EdEarl

This Russian experiment resulted in domesticated foxes that the researchers sell for pets. I believe their claim to have replicated dog domestication must be exaggerated, because 50 yr evolution can't equal thousands of yr, given similar lifespans. It seems improbable that dog evolution occurred in 50 yr and stopped. I'm biologically challenged, so there may be additional variables. I don't know how long it has taken to develop GMO organisms, but I believe the process speeds evolution. That evolution may work quickly has implications regarding climate change. I'd guess that short lived organisms such as microbes and other organisms with shorter generations may adapt to climate change; others may not. Is the Russian fox experiment common knowledge among biologists? Does it affect predictions of a possible anthropomorphic mass extinction, and if so to what extent?

Why not subtract the 6H2O from both sides?

Well Tar, you may not be able to avoid all those interesting things. Voice and face recognition are my preference for low level security.

The change to AI applications has begun, which has seen both failures and successes. For example, the tragic Tesla AI driver killed its owner, the ridiculous Microsoft chatbot, Tay, apparently became a Hitler-loving sex robot within 24 hours, the surprising win by Alpha-Go playing a grand master, and the astonishing Jeopardy win by Watson. AI applications are coded and trained. The coding builds a neural net and neural nets are trained for various applications. AI applications can continue to learn as their application is used; thus, they can adapt to individuals, for example turning lights on after dark and turning off headlights in a driveway. No doubt the transition will be interesting, but eventually AI helpers will anticipate your needs and wants, instead of being clumsy when used.

My perspective on automation is jaded, I suppose. My first experiences with computers was far enough back to be primitive. I remember being an operator on a system, and every morning we entered a sequence of about a dozen instructions on 12 switches (12 bits), which read a card that read a deck of cards to load the "operating system." Another system read its operating system by reading a loader from paper tape, and the loader read the "operating system" from a reel of magnetic tape. Computers were much more difficult to use in those days. However, we always knew improvements were in the pipe; although, we didn't know how they would be implemented and affect our work. As a programmer, one of the things that became crystal clear is the frequency of human error. While coding the average programmer makes many errors, perhaps one every ten lines of code. It is embarrassing and infuriating. I'd have more hair if machines did what I wanted instead of what I programmed. Software has become easier to learn and use, but there is still room for improvement in many systems. On the other hand, some software is much better than we are of doing things.

It is plausible but not possible at this time because no current material is strong enough to support its own weight, much less an elevator. Although carbon nanotubes may be strong enough, we cannot make them long enough at this time.

She didn't mention methane, but it is one of the products produced by biology.

I agree that no one parallel processor can do equally well on all algorithms. However, video processing has yielded to parallel processors with excellent results. Similarly, business data processing with multitudes of users are serviced adequately by the cloud. The parallel requirements for video processing and the cloud are different and the hardware to support them are different. I believe the piton processor is designed for processing algorithms that the cloud currently processes; furthermore, the optimizations they made were designed to improve communications in this environment. I suspect a piton processor would not do as well on video processing as machines made for that task. Whether it is a significant improvement for cloud processing may be tested, and results reported; if so, we shall see. Perhaps I am wrong and it is intended for another kind of parallel environment. Perhaps you are right, their design has no merit.

I can cite a bit more info from the talk. Lisa Dyson rediscovered an idea developed by NASA in the 1960s for deep-space travel, using microbes that reproduce very quickly, hours rather than weeks. They harvested protein, oil and carbohydrates, which were processed into various synthetic foot products that taste similar to our current foods, such as wheat making bread and pasta, oil similar to citrus and palm oil for making foodstuff, soap, fragrances, and fuel. Food made in this manner is lower cost than traditional farming and removes CO2 from the environment, while using very little land, allowing nature to recover. Fast growth in containers make production 10,000 more effective than traditional farming land.

A forgotten Space Age technology could change how we grow food is a TED talk on youtube about using microbes to grow food vertically that our population of 10B in 2050 will need to survive and thrive.

Wikipedia has no toxicity information for F2Rn.

Radon is a noble gas, which means it is not chemically active; it is inert or nearly so. It is poisonous only because it is radioactive.

See: Spectrum.IEEE.org: Robot Tractor, concept vehicle spectrum.ieee.org: the worm

Ken, you aren't alone in your frustration at the slow progress of battery improvement. This article says that the Tesla super battery factory is located near a lithium mine, which is news to me. That mine isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article Lithium. A Google of "US lithium" does get hits, including this one in Wyoming, which may have enough lithium to satisfy the US needs. I added a note in Wikipedia:Lithium:Talk about lithium in the US.

Some jobs, for example cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear disaster, have requirements that an anthropomorphic design is well suited to perform; debris and stairs prevent wheeled or tracked vehicles from access, and valves are designed for hands to operate. On the other hand, most military drones, crawlers and walkers don't look human. Additionally, some robots are designed to look as humans because they are designed to interact with humans; thus, they need to recognize and mimic human emotions and otherwise be human friendly, such as having a soft exterior to prevent accidental injury to people. Although the human design evolved, it is superior in many ways to other forms for doing many things. Hands, for example are both strong enough to lift hundreds of pounds (over 100kg) and delicate enough to perform operations on babies.

Automatic autos (AA) will reduce the price of Taxi service, according to some reports, to the point that automobile ownership is unnecessary for most people. Thus, car companies expect reduced sales, and perhaps the total number of AA will be only 10% of the number currently on roads, because robo taxis would be driving 90% of the time instead of parked 90% of the time as privately owned cars are. This means the demand for batteries will be lower than a fleet of privately owned cars. I don't know, but believe, this estimate does not include the expectation of fewer cars due to robo taxis, because 2020 is too soon for electric AA to replace more than half the existing fleet of cars. Thus, if robo taxis become the primary means of personal transport, the fleet may be fewer than a half a billion cars. The following analysis of lithium reserves and electric car production does not account for lower car fleet numbers. Thus, lithium reserves are adequate for a while, but may be used up with continued use. Changing to another technology, such as graphene supercapacitors or sodium batteries, seems to be inevitable. Notes:

Yes. With everyone living in Earthships or similar technology, riding in energy efficient electric light weight vehicles, and efficient industry, the per capita energy requirements can be much less than today. The sun shines more than 103 more energy than humanity uses; thus, reduction per capita and solar abundance probably means we won't be limited by energy. I didn't say it would be easy.

One limit on population depends on how fast human waste, including bodies, can be processed into food and water (the Soylent Green solution). If waste could be processed immediately into food, then population is limited by living space, and that would allow 100 billion to 1000 billion (guess).

Without technologically advanced or heroic methods to accommodate more people, 9 billion people is considered overpopulation. However, meat production consumes resources that might be used to feed almost 10 times as many people, and vertical farming with artificial light might increase vegetable production ten fold. If we look at the mass of people vs all animals, including land & sea and microbes to the blue whale, the total mass of animals is much greater than the mass of people, perhaps 10:1 (guess). I checked the internet and found no one knows, and estimates vary widely. Nonetheless, it is prudent to get some idea of how much animal mass Earth can sustain. All I can say with any accuracy is that 9 billion is not the ultimate limit, and no one knows how many people the Earth can sustain.

How much could be produced in a year? Would there be residual radioactivity? Are there legal hurdles to resolve? It's not being done now, why not?

The idea of making lithium was unrealistic, as the idea of generating electricity using neutrons decaying into protons. We couldn't mine a neutron star, nor carry even a bit the size of a grain of sand. I like the idea of redox batteries or super capacitors, because recharging is fast. Super capacitors are also very light weight. Lithium batteries are best at this time, but another technology may be developed to replace them, especially if lithium prices soar.

It might make a nice battery if we could easily change a neutron per atom into a proton, and reverse the process. If I did the math right, making a gram of protons from neutrons would cause 10KW flow of electrons.

I wonder what improvement is typical. Ironically, this technology has appeared as gasoline engines are being replaced by electric motors.

Sodium battery technology is improving, but seems likely to be not quite as good as lithium. Nonetheless, it may improve enough to be viable, since sodium is abundant and inexpensive.

Europeans prevailed because of dumb luck! We are all African some generations ago.