gildings in this subreddit have paid for 7.24 months of server time

Scientists find drug that restores paralyzed mice's ability to walk - Researchers at Boston Children's Hospital showed that a small-molecule compound could revive neural circuits in paralyzed mice, restoring their ability to walk, according to a study published in the journal Cell. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]Captain_Butterbeard 691 points692 points  (0 children)

The 24th anniversary of my spinal injury is a few weeks away and stories like this give me a measure of hope, meager though it is. I'm trying to stay healthy in the hope of outliving this injury, but the long term secondary conditions of quadriplegia, combined with normal aging, make the battle tougher every year. Even a limited treatment that restores hand function would revolutionize my life. Anyway, many thanks to the researchers in the trenches working hard to help us. I hope it proves fruitful someday. If not for me, for those of you that follow.

Can we remove a trillion tons of carbon from the atmosphere? Ocean ecologist Russ George explains how ocean restoration will lower greenhouse gases and bring back fish stocks to levels not seen for generations by marsinvictus in Futurology

[–]geneius 332 points333 points  (0 children)

No. This guy is a straight kook - I personally know the chief ocean scientist for the experiment that he threatened while they were at sea. The scientist wanted to take the proper measurements to determine how much carbon is sequestered above baseline - simple enough to take measurements before dumping your iron. He said “I don’t need to determine that, the amount of carbon credits I can sell will be determined at the negotiation table - I’ll make the data say what I want it to.” My friend locked himself in his cabin for 4 days and quit as soon as they touched land.

This guy is straight dangerous and using the media to convince an untrained public that he’s trying to save the world. Kicker - he’s not. He wants to be able to sell the carbon credits.

The conservative government, as bad as they were with science, are not the reason this guy isn’t trusted. Google his name some more and read more articles about him. He claims to have a cold fusion machine and to be able to make lead into gold, not even joking.

California Beat Its 2020 Emissions Target Four Years Early by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]old_gold_mountain 40 points41 points  (0 children)

CEQA comes from the left wing, but was passed in 1970.

Most zoning restrictions in California date back to the 1960s when it was a red state and white people banned apartments in their neighborhoods to prevent low-income (primarily minority) renters from moving in after the Civil Rights Act banned explicit housing segregation laws.

Prop 13 was passed in 1978 by mostly Republican voters and eliminates much of the tax benefit cities get from allowing new housing growth.

The red tape isn't a "left vs. right" thing. It's a "protectionist vs. growth" thing that transcends political parties.

For example, it was a democrat that introduced SB 827 to eliminate red tape for housing development near transit stops. Most gubernatorial candidates opposed it, but the Democratic candidates supported the idea behind it whereas the Republican candidates were vehemently opposed.

That same democrat passed SB 35 last year, which revokes local municipalities privileges to put up red tape for housing construction when those municipalities fall short on their targets for new construction. It passed with Democratic support and Republican opposition.

The left/right dynamic on NIMBYism in California is all convoluted for a simple reason:

Democrats tend to be more in favor of regulations and Republicans more in favor of the free market, but Democrats also tend to be more in favor of higher-density urban cities with public transit infrastructure and Republicans tend to be more in favor of suburban sprawl and low-density freeway zoning.

Allowing higher density means reducing regulations, and "protecting" low-density suburbs from growth means "protecting" the regulations that ban density. So the line on this issue runs perpendicular to the left-right spectrum. It's an urbanist/suburbanist spectrum that has people from both parties on both sides.

Do you feel the rise of Amazon’s AWS, Google’s GCP, and Microsoft’s Azure's cloud infrastructure oligopoly is a creating a future problem? by kn0tch in Futurology

[–]AtA6ix 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I feel that if there is not a significant shift in the general arch we are on in terms of the level of corruption and misuse we tolerate and allow to be gotten away with.. it’ll be straight up totalitarian.

New electric VOTL aircraft in flight. by epSos-DE in Futurology

[–]Wyand1337 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, I live in munich and using the bike is very much common for business people over here, too. Even though I am a mere engineer (ironically developing batteries for cars and similar stuff), I do have to meet consultants and representatives of other companies regularly and need to wear my button down shirts. Doesn't stop me from biking. Or any of my colleagues. Our main building is basically covered in bikes as if they were planning some secret invasion. I guess it's more of a question of the city in question being bike friendly. I can get to the other end of the city within an hour without being sweaty. A car isn't that much faster for that matter.

My point is more like: By the point you raised this vehicles specs to being able to do daily business and practical stuff just within a major city, it is ridiculously expensive and freaking HUGE. And extremely loud. And still not better at doing the job than a bike, let alone a car.

UK passes 1,000 hours without coal as energy shift accelerates by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]Sutarmekeg 1810 points1811 points  (0 children)

Clean coal is coal that stays in the fucking ground while we use wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal sources of power.

Edit: thanks for the gold kind stranger. Also, since I'm here again: clean coal is still fucking dirty!

The world is losing vital forests quicker than ever. In 2017, 40 football fields of tropical tree cover were destroyed — every minute. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]ZombieRomp 216 points217 points  (0 children)

Everyone's focused on the mathematical statistics but not the cause of deforestation - animal agriculture. Seriously just try and minimize as many animal products as you can if you are truly concerned about our forests.

Starbucks announced on Monday it plans to eliminate plastic straws from its 28,000 stores worldwide by 2020. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]AssholeTimeTraveller 320 points321 points  (0 children)

The amount of "This solution isn't perfect and won't solve climate change/plastic waste on its own, therefor it's a pointless gesture and I hate it" in these comments is ridiculous.

No solution is perfect. There is always more that individuals can do, but progress is progress, even if it's a small step.

Starbucks announced on Monday it plans to eliminate plastic straws from its 28,000 stores worldwide by 2020. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]backcountrydrifter 4775 points4776 points  (0 children)

Plastic straws are the scapegoat of our generation because people want to feel better about themselves without making any real difference. Difference takes changing personal behavior. If you really think that getting rid of straws at a Starbucks in Phoenix is going to make an actionable difference you are buying into a shell game as old as man.

Steps to solving the problem-

  1. Look up, or better yet, visit the Odaw river in Ghana, the giant mountain of garbage that people live on outside of Manila or Cabanatuan city in the Philippines, or Alang in India.

But quite honestly a trip to your own cities dump will be quite enlightening.

  1. Use your newfound experience to STOP BUYING DUMB SHIT!

  2. Demand that you will not accept planned obsolescence from the companies you support and then follow through by buying less and consequently, throwing away less

  3. Stop looking at everything through a reactionists lens and demand data behind your purchasing decisions. I guarantee clamshell packaging, your Apple product that lasts 18 months before the IOS and battery life forces an upgrade and the ever necessary WiFi refrigerator with a 5 year life expectancy in every home create more toxic waste than the 200-900 straws one person uses per year.

A box of 500 disposable plastic straws is about the size of a lunchbox. Wasteful, absolutely. But if you think Starbucks is doing this for the greater good of the planet and not because it’s a corporate cost analysis calculation of an internal expense that they can eliminate while not influencing your personal “BUY DUMB SHIT DAILY” programming that is imperative to the success of their business growth, then YOU are in fact, the problem.

EDIT- To be clear- I am not saying that eliminating straws in the first world coffee shops is a bad thing. But see it for what it is for Starbucks. Economics first with a free side of good public relations.

I am saying that in order for it not to be a small statistical anomaly we need to change consumption habits, teach adolescents the necessity of conservation and be a generation that requires more of the companies we finance then to just say “there ought to be a law” and expect politicians to save us from ourselves.

Every government in the world that collects taxes wants you to consume more stuff that they can tax. It’s how a bureaucracy thrives. It’s a conflict of interest to believe that a political system that is funded by your daily spending will put any quantifiable effort into getting you to consume less stuff.

Every business (and this isn’t meant to vilify Starbucks or Apple specifically) that sells a product wants to sell more of it. Make your decision with common sense. Make your action with dedication. And make your effect felt with your wallet.

That is how effectual change happens.

Costa Rica Becomes the First Nation to Ban Fossil Fuels by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]joaquinswettUniversidad de Costa Rica 3493 points3494 points  (0 children)

I'm half Costa Rican and living in San José. While I'm a huge fan of any policies in the right direction towards a carbon neutral future, it's important to realize why Costa Rica is able to do this. People often comment on these posts saying things akin to "small country has few people so doesn't have to generate much electricity" or "the cars still use gas so it doesn't count". Costa Rica has several major hydroelectric dams that allow it to produce more than enough energy to power not only our own grid, but also to sell surplus electricity to help power those of our neighboring countries. Those dams are Reventazón, Angostura, Arenal, and Miguel Dengo. Now, as for the situation with cars. That's a little trickier, and no country has managed to truly ban gas vehicles as of yet. However, we are taking steps in the right direction. Import taxes and sales taxes on cars here are extraordinarily high, but a new government policy has made it so that the purchases of electric vehicles do not pay taxes. So no, we aren't officially carbon neutral, and yes, we still do have a dependency on fossil fuels. But we are working in the right direction!

This Supercomputer Can Calculate in 1 Second What Would Take You 6 Billion Years by dumbgringo in Futurology

[–]Zergbrah 121 points122 points  (0 children)

That's why I never go to Home Depot. It's too raunchy and my wife hates when I spend all of our money there.

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is a marijuana compound linked to a range of potential health benefits but does not get you high. The roughly $1 billion CBD industry is slated to shift into high gear if the federal government approves the first CBD-based drug, an epilepsy medication called Epidiolex. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]pike184 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Philosophy student here.

But is it moral?

Edit: Gold. A valuable commodity. The ancient Incans saw this metal as the product of the sun's rays. The founder of their great capital, high in the Andes, was said to have tested the soil with a golden rod on behalf of their creator god. We see stories such as this ubiquitously throughout the world, but how are we to systemically evaluate such judgements in an impartial manner. What conditions necessitate naturalistic worth, and how do these conditions reflect on the material worth of the physical man? One may postulate that material value may only be a product of a mind in a manner similar to Leibniz's conception of God, though on a smaller scale here, but this would entail a confliction within the naturalistic worldview. Indeed, is value at all possible under naturalism, pragmatic, or philosophical? It would appear not, and that value, such as that of gold, is epiphenomenal in nature. Furthermore, objective value clashes with the naturalistic conception of the free will in that value is arbitrary should no other evaluation be possible. As valuation tends to proceed as a comparative task, a naturalistic worldview would undermine any notion of comparison, objective or subjective. From this, we are led to wonder if any of the subjective evaluations made by the conscious mind are indeed evaluations at all. The mind is as material as the body, therefore it is bound by the same lack of evaluative power. Should subjective experience indeed not be an experience at all, but a facsimile thereof, as this line of inquiry suggests, we may even disavow the solopsistic interpretations of Descartes' Cogito. It is by this that we may conclude that the gold is not real, and neither are you.

Tokamak Energy hits 15 million degree fusion milestone by izumi3682 in Futurology

[–]Killfile 122 points123 points  (0 children)

For most of human history we got our energy by breaking chemical bonds. Early on, we relied on plants to gather energy from the sun to form those chemical bonds.

At some point we realized that we could tap into the energy gathered up by plants millions of years ago by burning fossilized plants. This is handy because the geology that fossilized them also made them way more energy dense. Unfortunately, we're also burning these "fossil fuels" way faster than they're being created by the Earth. They won't last as an energy source forever.

About 100 years ago we worked out that there was a staggering amount of energy trapped in the nucleus of an atom. We worked out how to get some of that energy out by splitting the atom. This only really worked well for really big atoms like Uranium and, as it turns out, there's not too terribly much of that just sitting around and refining it and working with it is hard. The type of Uranium that makes a lot of energy is absurdly rare and really hard to separate out from the rest of it. There are some other variants of this type of energy generation we can explore like Thorium Salt reactors but that's another matter.

But about 50 years ago we worked out a way to get a bunch of energy out of smaller atoms by combining them instead of breaking them apart. This is really handy because, while Uranium is hard to come by and Thorium is a lot more plentiful, the Universe is made up of small atoms by default. If you can get energy from Hydrogen -- the lightest element -- you've got it made. Hydrogen is basically everywhere.

But there's a problem. We can only get energy from Hydrogen in an uncontrolled reaction. This is not suitable for commercial power production. If we could get power from Hydrogen in a commercial power setting, however, we'd have more energy than we'd know what to do with using a fuel that literally falls from the sky.

Edit: Thanks for gilding me, /u/dtoc_tick_tock!

This weed-killing AI robot uses 20 percent less herbicide and may disrupt a $26 billion market by mveaMD-PhD-MBA in Futurology

[–]kingdeuceoff 8119 points8120 points  (0 children)

The video says 20 TIMES less.... the equivalent of 95% LESS.

Edit: Thanks kind stranger. WAIT. Stranger was JEFF GOLDBLUM. https://imgur.com/a/DQDoBQT

Thanks Jeff Goldblum /u/_JeffGoldblum, I probably wasn't going to see Jurassic World, but I feel obligated to now so I can tell everyone that you gilded a reddit post of mine. Good marketing.

Leaked document shows the White House planning to force Americans to spend $311m-$11.8b/year to keep unprofitable coal and nuclear energy plants from shutting / Boing Boing by TransPlanetInjectionTrans-Jovian Injection in Futurology

[–]TheMacPhisto 411 points412 points  (0 children)

I can't speak for the coal, but the part about the nuclear plants is total horseshit.

They haven't issued any permits or built any new reactors since everyone got their panties in a bunch over TMI in the fucking 70's.

So all the nuclear reactors that are running currently, are currently producing power at a rate much, much better than anything else. Those reactors have already paid for themselves many times over, and they aren't even close to as efficient as a modern plant would be. Fucking France powers 75% of it's entire country with 50 something nuclear power plants. Think about that. And whats a nuclear plant's only byproduct? Steam/Water Vapor

I also am not aware of any fucking coal power plant that's been operational constantly since the fucking sixties.

Nuclear power is the way out of the energy crisis. Not wind, not solar, not coal, and not oil. It's just a damn shame with all of the technology advancement in the last 40 years, that the nuclear energy people haven't been able to exploit that because of how a bunch of ignorant, bureaucratic politicians handled the Three Mile Island incident decades ago.

Also, this sub needs to start taking a strong look at it's fucking sources. BoingBoing? Medium? Sky?? Techcrunch?! Holy shit. The epitome of "here's three paragraphs with no sources." And everyone here eats it up like an encyclopedia.


EDIT: I forgot about this little rant, and when I logged back in I first seen this and was like "oh shit, who did I piss off now." - Much to my relief, I am glad to see like minded people on this subject also exist. If you want real energy reform, it's going to come from nuclear. It's almost like everyone forgot about nuclear.


They do, but not continuously. For example a coal plant is constantly producing byproduct as it operates. It is spewing greenhouse gasses, emissions, and particulate matter into the atmosphere by the millions of cubic meters. That doesn't happen with a nuclear plant. A nuclear plant doesn't spew radiation into the atmosphere constantly.

And for those that think Nuclear Waste Material is an issue on par with that, or even close, read this:


The entire nuclear industry collectively produces a mere 2000 tons of Nuclear Waste Material a year. 97% of which is of the "Intermediate to low level waste." The kind of waste that doesn't even require shielding to transport/handle, or special storage facilities, and is not radioactive after 100 or so years. Literally put it in a remote building somewhere and wait.

A styrofoam cup is more dangerous, with a longer lasting impact to the environment than 97% of nuclear waste.