
1
I can say for sure is that organic food costs twice as much as non-organic. Dubious claims about health benefits aren't enough for me to spend the majority of my paycheck for a bag of food identical to my regular food aside from having a green check mark and costing twice as much.
1
Can we just have PSAs like this instead of banning things people willingly choose to do?
1
what if we just released genetically infertile mosquitoes into the environment in order to decrease the mosquito population overall?
1
@zevenforch You don't have to live in fear. People on the news preaching about how the world will end unless you do exactly as they say are using fear to try to manipulate you. There have been climate change claims reaching back decades, and the most extreme of these claims have always been false. We do face some very real environmental concerns, cities and humans in general do affect our climate in often unpredictable ways, but the results will not be sudden or apocolyptic. If you want evidence that we're being lied to, ask yourself why so many billionaires are buying up beachfront property. Why would a smart, well informed billionaire buy up property which would be swallowed up by rising sea levels in 12 years? Why would banks offer loans to people to buy such properties? They would be bad investments if any of the more extreme climate alarmist claims were actually true. If the richest and smartest members of society don't believe these claims, why should we?
1
@ChircaSorin04 Why is war a good thing? Wars don't make us richer. Unless you live in Ukraine, why do you care? The only reason the political elite care is because they made personal investments into Ukraine, and now they want western militaries to intervene to protect their assets. Additionally, if all of the most extreme claims about rising temperatures and sea levels were true, why are so many billionaires buying up beachfront property? It'd be a bad investment. People richer and smarter than us clearly don't believe the claims about rising sea levels. Try to be more skeptical of things you hear in the future, and be especially skeptical if someone has something to gain from manipulating you. Appeals to emotions, especially fear, are powerful motivators, and there are some rich and politically powerful people out there who have a lot to gain from using fear, be it of a foreign nation, or of a climate crisis, or a political party to change your behavior. Mainstream media is owned by the rich and the political elite, and they use it to push propaganda. This isn't restricted to one political party either, and no political group is innocent of this. Everyone from the agriculture industry, to energy companies, vehicle manufactures, pharmaceutical companies, teachers unions and so many more have powerful lobbies that influence politics and media for their own profit. It's too complex to be understood easily, but start by being skeptical of every claim you hear, no matter where you hear it from.
1
@sevenzerep1112 Honestly, I haven't been too concerned by climate change and rising sea levels. It's pretty easy to not worry when the billionaires are buying up beachfront property that would be under water soon if the predictions were accurate. They obviously don't believe the nonsense, so neither do I.
1
@LifeGeneralist Renewables aren't all that clean. They require huge amounts of energy input to be made to function, and that energy input is mostly provided by fossil fuels. There are a few good renewable sources like Hydro-electric and Geo-thermal, but those have their drawbacks too. The former is somewhat environmentally destructive, and both are very location dependent. Solar actually has a lot of potential for use once we move off earth. Without the atmosphere and day-night cycle, solar becomes a vastly more efficient source of power. Solar has some limited uses on earth. Privately owned panels can generate supplemental energy, or be used to charge backup batteries. But even modern panels are only affordable due to heavy subsidies, and are still only marginally profitable. And considering that solar panels are usually purchased by the wealthy, solar subsidies are essentially taxing the poor to buy an expensive gift for the rich.
1
@LifeGeneralist Yeah, new tech starts out expensive. Fossil fuel giants have nothing to fear from solar and wind because they can't power a whole electric grid. As long as the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, wind and solar can't replace other forms of energy. Hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear energy, and other things that could actually threaten fossil fuel's dominance if they were allowed to thrive, those will never succeed as long as the fossil fuel lobby has influence. It's also worth noting, as bad as the fossil fuel lobby is, to try to immediately replace fossil fuels with something that is objectively worse would cause great harm to society, and the poor would be hit hardest. Rising energy costs increase the cost of nearly everything. To try to make a drastic overnight shift to renewables as many climate activists push for would kill people. Power outages means food would spoil, and any medicine that needs to be kept cool would expire. People would die, and the rest would be a lot worse off with unreliable access to anything dependent on electricity. Nuclear is actually a very safe source of energy. The only real danger is political backlash, irrational fear of meltdowns fueled by big oil and coal companies. Renewables unfortunately aren't good for most of the things you listed. Due to their unreliable nature, they can only ever be a supplemental source of power. Germany uses lots of renewables, and it is heavily reliant on importing energy from other countries to cover shortfalls. Renewables (with a few exceptions, hydro and geothermal) are unreliable by nature, and thus can't be used to establish grid stability. They would also greatly increase the cost of energy for the average consumer due to being more expensive than fossil fuels per watt generated.
1
I'd recommend Starsector. It's more fleet based, but you can settle down with your own colony and build up an empire if you so choose.
1
Starsector
1
Congratulations, you have rediscovered religion.
1
i could make more money off of welfare than i am making with both of my jobs combined right now. i could almost live off of $1000, but i'm not making that much most months unless i get an unusually large number of hours in that time period. if we set the universal basic income at $1000, that plus my shitty minimum wage job, and my slightly less shitty part time job together would give me enough money to pay for rent, electricity, water, food, car insurance, and even save a bit of money over time. as it is now however, i'm unable to afford all of those things at the same time, and have to drive without insurance, and live off of waste food that can't be served to customers for whatever reason.
1
or we can just build dyson spheres to pull material off of stars and either prolong the life of a star or use efficient fusion power plants to provide life to artificial habitats. this would allow us to live much longer, but timescales at this point are difficult to imagine, so let's just say a really long time.
1
i hope all the anti science stupids that exist in the united states don't ban genetic editing just because it sounds weird and scary. i say this as an american. we need to treat this advancement with caution, but we should still embrace it once we've overcome it's flaws because of the incredible benefits it could grant us.
1
Considering how cavalier we are about killing unborn human babies, if aliens are anything like us in how they value life, maybe we shouldn't try to contact them.
1
You guys should team up with Isaac Arthur. You talk about a lot of similar concepts.
1
Or you could use starlifting to get the materials from the sun itself
1
A dyson sphere is also basically the death star, but without a weak point exploitable by proton torpedoes. If you were to concentrate a portion of the sun's power out of the dyson sphere for use as a weapon, you could burn planets, stripping their atmospheres and scouring them of all life within mere minutes. Also, you could concentrate the energy in one direction in order to provide thrust, essentially using the sun as a giant fusion engine and slowly propelling the solar system in a direction of your choosing. You could use a dyson sphere to turn the entire solar system into a giant spaceship.
1
China. They're the big one. India and the US are also pretty big if I recall. Anyways, the solution is to go nuclear. Nuclear is the ultimate low-pollution option, and despite a common preconception, it's actually much safer than fossil fuels.
1