Ever thought about electricity? Probably not often. For most of us in the states, if you plug the appliance into the socket, it works, and if you flick the light switch up, the lights turn on.
I've been thinking about how it's made. Yes, without somebody else's work, if you flicked on the lights, nothing at all would happen. There are no free lunches in physics, and electricity is no exception.
All of our power comes from a magnet. Somewhere, there is a power station, which has a big loop of wire, probably made out of copper, which connects to the wires going to your house, apartment, or business. Inside that loop, there is a very large magnet, that almost, but not quite, fills the loop. The magnet is mounted on a rod that allows it to rotate around the axis of the loop. If you spin the magnet, the wires develop an electrical charge, the energy of which flows down the wire to you.
Okay, how do you spin the magnet? I mean, gerbil power plants aren't too common, right?
You use steam. Engineers in the mid to late 1800s discovered that you can push with steam. Much of the technology developed during that time used that principle to get work done, like trains, massager, and (this is a very long story that you can ask me about later) dildos. Because of the prevalence of steam as an energy transmission medium, the late 1800s are known as the steam era.
Okay, so you're shoving the magnet around with steam to make it spin. Where do you get the steam from? Steam doesn't just come from nowhere, right?
You boil water. The only power generation techniques that don't boil water are hydro power, and that involves the shove of water trying to flow downhill, conveniently blocked by the magnet-in-the-loop. So the water, pulled downhill by gravity, shoves the magnet into spinning, and wind power, in which wind shoves blades into rotating, and the blades spin a rod, that spins a magnet.
Everything else makes heat to boil water. Coal power works by burning coal to boil water, oil involves burning again, bio-power has been proposed in which wood would be burned. Power by burning must, of course, remove the smoke and ash from the process before it smothers the fire. Nuclear power produces heat by splitting atoms, changing a small portion of the atom's mass into heat. The heat boils water.
The ultimate power source would be antimatter. We have a lot of garbage laying around that no one would mind if it was destroyed, and a piece of matter the size of a small candy has enough power to fly a plane completely around the world several times. (Planes use a ridiculous amount of energy to stay aloft, by the way.) Enough matter to power a large city for several years would fit in the tiny wastebasket under my desk. The whole world could be powered for several years from the mass of a car.
Unfortunately, antimatter is very volatile stuff. It explodes if it touches regular matter, and so far can only be contained magnetically, and then only if charged. The process to produce it is ludicrously expensive. For the price required to produce the small candy's worth of antimatter, you could buy enough gold to completely cover the earth.
Since this is not an option, the next most promising technique is plasma arc gasification. This involves heating garbage with an electrical arc, which rips apart the atoms. As it cools back down, yes, it boils water. Also, some of the condensation resembles gasoline insomuch as it could power an engine. It was developed as a waste disposal technology, as it is so much cleaner than just burning the garbage, but it has been noticed to provide more electricity than it uses once it gets going.
Fusion power would also be great. With fusion, technicians would maintain a toroidal star that they constantly extract energy from. Hydrogen from water would power this star, and it would give off helium. The mass of helium would be less than the mass of the input hydrogen, so the energy comes from mass. Unfortunately, stability is a problem with fusion. Fusion operates at extremely high temperatures, so the star has to be prevented from touching the floor, which it will happily burn right through if allowed. Most existing fusion reactors can only safely be operated for a few seconds, or require more energy to maintain than they produce. Scientists have claimed commercial fusion power to be 50 years off....for the last 50 years. Serious roadblocks.
I'm going to recommend plasma arc gasification and nuclear power for now. Plasma arc gasification uses up waste that people pay to get rid of as it is, and nuclear power produces electricity with about my weight in waste per year. The waste could be recycled, technically, but we don't for political reasons. Could nuclear waste be plasma arc gasified? Probably.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Economics
Economics is one of those fields that really makes my head hurt, as it consists of a million little transactions that add up to huge patterns, and small things that seem insignificant are nonetheless critical to figuring out the pattern.
Economics is also part of the 2008 United States Presidential election. Various ideas are being pushed by various groups, and candidates are trying to weigh in with ideas of how to decrease unemployment, reduce inflation, and raise the standard of living in the United States.
Diversity seems to be the key. If there are many different products and services in the market, then the production of these goods will encourage the hiring of many people to make the products and perform the services, and these people will be able to pay for other goods and services in turn. This hopefully becomes an exponential cycle, unless diversity stops growing. At some point, people feel they have all the goods and services they can afford, and buying slows, hiring slows, and a depression momentarily grips the market.
How to increase diversity? People need ideas. I suggest science funding as a way of producing many new ideas, at least some of which will inspire a brave entrepreneur to start up.
Economics is also part of the 2008 United States Presidential election. Various ideas are being pushed by various groups, and candidates are trying to weigh in with ideas of how to decrease unemployment, reduce inflation, and raise the standard of living in the United States.
Diversity seems to be the key. If there are many different products and services in the market, then the production of these goods will encourage the hiring of many people to make the products and perform the services, and these people will be able to pay for other goods and services in turn. This hopefully becomes an exponential cycle, unless diversity stops growing. At some point, people feel they have all the goods and services they can afford, and buying slows, hiring slows, and a depression momentarily grips the market.
How to increase diversity? People need ideas. I suggest science funding as a way of producing many new ideas, at least some of which will inspire a brave entrepreneur to start up.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Island Hopping
A number of places in this world have a lot of money and a lot of population, but no room. This tends to make the people miserable, as the rent increases continuously, everything gets crowded, and other problems occur because of the high population. Some of these places can no longer expand, because the surrounding land is owned by other entities. In particular, I think of New York City in the United States, whose surrounding land is owned by New Jersey, Yonkers, and Pennsylvania, and also Japan, an island nation with territorial arguments with Korea, China, and Russia. Japan especially suffers from crowding, since it has half the population of the United States, but is smaller than even the state of California in area. According to Wikipedia, California is 423,97 km^2, while Japan is merely 377,873 km².
For the crowded places on earth that have the money to deal with it, I suggest a land-filling policy, as most of these places are costal. The Netherlands have reclaimed 1/5th of their land from the ocean, so I know this is do-able. While it is possible to reclaim straight from the shore, many shore constructions were built because they were close to the shore, so to preserve land values, this technique should be used to create new islands.
After the site has been selected, workers should construct a caisson, a watertight pressurized tube, and install a pillar in the ocean. This should be done around the entire parameter of the would-be island. The watertight part can be removed when the pillars are fully constructed, and may or may not be recyclable, depending on how the construction and removal works. The pillars should all have notches facing each other. A large metal or plastic sheet of considerable thickness is placed between the notches, forming a water-tight seal. When the water is pumped from the center, this leaves a giant hole in the sea.
The hole should be filled with, at first, cheap materials. Especially garbage. Garbage should be readily available from any overcrowded area. Middle layers can even contain toxic waste between layers of cement. When the hole is almost filled, the top layer should be filled with only soil or compost, as this layer will directly be used by the inhabitants of the new island. It would also be wise to put a subway system, underground wiring, or water pipes, as appropriate, in this layer.
Finally, when the surface has been reached by the dirt layer, the island is avaialble for construction. Developers should move in and build large, high density apartments and businesses, and construct a means of transportation to the rest of the city, by bridge, subway, or ferry. Finally, everyone moves in, having more room to grow and build.
I recommend that New York build to the east or Northeast in the Atlantic to avoid the possibility of claims from New Jersey, and similarly recommend that Japan expand east into the Pacific to avoid conflicts with Korea.
I estimate this method to cost $5 million per square kilometer.
For the crowded places on earth that have the money to deal with it, I suggest a land-filling policy, as most of these places are costal. The Netherlands have reclaimed 1/5th of their land from the ocean, so I know this is do-able. While it is possible to reclaim straight from the shore, many shore constructions were built because they were close to the shore, so to preserve land values, this technique should be used to create new islands.
After the site has been selected, workers should construct a caisson, a watertight pressurized tube, and install a pillar in the ocean. This should be done around the entire parameter of the would-be island. The watertight part can be removed when the pillars are fully constructed, and may or may not be recyclable, depending on how the construction and removal works. The pillars should all have notches facing each other. A large metal or plastic sheet of considerable thickness is placed between the notches, forming a water-tight seal. When the water is pumped from the center, this leaves a giant hole in the sea.
The hole should be filled with, at first, cheap materials. Especially garbage. Garbage should be readily available from any overcrowded area. Middle layers can even contain toxic waste between layers of cement. When the hole is almost filled, the top layer should be filled with only soil or compost, as this layer will directly be used by the inhabitants of the new island. It would also be wise to put a subway system, underground wiring, or water pipes, as appropriate, in this layer.
Finally, when the surface has been reached by the dirt layer, the island is avaialble for construction. Developers should move in and build large, high density apartments and businesses, and construct a means of transportation to the rest of the city, by bridge, subway, or ferry. Finally, everyone moves in, having more room to grow and build.
I recommend that New York build to the east or Northeast in the Atlantic to avoid the possibility of claims from New Jersey, and similarly recommend that Japan expand east into the Pacific to avoid conflicts with Korea.
I estimate this method to cost $5 million per square kilometer.
Monday, February 25, 2008
All the troubles in the world
I've been asking all my associates about what they think the worst problem in the world was (so that I could find a solution of any credibility whatsoever.) All of them said that violence was the worst problem.
It's not an easy problem to solve. Every nation on earth has some degree of violent crime. Several wars are raging as I type this sentence. A few other wars are threatening to happen. Some violence is unreported, like people in bars getting into alcohol-fueled fistfights, or children being spanked. (Weather or not spanking is legitimate as a discipline method is another story. My point being, it is unquestionably violent.)
Aside from a world-wide prescription to vallium, I think the best way to reduce violence is a strong and honest police force. Police forces take issue to assaults on citizens under their protection. They have the brute force to do something about it, and in most communities, the legitimacy to make pariahs of any opposition.
Wars can be reduced with extra diplomacy, but not entirely eliminated. If two nations have overlapping land claims, either one must relinquish the claim or there will be war. Nations have also fought wars over issues of prestige and power. Nothing makes a nation seem more powerful than to humiliate a smaller nation. Thankfully, this tactic is largely going away due to changing politics and larger, more it-would-be-suicidal-to-challenge military forces.
I do not know how to prevent bar violence, other than immediately tranquilizing drunks that so much as look angrily at each other. Intra-family violence is also tricky because everyone involved often feels that it is justified. Some parents do feel that children must be spanked when they misbehave, or they will never learn to be reasonable people. Some people feel that a fistfight is the only way to solve severe enough interpersonal problems. I do not have an answer.
It's not an easy problem to solve. Every nation on earth has some degree of violent crime. Several wars are raging as I type this sentence. A few other wars are threatening to happen. Some violence is unreported, like people in bars getting into alcohol-fueled fistfights, or children being spanked. (Weather or not spanking is legitimate as a discipline method is another story. My point being, it is unquestionably violent.)
Aside from a world-wide prescription to vallium, I think the best way to reduce violence is a strong and honest police force. Police forces take issue to assaults on citizens under their protection. They have the brute force to do something about it, and in most communities, the legitimacy to make pariahs of any opposition.
Wars can be reduced with extra diplomacy, but not entirely eliminated. If two nations have overlapping land claims, either one must relinquish the claim or there will be war. Nations have also fought wars over issues of prestige and power. Nothing makes a nation seem more powerful than to humiliate a smaller nation. Thankfully, this tactic is largely going away due to changing politics and larger, more it-would-be-suicidal-to-challenge military forces.
I do not know how to prevent bar violence, other than immediately tranquilizing drunks that so much as look angrily at each other. Intra-family violence is also tricky because everyone involved often feels that it is justified. Some parents do feel that children must be spanked when they misbehave, or they will never learn to be reasonable people. Some people feel that a fistfight is the only way to solve severe enough interpersonal problems. I do not have an answer.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Lower the Ocean
I constantly hear about how global warming is melting the north pole and raising the sea level. The raising sea level would be bad -- if you own land in Egypt, Florida, Beijing, Loiusiana, or central California....well, not anymore you don't. And yes, with no ice whatsoever, Greenland and Antarctica would raise up and leave the earth with more land than before, but honestly, which would you rather live in? Louisiana? Or Greenland?
So I've decided today to do the opposite. I'm going to LOWER the level of the seas to get more useful land for human use. And I'm going to do it in a very ironic way. I'm going to do it by applying heat.
Start by building a platform in the south pacific, between Australia and Antarctica. Then build a nuclear reactor on that platform, and use the ocean as a heat sink. The heated ocean will evaporate more water. When the winds blow north, Australia will benefit from rain, alleviating their drought. When the winds blow south, the water will fall as snow on Anarctica. Anarctica has a thick layer of snow, not because it snows often there, but because what little does fall there never melts. The power generated by the reactor can be brought to Australia via an undersea cable, or it could power a research station on the platform. Even if the power was not used, the additional wetness to the area would be a benefit. Also, Australia has large reserves of Uranium that they are not using, so refueling the reactor is easy.
Water that falls as snow on Antarctica will not melt without a rather large increase in global warming, which should be contained in other ways. Lastly, should the world need fresh water in the future, it can be sawed out of Antarctica in an emergency.
So I've decided today to do the opposite. I'm going to LOWER the level of the seas to get more useful land for human use. And I'm going to do it in a very ironic way. I'm going to do it by applying heat.
Start by building a platform in the south pacific, between Australia and Antarctica. Then build a nuclear reactor on that platform, and use the ocean as a heat sink. The heated ocean will evaporate more water. When the winds blow north, Australia will benefit from rain, alleviating their drought. When the winds blow south, the water will fall as snow on Anarctica. Anarctica has a thick layer of snow, not because it snows often there, but because what little does fall there never melts. The power generated by the reactor can be brought to Australia via an undersea cable, or it could power a research station on the platform. Even if the power was not used, the additional wetness to the area would be a benefit. Also, Australia has large reserves of Uranium that they are not using, so refueling the reactor is easy.
Water that falls as snow on Antarctica will not melt without a rather large increase in global warming, which should be contained in other ways. Lastly, should the world need fresh water in the future, it can be sawed out of Antarctica in an emergency.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Terraforming Venus
Venus, poetically referred to as our sister planet, is much more tempting as a target of terraforming. It has nearly the same size as Earth (98% of earth's size, compared with Mars's ~60%), is closer to the sun, which would both improve plant growth and allow for greater use of solar power, and due to gravitational aspects too complex to discuss here, would be an ideal launching area for missions to the asteroid belt.
Unfortunately, the downsides are much bigger. For starters, Venus's surface is 482C, hot enough to melt lead. The atmosphere at the surface is 94 times earth's pressure, which is so thick that it starts acting like a liquid. So anything we send now would get crushed and melt down. At the same time. On top of that, Venus has little hill-sphere, so using satellites would be much much harder, and Venus rotates extremely slowly, and backwards. (The sun would rise in the west on Venus.) The Venerial (That's 'related to Venus,' btw. It does not refer to sex.) day is only two weeks shorter than it's year. So any plants grown on the surface would die from lack of light during the night, assuming they didn't crush or catch fire. Or melt. Lastly, it rains on Venus right now, but not exactly water. It rains sulphuric acid, a compound that works great in a car battery, but would really suck if it fell on your face, or your crops.
Thankfully, the late Carl Sagan did think up a way where Venus could be lived on today. See, the upper atmosphere of Venus has an earth like temperature and air pressure, and if you were to build a city inside a glass (or other transparent surface, plexiglass would do the trick) bubble, and fill that bubble with earth's atmosphere, the bubble would float like a helium balloon on earth, up five miles. There it would float, and with some of NASA's new ion jets attached, it could be sped into a 24 hour "day" of circling the planet. While all of this is workable, and I would strongly suggest this to displaced people in need of a hard to invade nation (Tibet and Palestine, for instance), it's just too sensible for this blog. Besides, the bubble would only make one city that would need special effort to get in or out of, I want a planet that works like earth. Thankfully, Sagan's city-balloon is the first step in what previously would have been impossible.
The other half of this plan comes from New Mexico, where a group of scientists made a little device, the size of a beer keg, that, when heated to 2600F (1444C), strips oxygen out of carbon dioxide, leaving carbon monoxide that extracts into a small container, to be piped away as fuel. Cooled back down to 2000F (1111C), it releases the oxygen into the atmosphere. If water is added, it produces hydrogen gas instead, with a similar oxygen-extracting process. These scientists are suggesting heating it with solar panels, and keeping it near a coal fired power plant, where it would extract 45 pounds of CO2 from the air per day, pressing it into 2.5 gallons of monoxide to be made into fuel, and then releasing its stored oxygen during the night, resetting itself for another day's extraction. Amatures, I say! I have a much grander, insaner plan!
I plan to have a Sagan bubble-city with a number of these oxygen-cans on movable arms. The bubble city would use ion jets to stay in perpetual daylight. Cans would be raised hourly, with a new can lowered. Only a little solar power would be needed to heat it to the insane temperatures needed, as Venus is already very hot. The cans might occasionally be damaged by the sulpheric acid, but they should extract the hydrogen from the water before suffering significant damage. A human could live in the bubble city, or a city of humans. They would extract some monoxide for their use as fuel, but put most of it onto an off world rocket. For best results, this rocket should go to Mars, which needs greenhouse gases. And Martian people will need fuel too, of course.
Over time, thousands of years probably, these combined actions would use up a large amount of the Venerial atmosphere. The bubble city would find itself lower and lower until it scraped bottom, with no increase in temperature. The remaining carbon dioxide could be used to synthesize baking soda to neutralize the sulphuric acid, as one promising American company has done with their smokestacks. The planet's spin speed could be increased by meteor impact. At this point, plants would be planted, water used to form oceans, and the planet of Venus would be a beautiful place to live.
The faster plan would be to put a solar shade in front of it, with an ion jet to hold it in place against the solar wind. After 1000 years of cooling, it would only be a matter of sawing up, packing up, and rocketing away the dry ice, hitting the meteor, removing the shade, and doing the plant thing. Still, that has the disadvantage of no one being able to USE venus while in the process of terraforming, while still being rather expensive.
Unfortunately, the downsides are much bigger. For starters, Venus's surface is 482C, hot enough to melt lead. The atmosphere at the surface is 94 times earth's pressure, which is so thick that it starts acting like a liquid. So anything we send now would get crushed and melt down. At the same time. On top of that, Venus has little hill-sphere, so using satellites would be much much harder, and Venus rotates extremely slowly, and backwards. (The sun would rise in the west on Venus.) The Venerial (That's 'related to Venus,' btw. It does not refer to sex.) day is only two weeks shorter than it's year. So any plants grown on the surface would die from lack of light during the night, assuming they didn't crush or catch fire. Or melt. Lastly, it rains on Venus right now, but not exactly water. It rains sulphuric acid, a compound that works great in a car battery, but would really suck if it fell on your face, or your crops.
Thankfully, the late Carl Sagan did think up a way where Venus could be lived on today. See, the upper atmosphere of Venus has an earth like temperature and air pressure, and if you were to build a city inside a glass (or other transparent surface, plexiglass would do the trick) bubble, and fill that bubble with earth's atmosphere, the bubble would float like a helium balloon on earth, up five miles. There it would float, and with some of NASA's new ion jets attached, it could be sped into a 24 hour "day" of circling the planet. While all of this is workable, and I would strongly suggest this to displaced people in need of a hard to invade nation (Tibet and Palestine, for instance), it's just too sensible for this blog. Besides, the bubble would only make one city that would need special effort to get in or out of, I want a planet that works like earth. Thankfully, Sagan's city-balloon is the first step in what previously would have been impossible.
The other half of this plan comes from New Mexico, where a group of scientists made a little device, the size of a beer keg, that, when heated to 2600F (1444C), strips oxygen out of carbon dioxide, leaving carbon monoxide that extracts into a small container, to be piped away as fuel. Cooled back down to 2000F (1111C), it releases the oxygen into the atmosphere. If water is added, it produces hydrogen gas instead, with a similar oxygen-extracting process. These scientists are suggesting heating it with solar panels, and keeping it near a coal fired power plant, where it would extract 45 pounds of CO2 from the air per day, pressing it into 2.5 gallons of monoxide to be made into fuel, and then releasing its stored oxygen during the night, resetting itself for another day's extraction. Amatures, I say! I have a much grander, insaner plan!
I plan to have a Sagan bubble-city with a number of these oxygen-cans on movable arms. The bubble city would use ion jets to stay in perpetual daylight. Cans would be raised hourly, with a new can lowered. Only a little solar power would be needed to heat it to the insane temperatures needed, as Venus is already very hot. The cans might occasionally be damaged by the sulpheric acid, but they should extract the hydrogen from the water before suffering significant damage. A human could live in the bubble city, or a city of humans. They would extract some monoxide for their use as fuel, but put most of it onto an off world rocket. For best results, this rocket should go to Mars, which needs greenhouse gases. And Martian people will need fuel too, of course.
Over time, thousands of years probably, these combined actions would use up a large amount of the Venerial atmosphere. The bubble city would find itself lower and lower until it scraped bottom, with no increase in temperature. The remaining carbon dioxide could be used to synthesize baking soda to neutralize the sulphuric acid, as one promising American company has done with their smokestacks. The planet's spin speed could be increased by meteor impact. At this point, plants would be planted, water used to form oceans, and the planet of Venus would be a beautiful place to live.
The faster plan would be to put a solar shade in front of it, with an ion jet to hold it in place against the solar wind. After 1000 years of cooling, it would only be a matter of sawing up, packing up, and rocketing away the dry ice, hitting the meteor, removing the shade, and doing the plant thing. Still, that has the disadvantage of no one being able to USE venus while in the process of terraforming, while still being rather expensive.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The Surprising Facts about Famine
Famine, a lack of available food to a person, does not occur for the reasons that most people think it does. Most people think that famines occur because there is not enough food on earth to feed everyone. This is, much to their surprise, incorrect.
The world contains, as of last year, 6,602,224,175 people. Each of them will need, according to NASA, 3.1kg of food per day. If I do the math, this translates to 20,466,894,942.5kg/day. Quite a lot, certainally, but the planet is very large. 160,800,000,000kg of barley were grown last year. The amount of rice grown alone would feed everyone, albeit not well. (5.24 x 10^11kg of rice was grown in 2007).
However, food has a number of problems. It goes bad unless refrigerated. (Humans are not the only things on earth that eat! Rats, bacteria, and other pests do their best to eat up any food they get their paws, pseudopods, or grasping impliments on.) It gets stolen. Farmers expect to be paid for their efforts, as farming is hard work. Some of it is worth more as fuel, or alcohol. (I'm looking at YOU, corn.)
Every starving person on earth is arguably starving for political reasons. The most obvious is poverty -- They are unable to provide the farmer with an economic exchange due to a lack of funds. This can be dealt with in a way that imposes few political problems. Namely, a third party charitably buys food for them. This way, the people eat, the farmer gets paid, and everyone is happy, except for the hard core libertarians.
More insideously, however, are dictatorships that force people to live in places that do not have food, forbid them from leaving, and forbid trade outside of their country. And most insideous of all are dictatorships that have decided by fiat that certain people do not get to eat as a way of exterminating them forever. Our resident historian notes that no democracy has ever had a famine, as people tend to leave areas where food is hard to come by.
As an engineer, there's no machine I can build to overthrow cruel dictatorships. There's no chemical reaction for justice. Starve happy dictatorships have to be dealt with diplomatically, politically, or possibly militarily if the first two options don't work. Or possibly another solution is at hand. Ask your local political science expert.
The world contains, as of last year, 6,602,224,175 people. Each of them will need, according to NASA, 3.1kg of food per day. If I do the math, this translates to 20,466,894,942.5kg/day. Quite a lot, certainally, but the planet is very large. 160,800,000,000kg of barley were grown last year. The amount of rice grown alone would feed everyone, albeit not well. (5.24 x 10^11kg of rice was grown in 2007).
However, food has a number of problems. It goes bad unless refrigerated. (Humans are not the only things on earth that eat! Rats, bacteria, and other pests do their best to eat up any food they get their paws, pseudopods, or grasping impliments on.) It gets stolen. Farmers expect to be paid for their efforts, as farming is hard work. Some of it is worth more as fuel, or alcohol. (I'm looking at YOU, corn.)
Every starving person on earth is arguably starving for political reasons. The most obvious is poverty -- They are unable to provide the farmer with an economic exchange due to a lack of funds. This can be dealt with in a way that imposes few political problems. Namely, a third party charitably buys food for them. This way, the people eat, the farmer gets paid, and everyone is happy, except for the hard core libertarians.
More insideously, however, are dictatorships that force people to live in places that do not have food, forbid them from leaving, and forbid trade outside of their country. And most insideous of all are dictatorships that have decided by fiat that certain people do not get to eat as a way of exterminating them forever. Our resident historian notes that no democracy has ever had a famine, as people tend to leave areas where food is hard to come by.
As an engineer, there's no machine I can build to overthrow cruel dictatorships. There's no chemical reaction for justice. Starve happy dictatorships have to be dealt with diplomatically, politically, or possibly militarily if the first two options don't work. Or possibly another solution is at hand. Ask your local political science expert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
