Notice that depending on whether you live in a Metric country or not, the quiz will either report your answer in ACRES or HECTARES, which are not the same size. This could be contributing to the strange numbers you guys have been complaining about.
That said, I still don't trust 'em. If you read the fine print at the end, it turns out they think the ideal sustainable solution involves killing off 90% of the earths population, and I don't think I can really support that. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1606267:date=Feb 13 2007, 05:28 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 13 2007, 05:28 PM) [snapback]1606267[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And for all practical purposes, the sun is an unlimited source of energy. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is from farther back in the thread, but I'm just reading through now. Anyway... go read <a href="http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm" target="_blank">The Last Question</a>.
Cool <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> But yes, while Forever is a long time.
By then we're either gonna be 1. Out of options 2. Find something completely different that likely involves space travel or nuclear FUSION (note: not 'nuclear fission') by the time we have to deal with it.
Both of which are currently not options.
_
Uranium is only a solution incase we create a successful Fast Breeder Reactor. We haven't made one yet. And I highly doubt we will anytime soon.
Or that it could be done at all, at a cost thats lower than renewable energy.
_
As is, we're just trying to survive global warming ;D And thats the next 20-50 years.
A few slip ups with nukes, and we wouldn't even last that long.
The Last Question was Asimov's favourite? How appropriate. Mine too. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Comments
That said, I still don't trust 'em. If you read the fine print at the end, it turns out they think the ideal sustainable solution involves killing off 90% of the earths population, and I don't think I can really support that. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
And for all practical purposes, the sun is an unlimited source of energy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is from farther back in the thread, but I'm just reading through now. Anyway... go read <a href="http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm" target="_blank">The Last Question</a>.
Forever is a long time.
But yes, while Forever is a long time.
By then we're either gonna be 1. Out of options 2. Find something completely different that likely involves space travel or nuclear FUSION (note: not 'nuclear fission') by the time we have to deal with it.
Both of which are currently not options.
_
Uranium is only a solution incase we create a successful Fast Breeder Reactor.
We haven't made one yet.
And I highly doubt we will anytime soon.
Or that it could be done at all, at a cost thats lower than renewable energy.
_
As is, we're just trying to survive global warming ;D
And thats the next 20-50 years.
A few slip ups with nukes, and we wouldn't even last that long.
If the entire world engaged in an all-out nuclear war, would dumping all that heat into the atmosphere do anything to the weather?
but who dares?
when all human beings die, it just simply means a reset button pressed.