Have you researched the validity of this technology? I'm wondering because I have not had a chance to, but heard the 60min headline and it sounded promising. Obviously a new energy technology such as this would revolutionize our world completely and would advance the standard of living throughout the world. Of course, 60min often overhypes these types of things, so I'm a little skeptical. I remember hearing about a great new cancer treatment (microwave treatment of tumors) on that show and they made it sound like a slam dunk for cancer. A year or so later, I had a business dinner with the main surgical oncologist that was interviewed he said their research was actually not promising at all, but CBS cherry picked the comments/quotes and painted an entirely different picture of the research.
Anybody watch Glenn Beck today? I didn't send him an email, but he said EXACTLY THIS!! It's obvious to some of us... and it's our ONLY hope...
"History was created to be repeated!" --Saliva I ain't no prognosticator but the only way to get out of this entire mess is to be engulfed in another world war. In the last century, that was the only cure that healed us from the scourges of the Great Depression. I say it will happen again within the next 10 years.
People keep saying that, but never offer an explanation of how that will solve anything. It's not like "we go to war, then confiscate our defeated enemy's assets and/or enslave their populace to pay taxes"... Here's a hint... STOP SAYING "GOING TO WAR IS THE SOLUTION TO OUR MESS". IT ISN'T. IT'S A STUPID NOTION! The only possible reason to start a war is to somehow provide an excuse to default upon our debt. I don't see the mechanism for that just now.
Yes, going to war used to mean mass producing (in the US) ships, planes, tanks, jeeps, etc Now it means producing lots of missiles, drones and a few humvee's and contracting out with French companies for cafeteria services. Not quite the same effect on GDP.
Doubt it. Worked last time because it was the catalyst which enabled the transition from the USA being primarily an agrarian society to an industrial one. No such transition possible this time. Anyone believe WWIII will be fought with conventional weapons? With all the nukes around? Like I said... "WWIII TO SOLVE THE WORLD'S ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IS A STUPID, STUPID NOTION."
I agree it's a stupid notion. So was WWII. However, I don't see a future war being planned as much as being a natural progression of the global system. There are a tremendous amount of financial imbalances in the world. There is also a tremendous demand for resources. Who gets what, who pays, who defaults, and who takes a hit? All these questions will need to be addressed. The question is, will they get addressed peacefully? Will there be an orderly unwind or re-calibration of power and wealth? Just as I don't see war being a solution, but somehow I don't see these questions being addressed peacefully either. History tells me that it will get messy - what that means today with nukes, terrorism, and global conflict resolution bodies set in place such as the IMF, World Bank, UN.... I don't know. It's up in the air for me. But I don't rule out war either.
If WWIII is a war bent on the total annihilation of mankind and the planet, then yes absolutely. Otherwise, probably not. Nuclear weapons don't have many practical applications anymore.. The downsides completely outway any potential benefits.