What big break thru do we need the most?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Techpriestsupport**

All this talk about storable electricity almost has me thinking of railways running into remote areas where solar, wind, nuclear, etc power is safe and feasible carrying lines of battery cars lining up to be filled with electricity and shipped off to consumers.

Then I think to myself "If it would work, why not?"

I've heard that superconductors can store astounding amounts of electricity. If they could be made practical and a boxcar sized superconductor battery could be made to hold enough electricity to run an area for, say, a week, why not generate solar power in perpetually sunny areas and use solar flues to keep the power coming even at night, store it in battery cars, and rail it to areas where it would be used and the battery cars sent back for recharging?

Supposedly superconductors can move tremendous amounts of electricity at near instant speeds, if megawatts of power can be transferred in minutes and stored for long periods, maybe the idea of "battery car" trains carrying electricity like other commodities isn't wrong.

Problems could be centralized electrical production mean vulnerability to attack, yes I know. Then again truly storable electricity might make solar and wind at local levels feasible too as the power is stored and used on demand with little loss.

**StygianBeach**

My automatic response to this question is a nano printer, but better batteries sounds good too.

**admironheart**

Grey Templar wrote:
admironheart wrote:
Population Control.

If you have that, then pretty much every other problem can be fixed simply by scaling the size of our numbers.

Overpopulation is a myth, at least in terms of right now or even in the foreseeable future. Certainly it won't actually occur till we are able to begin making viable colonies in orbital cities or on other celestial objects. Earth can support many many times people than we have right now, even if we ceased to convert more of the earth's surface into farmland and only used what we currently have.

People confuse Overpopulation with unequal distribution of resources. They see massive amounts of people starving around the world and incorrectly assume we are running out of resources due to overpopulation, when the real problem is that the resources we have are not distributed 'fairly' across the world.

Population control of course could solve this problem. But that would necessitate the mass culling of the populations of pretty much all 3rd world countries. Definitely not an ethical solution.

As a Farmer and aware of the quality lands available for food production....we are not too far away from our threshold. Long before this century is over.

The US has 20% of the worlds 'good' producing lands. This is shrinking as houses are the number one crop on farmland in many areas. Then you go to the east coast and find many more old small farms are now Solar Panel farms and you can see a trend where the usable land is going.

We do have one thing going for us in science. GMO foods have skyrocketed our production rates. That is the true technology of the future...not hand held gizmos. Unfortunately the mass public has been propagandized into thinking GMO are evil. 87% of the population is against it while the same number or scientists are for it.

Just about all our Tofu, Grains, Corn and Corn Sucrose, Sugar cane, Sugar Beets, etc are GMO now so just about every item you consume has some GMO connection.

Still I think the most we can feed is about 20 billion. I think our population will exceed that before the century is over, despite what the population myth speakers/seminars argue.

**Grey Templar**

admironheart wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
admironheart wrote:
Population Control.

If you have that, then pretty much every other problem can be fixed simply by scaling the size of our numbers.

Overpopulation is a myth, at least in terms of right now or even in the foreseeable future. Certainly it won't actually occur till we are able to begin making viable colonies in orbital cities or on other celestial objects. Earth can support many many times people than we have right now, even if we ceased to convert more of the earth's surface into farmland and only used what we currently have.

People confuse Overpopulation with unequal distribution of resources. They see massive amounts of people starving around the world and incorrectly assume we are running out of resources due to overpopulation, when the real problem is that the resources we have are not distributed 'fairly' across the world.

Population control of course could solve this problem. But that would necessitate the mass culling of the populations of pretty much all 3rd world countries. Definitely not an ethical solution.

As a Farmer and aware of the quality lands available for food production....we are not too far away from our threshold. Long before this century is over.

The US has 20% of the worlds 'good' producing lands. This is shrinking as houses are the number one crop on farmland in many areas. Then you go to the east coast and find many more old small farms are now Solar Panel farms and you can see a trend where the usable land is going.

We do have one thing going for us in science. GMO foods have skyrocketed our production rates. That is the true technology of the future...not hand held gizmos. Unfortunately the mass public has been propagandized into thinking GMO are evil. 87% of the population is against it while the same number or scientists are for it.

Just about all our Tofu, Grains, Corn and Corn Sucrose, Sugar cane, Sugar Beets, etc are GMO now so just about every item you consume has some GMO connection.

Still I think the most we can feed is about 20 billion. I think our population will exceed that before the century is over, despite what the population myth speakers/seminars argue.

We're only building over Farmland because we have more of it than we need, and thus its commercial value is low as farmland. We definitely should stop building on good farmland because thats just wasteful, but its a problem that won't really be apparent for a long time. A bad side effect of past humans building cities in close proximity to the farms out of necessity. New cities should be built on less valuable land like barren hills.

Agree 100% on GMOs. They are a huge benefit in terms of food production.

**Peregrine**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
All this talk about storable electricity almost has me thinking of railways running into remote areas where solar, wind, nuclear, etc power is safe and feasible carrying lines of battery cars lining up to be filled with electricity and shipped off to consumers.

Then I think to myself "If it would work, why not?"

I've heard that superconductors can store astounding amounts of electricity. If they could be made practical and a boxcar sized superconductor battery could be made to hold enough electricity to run an area for, say, a week, why not generate solar power in perpetually sunny areas and use solar flues to keep the power coming even at night, store it in battery cars, and rail it to areas where it would be used and the battery cars sent back for recharging?

Supposedly superconductors can move tremendous amounts of electricity at near instant speeds, if megawatts of power can be transferred in minutes and stored for long periods, maybe the idea of "battery car" trains carrying electricity like other commodities isn't wrong.

Problems could be centralized electrical production mean vulnerability to attack, yes I know. Then again truly storable electricity might make solar and wind at local levels feasible too as the power is stored and used on demand with little loss.

Congratulations, you've just invented a transmission line that is vastly more complicated and inefficient.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
I still think a system that detects and flags lies on mass media would be the most important thing.

What good does it do to cure cancer, or generate/store vast amounts of power cleanly,or do anything else the world might need, if someone can discredit it to the world with a lie?

I started this long lengthy post this morning, and then decide that it was gibberish because I was so exhausted. But I think I am fundamentally in the direction you are, but more broadly. I think we don't have tech issues, really, or at least that's not our biggest concern.

I don't think that what we need right now is a technological breakthrough. Our technology is already very, very good. Sure, new gizmos are always amazing. But (this is American-centric, sorry) I think right now there is something fundamentally broken with our way of life. Our society seems to no longer be able to go forward in a workable way and land on a consensus for self-determination and shared governance, and it seems to be getting worse, not better. The technological parts of our culture only get weaponized and used toi further that weird, self-destructive descent we seem to be on. The system you think of to detect lies in mass media would in my opinion not be that useful because right now we have an enormous percentage of the population who will readily believe things they know to be lies as long as it helps them screw the other side. Functionally, it's the same as when we used to think that police body cams would help fix bad policing, and then it turns out when you have body cams, it kind of didn't make a difference because even when you have footage of cops doing clearly horrific things, they get a huge degree of deference from the legal system and almost always skate. I'm not trying to threadjack into this arena but use that example to say that "revealing lies" is only useful if you have an engaged public to know knowing they are lies would then act on them in a manner we think is appropriate, and I don't think that's true anymore.

So the "big break" we need the most, again as an American, is so philosophical or... I don't know the exact right word I want here, but something that helps bring us together more, because cheap electricity and cures for disease are actually not the biggest problems I think we are hurtling towards.

Anyway I typed something like that but longer and then remember that at one point my country was actually so divided that the entire country split in half and went to war with each other, so maybe I'm just lacking perspective and things have always been pretty bad and at times dramatically worse.

There's a solution here...

It's simply treating our neighbors and strangers with dignity.

Do that...and much of the insane bat-guano stuff would be minimized.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah. You just have Thorium power plants closer to the point of use. There isn't any realistic safety concern with Thorium reactors, or modern nuclear in general, and it produces almost no radioactive waste in comparison to standard Uranium plants.

Transmitting electrical power over long distances is a bad idea because you lose a good amount of the energy during the transmission. Superconductors not-withstanding of course, but even if we do get to practical super conductors using the power to transport batteries from nuclear power plants in "safe" areas is a silly way to use that power.

**Talizvar**

Something to point to on the "better battery" has been the "ultracapacitor" that has been of interest for quite some time.
Using that tech they have been looking at that as the "front end" to decrease the chemical wear of standard batteries.
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/whats_the_role_of_the_supercapacitor

It is exciting the potential where it sounds like science-fiction but the reality is the tech needs some maturity and proper application to take off.

So yeah, there is a reason why science fiction is always about the impact on humanity by a development: it is always our use or application of a given invention that makes things scary.

**John Prins**

admironheart wrote:

As a Farmer and aware of the quality lands available for food production....we are not too far away from our threshold. Long before this century is over.

**greatbigtree**

You can farm inside a house. I know a guy with a tremendous cash crop that he’s growing in his basement.

But in all seriousness, hydroponic farming of standard edibles is quite doable. That or “stacked” rows of any plant that either grows under ground on to a height of 24” or less. Admittedly, that’s limiting for corn (Blech!) and tree bearing fruit, but I expect GMO’ing a dwarf apple tree that bears normal sized fruit isn’t out of the question.

What I’d hope for the future is development of FTL travel. I realize that was specifically poopooed on, but “eternal” survival of the species requires the ability to move off-planet and eventually out of the solar system. Right now we’re all eggs in one basket. A rogue meteor away from extinction. Or more likely human-caused extinction... but the point is if we can populate multiple celestial bodies, we become exponentially less likely to become extinct.

**John Prins**

greatbigtree wrote:
You can farm inside a house. I know a guy with a tremendous cash crop that he’s growing in his basement.

But in all seriousness, hydroponic farming of standard edibles is quite doable. That or “stacked” rows of any plant that either grows under ground on to a height of 24” or less. Admittedly, that’s limiting for corn (Blech!) and tree bearing fruit, but I expect GMO’ing a dwarf apple tree that bears normal sized fruit isn’t out of the question.

What I’d hope for the future is development of FTL travel. I realize that was specifically poopooed on, but “eternal” survival of the species requires the ability to move off-planet and eventually out of the solar system. Right now we’re all eggs in one basket. A rogue meteor away from extinction. Or more likely human-caused extinction... but the point is if we can populate multiple celestial bodies, we become exponentially less likely to become extinct.

FTL isn't required to move to other solar systems, it just makes it quicker. Heck, you could do generation ships on fission power if you really had to.

**Techpriestsupport**

I think this board could use a block function like facebook has that keeps blocked users from seeing the posts of the people who blocked them.

**Vulcan**

Ouze wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
I still think a system that detects and flags lies on mass media would be the most important thing.

What good does it do to cure cancer, or generate/store vast amounts of power cleanly,or do anything else the world might need, if someone can discredit it to the world with a lie?

I started this long lengthy post this morning, and then decide that it was gibberish because I was so exhausted. But I think I am fundamentally in the direction you are, but more broadly. I think we don't have tech issues, really, or at least that's not our biggest concern.

I don't think that what we need right now is a technological breakthrough. Our technology is already very, very good. Sure, new gizmos are always amazing. But (this is American-centric, sorry) I think right now there is something fundamentally broken with our way of life. Our society seems to no longer be able to go forward in a workable way and land on a consensus for self-determination and shared governance, and it seems to be getting worse, not better. The technological parts of our culture only get weaponized and used toi further that weird, self-destructive descent we seem to be on. The system you think of to detect lies in mass media would in my opinion not be that useful because right now we have an enormous percentage of the population who will readily believe things they know to be lies as long as it helps them screw the other side. Functionally, it's the same as when we used to think that police body cams would help fix bad policing, and then it turns out when you have body cams, it kind of didn't make a difference because even when you have footage of cops doing clearly horrific things, they get a huge degree of deference from the legal system and almost always skate. I'm not trying to threadjack into this arena but use that example to say that "revealing lies" is only useful if you have an engaged public to know knowing they are lies would then act on them in a manner we think is appropriate, and I don't think that's true anymore.

So the "big break" we need the most, again as an American, is so philosophical or... I don't know the exact right word I want here, but something that helps bring us together more, because cheap electricity and cures for disease are actually not the biggest problems I think we are hurtling towards.

Anyway I typed something like that but longer and then remember that at one point my country was actually so divided that the entire country split in half and went to war with each other, so maybe I'm just lacking perspective and things have always been pretty bad and at times dramatically worse.

Sadly you are probably correct. Americans have forgotten that 'If we do not hang together, we most assuredly will hang separately'...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

There's a solution here...

It's simply treating our neighbors and strangers with dignity.

Do that...and much of the insane bat-guano stuff would be minimized.

If only we could stop humans from...acting like humans....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:
... but I expect GMO’ing a dwarf apple tree that bears normal sized fruit isn’t out of the question.

You don't need to GMO it. You splice a regular apple tree seedling onto the roots of a dwarf apple tree. That's what grows in over 90% of all commercial apple orchards.

Normal apple trees just grow too large to harvest apples efficiently without bruising...

**Mr Morden**

Cure for all cancers

Fusion Power

Cure for Ageing process

All essential.

**Ouze**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
I think this board could use a block function like facebook has that keeps blocked users from seeing the posts of the people who blocked them.

Not really topical but the biggest problem with blocking users on Dakka is it doesn't help if a billion people keep quoting and responding to them, anyway.

**queen_annes_revenge**

going to repeat what I said in the last one, stem cell advancements that can help with musculoskeletal injuries and other conditions... and I think thats fairly reasonable..the stem cell field seems to be advancing rapidly, but it annoys me when I hear about those sort of things being used for things like creating babies with 3 sets of DNA. (because I think there needs to be lines, we need to be careful how much we tamper with nature, especially if its only being done to appease that particular crowd.) That time and money could be used figuring out how to repair injured sportsmen, and possibly servicemen. who knows, it could get to the stage where we could grow new limbs for those with traumatic amputations, or even eyes, facial reconstructions etc.

**greatbigtree**

@ Vulcan: Neat! I didn’t know about the dwarf apple tree thing. Thanks for sharing.

**John Prins**

Mr Morden wrote:

Cure for Ageing process

All essential.

We'd need several other technologies before we consider an ageless population. Otherwise there would be terrible wealth disparity, unemployment and overpopulation without draconican social engineering.

**greatbigtree**

Big 10-4 on “immortality.” It creates financial devastation. Think of compound interest over the course of 10 000 years. Or land ownership. Food / resource consumption.

Unless we all agree to off ourselves after a certain amount of time. Which I suppose falls under the Draconian society umbrella.

**Techpriestsupport**

Any thought on genetic engineering tech? Maybe genetic ally engineering microbes to break down waste plastic efficiently and quickly making it easier and cheaper to recycle? Converting biowaste into hydrogen gas efficiently to make hydrogen power more efficient?

Btw, someone here mentioned breakthrus in 3d printing. Therecs something for him.

http://www.thinkinghumanity.com/2019/02/scientists-in-the-uk-3d-printed-human-corneas-to-cure-blindness.html?fbclid=IwAR085B8C7AS-1llxbT4i4aJg8C-FryuOQZgAfqApzwu_N9E4rL7iLkkXn3Q

**greatbigtree**

whoops.

**Techpriestsupport**

greatbigtree wrote:
whoops.

Ok can I ask why you out clean in quotes? Do you doubt the water is clean? If so why?

Edit I replied to a message you posted about a sewage treatment plant using bacteria to convert sewage into what you called "clean" water.

**Voss**

Elbows wrote:
Even in the short start to the thread, you can see the subcurrent of a future conflict/issue which calls all of this into question.

Anti-religious types (I do not practice religion, personally) generally agree that cold-hard-logic is the answer to a lot of the world's problems. However, you have some people who are so (ironically) zealous about science...they're nearly as cult-mad as some of the crazy religious types they're complaining about. Then...consider in the future we develop enough science to determine that X, Y or Z shouldn't be born, or yada yada...science can only go so far before it actually becomes the root cause of religion sprouting up again. This is just an endless cycle. The colder and more logical the world becomes the more desperate people will become to find "a greater meaning", or something non-scientific to rally behind to justify their existence or usefulness, etc.

A scientist knocking at your door informing you that your usefulness quotient isn't inline with your caloric intake and thus you've been selected for discontinuation....is about as tragic as people wanting to burn you because they think you're a witch. There are extremes to every angle.

Citation please. This just sounds like anti-science rhetoric to me.
I really want to see examples of when science has yielded cults and religious revivals, or anyone using actual science to assign 'usefulness quotients' and not nutjobs wearing a (painfully obvious) pseudo-science mask

**Techpriestsupport**

Voss wrote:
Elbows wrote:
Even in the short start to the thread, you can see the subcurrent of a future conflict/issue which calls all of this into question.

Anti-religious types (I do not practice religion, personally) generally agree that cold-hard-logic is the answer to a lot of the world's problems. However, you have some people who are so (ironically) zealous about science...they're nearly as cult-mad as some of the crazy religious types they're complaining about. Then...consider in the future we develop enough science to determine that X, Y or Z shouldn't be born, or yada yada...science can only go so far before it actually becomes the root cause of religion sprouting up again. This is just an endless cycle. The colder and more logical the world becomes the more desperate people will become to find "a greater meaning", or something non-scientific to rally behind to justify their existence or usefulness, etc.

A scientist knocking at your door informing you that your usefulness quotient isn't inline with your caloric intake and thus you've been selected for discontinuation....is about as tragic as people wanting to burn you because they think you're a witch. There are extremes to every angle.

Citation please. This just sounds like anti-science rhetoric to me.
I really want to see examples of when science has yielded cults and religious revivals, or anyone using actual science to assign 'usefulness quotients' and not nutjobs wearing a (painfully obvious) pseudo-science mask

Well, speaking as a believer in science and logic, and as someone who has at least a little integrity, I have to point out that before1945 the science of eugenics was popular. America routinely sterilized "undesireables" (guess what color most were ) who were viewed as unsuitable for breeding. One of the firstSF series, Lensmen, revolved around the idea of aliens breeding humans to create a eugenic master race and this was seen as good.

Some other countries had views in eufenics that were put into practice, Germany being the most widely known example. But some other countries did too.

If the nazis did any good they discredited the idea of human eugenics. But for quite a while the science of eugenics was used to justify some terrible things.

**timetowaste85**

Reliable space-travel combined with terraforming capability. The planet is over-capacity as it is. We need to branch out before we stifle the planet. Continuing the longevity of human life will just keep more bodies around longer than earth can sustain.

Yeah, morbid, but not exactly untrue.

**Dreadwinter**

admironheart wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
admironheart wrote:
Population Control.

If you have that, then pretty much every other problem can be fixed simply by scaling the size of our numbers.

Overpopulation is a myth, at least in terms of right now or even in the foreseeable future. Certainly it won't actually occur till we are able to begin making viable colonies in orbital cities or on other celestial objects. Earth can support many many times people than we have right now, even if we ceased to convert more of the earth's surface into farmland and only used what we currently have.

People confuse Overpopulation with unequal distribution of resources. They see massive amounts of people starving around the world and incorrectly assume we are running out of resources due to overpopulation, when the real problem is that the resources we have are not distributed 'fairly' across the world.

Population control of course could solve this problem. But that would necessitate the mass culling of the populations of pretty much all 3rd world countries. Definitely not an ethical solution.

As a Farmer and aware of the quality lands available for food production....we are not too far away from our threshold. Long before this century is over.

This is 100% factually untrue. We have barely tapped the quality lands capable of farming and with our ability to enrich soil and create farmland through vertical structures, we can produce a LOT more food than ever before.

**greatbigtree**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
whoops.

Ok can I ask why you out clean in quotes? Do you doubt the water is clean? If so why?

Edit I replied to a message you posted about a sewage treatment plant using bacteria to convert sewage into what you called "clean" water.

It's not a sewage treatment plant but a compost facility and it takes in all manner of waste and turns it into soil and water that's "Clean" enough to release untreated into the environment. And I was trying to remember the name and I was going to look it up but I fethed up and then it just wasn't worth the hassle so I tried to get out but it didn't work.

**Gordon Shumway**

Ouze wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
I still think a system that detects and flags lies on mass media would be the most important thing.

What good does it do to cure cancer, or generate/store vast amounts of power cleanly,or do anything else the world might need, if someone can discredit it to the world with a lie?

I started this long lengthy post this morning, and then decide that it was gibberish because I was so exhausted. But I think I am fundamentally in the direction you are, but more broadly. I think we don't have tech issues, really, or at least that's not our biggest concern.

I don't think that what we need right now is a technological breakthrough. Our technology is already very, very good. Sure, new gizmos are always amazing. But (this is American-centric, sorry) I think right now there is something fundamentally broken with our way of life. Our society seems to no longer be able to go forward in a workable way and land on a consensus for self-determination and shared governance, and it seems to be getting worse, not better. The technological parts of our culture only get weaponized and used toi further that weird, self-destructive descent we seem to be on. The system you think of to detect lies in mass media would in my opinion not be that useful because right now we have an enormous percentage of the population who will readily believe things they know to be lies as long as it helps them screw the other side. Functionally, it's the same as when we used to think that police body cams would help fix bad policing, and then it turns out when you have body cams, it kind of didn't make a difference because even when you have footage of cops doing clearly horrific things, they get a huge degree of deference from the legal system and almost always skate. I'm not trying to threadjack into this arena but use that example to say that "revealing lies" is only useful if you have an engaged public to know knowing they are lies would then act on them in a manner we think is appropriate, and I don't think that's true anymore.

So the "big break" we need the most, again as an American, is so philosophical or... I don't know the exact right word I want here, but something that helps bring us together more, because cheap electricity and cures for disease are actually not the biggest problems I think we are hurtling towards.

Anyway I typed something like that but longer and then remember that at one point my country was actually so divided that the entire country split in half and went to war with each other, so maybe I'm just lacking perspective and things have always been pretty bad and at times dramatically worse.

This, right here is the ultimate answer (it's the basis for the famous match cut from bone to satellite in 2001), but the question really is how do we get there? Is there some sort of technological breakthrough that could help bridge this divide? Maybe "limitless" energy. Maybe some sort of mind/machine breakthrough where learning is a download. Whatever it is will have to be free/non profitable as one of the main driving factors for the divide right now is the haves v. have nots in various guises (economic, social, etc.). Really, sadly, we probably need some sort of tragedy to kick us in the butts to get together again. Maybe this thread should be merged with the "what if we meet aliens" thread. That was Kubrick/Clarke's idea.

**queen_annes_revenge**

do people really want immortality? I think life would be terribly dull.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Elbows wrote:
Even in the short start to the thread, you can see the subcurrent of a future conflict/issue which calls all of this into question.

Anti-religious types (I do not practice religion, personally) generally agree that cold-hard-logic is the answer to a lot of the world's problems. However, you have some people who are so (ironically) zealous about science...they're nearly as cult-mad as some of the crazy religious types they're complaining about. Then...consider in the future we develop enough science to determine that X, Y or Z shouldn't be born, or yada yada...science can only go so far before it actually becomes the root cause of religion sprouting up again. This is just an endless cycle. The colder and more logical the world becomes the more desperate people will become to find "a greater meaning", or something non-scientific to rally behind to justify their existence or usefulness, etc.

A scientist knocking at your door informing you that your usefulness quotient isn't inline with your caloric intake and thus you've been selected for discontinuation....is about as tragic as people wanting to burn you because they think you're a witch. There are extremes to every angle.

Citation please. This just sounds like anti-science rhetoric to me.
I really want to see examples of when science has yielded cults and religious revivals, or anyone using actual science to assign 'usefulness quotients' and not nutjobs wearing a (painfully obvious) pseudo-science mask

I dont think its anti science rhetoric.. while there is a little bit of reductio ad absurdum in the example provided, the underlying point is valid. Placing cold hard logic at the pinnacle of your ideological system, to the detriment of all other sociological systems is flawed thinking. Humanity needs morality and ethics (usually derived from religious ideals) just as much as it needs objective truths(derived from science). One cant work without the other.

**Techpriestsupport**

greatbigtree wrote:
Techpriestsupport wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
whoops.

Ok can I ask why you out clean in quotes? Do you doubt the water is clean? If so why?

Edit I replied to a message you posted about a sewage treatment plant using bacteria to convert sewage into what you called "clean" water.

It's not a sewage treatment plant but a compost facility and it takes in all manner of waste and turns it into soil and water that's "Clean" enough to release untreated into the environment. And I was trying to remember the name and I was going to look it up but I fethed up and then it just wasn't worth the hassle so I tried to get out but it didn't work.

Sounds like something we need a lot more of, by a long shot.