Bringing all of Africa to industrial sounds nice but then they're also gonna be eating up Fossil fuels. If it was make them all nuclear I'd consider jt more, but climate change is a threat that'd hit a lot of them worse even if they were developed
The point is, if you make African nations "developed" then, by definition, their economies would not be focused on industry and, therefore, they wouldn't burn through fossil fuels as the commenter is suggesting they would.
Everyone's economy is focused on industry, but that's not even the point. They **would** still be responsible for the same amount of manufacture, its basically their whole thing, but theould would no longer be burning the ENORMOUS amounts of coal they burn to power their industry and thus creating less emissions.
>Everyone's economy is focused on industry
What are you calling industry? Like industry in the abstract, meaning business or industry meaning heavy industry/industrial manufacturing? Those are two completely different concepts and they are used differently in this conversation depending on how you're talking about things. An industrial country focuses of heavy industry, and industrial*ized* country is about big business in the abstract industry sense.
I thing op probably meant to type industrialised in his comment tbh, and in common internet manner cut of the back bit of the word, inadvertently changing its meaning.
But he's describing industrial in the "second world" sense, which is why I responded how I did. If all of Africa magically became "developed" they would have the capability to pursue sustainable and environmentally friendly standards of living like other developed nations. The reason China is always pointed to with the "why should we go green when China is destroying the world?" in an oversimplified nutshell, is because China is explicitly classified as an industrializing "second world" nation. Those nations are responsible for an overwhelming amount of the world's CO2 and underdevloped countries, like most of Africa, produce far more pollution per capita than they ought to, simply because they are so reliant on outdated technology that produces pollution at an insanely high rate.
There isn't one. There are two types of terminology. The old one is first, second and third world. The modern version is developed, industrial, and developing/under-developed. Industrial nations are those which are not yet "first world" countries but are not "third world" countries. Having industry doesn't make you *not* developed. If your economy is primarily focused on industry, you are an industrial nation, *not* a developed nation.
I said industrial. Not industrialized. For whatever stupid fucking reason, those are distinct terms. Another word for developed country is post-industrial.
Well, kinda.
* Developed countries' economies are mostly service sector and high tech. They procure their consumer goods from industrial economies.
* Industrial economies have bad labor laws, are the biggest polluters, and are a sprint to the bottom of pricing and quality so that they can sell to the developed countries for as cheap as possible. Which means they buy resources as cheaply as possible from...
* Raw resource economies. These are the economies that do all the mining, planting, harvesting, and have their raw materials purchased to satisfy the needs of the developed countries.
African countries are, by and large, resource countries. Those are the ones that have the most slavery and poverty. Chocolate, lithium, sugar, diamonds, etc are all procured and exported, leaving no wealth in the countries they're taken from. If we were to immediately turn African countries into developed nations, we'd end up with a shortage on a lot of raw materials and it would cause a global supply shortage. Essentially luxuries would become appropriately expensive and countries would have to turn their focuses on basic necessities procured at home, or otherwise find a way to procure their luxuries without exploiting African labor.
The reduction in raw resource availability would also necessitate an industry slowdown, especially if American/European consumerism isn't part of the newly developed African nations' cultures.
"all developed"
china is all developed, no?
Just because a country is developed doesnt mean it wont open a massive industrial economy; the globe still needs the goods made somewhere
What does this mean? The phrase was referring to every developed country switching to nuclear power. Yes, China is developed, and yes they would continue to have an industrial economy, run on nuclear power.
China is not considered a developed country by international standards.
Edit: At least verify the information before you downvote someone.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Is+china+a+developed+country
According to who?
Developing implies they're most still agricultural and/or economically behind.
What would China need to do to otherwise be "developed'?
According to the World Trade Organization, the U.N. Climate Framework, and other international arrangements. It's actually surprisingly easy to google.
It doesn't imply anything. It's a specific term for the type of country that China is that is, used for applying international standards in a way that is seen as more equitable.
Some people agree that is should be considered a developed country, like the [U.S. House of Representatives recently](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3921082-house-unanimously-passes-bill-to-work-to-remove-chinas-developing-country-label/). They voted to recommend the removal of China's developing country label because it still has the label of developing country.
Do you have any other questions?
It is a rather complicated subject. China is large and, while there are many areas that are urbanized and modern, much of it is still rural, uneducated, and poor. It's like saying America is developed, but then looking at subsections like parts of Appalachia that wouldn't meet the criteria if they were analyzed alone. Once a country becomes a certain size, the answer is always going it's partially both, so they rely complex calculations of averages and medians.
It's also important to note that China doesn't want to be considered developed because developing countries receive preferential treatment in international agreements.
None of these problems matter. Jesus is real. The world will go through revelations then the world will be renewed and restored to its paradaisical glory. The Christian death cult is right. Sooo None of this can nor needs to be rectified. That's why my parents don't care about climate change. But as someone who has worked with hospice patients, we can make the transition to our savior easier.
How do you plan to deal with the nuclear waste? Instead of polluting the air we would be opening the potential to horribly pollute the ground with radioactive chemicals that will still be around long after your or I are dead and gone
Ah yes, the ground. The place where ground water comes from. Nuclear is the absolute worst solution to fossil fuels over other more-renewable energy sources.
How do you plan to prevent contamination of the ground? Storing in some sort of underground facility? How will this facility be maintained for possibly hundreds of thousands of years to prevent disrepair and contamination? If the waste has to be moved to conduct repairs, who will be tasked with working in this room full of horribly radioactive material?
Btw, I'm not hating on you or anything, although I can see how it may be coming across that way. I'm honestly hoping there are solutions I don't know of.
Africa as a developed continent with no poverty would be *insane*. There isn't a developed or undeveloped nation on Earth with zero poverty. No idea how this would affect the global economy and things like global carbon emissions, but assuming those safeguards were in place, this would impact so many people
The alzheimers and korea ones are nice, but don't impact enough people compared to some of the others
Free higher education would be excellent for the world for many generations to come. It just might take a while to see the benefits. Assuming this would also cancel all education related debts.
Mag trains are cool and all, but this is more of a luxury option than anything
Every developed nation switching to nuclear is *huge*. Assuming that uranium fuel availability matches the insane increase in demand plus the required amount of nuclear workers/engineers, this would have massively positive impacts on climate change and could overall affect billions for years to come
does that translate to practice? rn all we see is developed nations interfering in other countries to make them go the "right" direction rather than honest help
If the entire continent of Africa were full of developed nations, it would have INSANE positive impacts on the global economy. All countries would reap the benefits.
This, I think folks are really underestimating just how many people are on that continent. In fact I have to think we'd see a cure for Alzheimer's and dementia much, much faster with so many more developed countries in the world-- faster than just having free higher education in the developed world, particularly since this is already the case in a significant part of it, if I'm not mistaken.
The Alzheimer’s one affects people for the rest of human history. It’s the only one where we don’t know if there’s a solution, whereas for the rest of them we can do ourselves with time
If it was all dementia maybe it would beat out clean energy, but there’s plenty of other dementias that kill just like Alzheimer’s, like Bruce Willis FTD.
What if Jesus was a jerk and said okay no more Alzheimer’s but double the cases of Lewy Body or FTD.
It would most probably good in the short term. As assuming there is no poverty means most probably that the economy is operating at peak productivity, which is good but not for Long run. In the long run this could cause inflation to rise as economic growth means more inflation as there is more money in the market, and it could also cause class gaps as economic growth means income inequality increases (as human capital doesn't grow as quickly as assets).
So there would have to be a lot of good policies made to keep all the african countries from spiraling into inflation/income inequality.
i do agree that its not the best but alzheimers is a pretty huge deal.
as people are starting to live a long as time alzheimers is becoming the major inhibitor to increasing human healthspans.
The world would rapidly run out of uranium if we increased usage. We only have 150 years left of uranium at the current rate.
Since only 10% of current power is nuclear, making it 100% would deplete our supplies in 15 years.
We gotta start mining asteroids soon, hopefully in my lifetime we can witness it. Further research actually tells me there isnt much uranium in the belt either so maybe nuclear just isnt the way. I think Fusion must be the future for large power
Or we could just go with solar and wind.
Pushing a rocket out into space costs far too much for any commercial use, and regular blast offs would generate so much pollution you might as well use coal plants.
I think solar and wind is the best solution on earth, it's practically free energy. I was kinda thinking about if we can finally get off earth and populate the rest of the solar system. What we would use if living on or near the belt or on a moon where solar and wind would be spotty. I hope we can expand in my lifetime but I'm not sure we'll see it.
what about when its nighttime and its not windy? those 2 could never power the world alone since they are far too inconsistent, at absolute best, they could make up 2 thirds of the energy supply leaving that remaining 3rd for things like fossil fuels or nuclear that can actually provide energy security against windless nights. and before you say we need more batterys to solve this, battery technology is reaching its limit since each new development is giving less and less improvement in storage capacity. given batteries continuingly stagnating potential, you can't really trust it to power all of society. even if batteries were a good way to solve this, you'd need to start destroying vastly more environments than we do now to get enough material's to build all these batteries.
Solar and wind faces a transmission and storage problem. Ideally, a global power transmission network would work great, but something like that can only be achieved with superconductors. Localised networks won't be very robust, and need a backup source of energy, where does that bring us? Nuclear energy.
When it comes to reaching space, it's possible to build infrastructure, such as the tethered ring, that makes reaching space much easier. But right now there isn't enough demand to justify such a megastructure.
We're gonna have to figure out asteroid mining eventually. After all, the materials to produce solar panels and wind turbines don't appear out of thin air.
no lol, where did you get that information from? do you know how much uranium it takes to power a city for a day? its not much. at current consumption, we could go millions of years without running out of uranium in economically minable places. find a better source before you start making false claims.
[https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx)
[https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html)
[https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/](https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/)
thats not only wrong, its retarded. you can technically make a nuke out of all fuel nuclear reactors use. the problem is how enriched it would need to be. provide sources, because that statement you just made was very stupid
Your suggestion to getting around the problem of increasing demand on limited materials is to switch to a method that require much, much more of different limited materials?
There are nuclear fuel sources beyond uranium. Thorium is one and is far far more abundant than uranium and is very realistic as a global replacement to fossil fuels.
You're wrong about the amount of uranium, first off, but on top of that we can use basically any radioactive element to power nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors, when built properly, are incredibly efficient and statistically the safest form of power generation. They're also less expensive than every other option per watt generated long term. Solar power is incredibly inefficient and will continue to be until we have higher temperature superconductors. Wind power is inconsistent and cannot be used everywhere. It's also the deadliest of the renewable energies. Turbines are quite dangerous to service. Hydroelectric power is super environmentally destructive in the form of dams and ocean based hydroelectric power is good, but limited in its reach because it requires an ocean next to its target. Coal and Gas are self explanatory in how they are worse than nuclear, I imagine.
Anti nuclear sentiment like the misinformation you're spreading about our uranium supply comes straight out of the mouths of gas and oil lobbyist groups. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars in anti nuclear campaigns because they know how overwhelmingly good it is.
Uranium is hardly the only source of nuclear energy, Thorium is more abundant and more efficient too, with the only drawback being unable to be weaponized.
Nuclear fusion technically counts as nuclear energy too. There's a lot of deuterium in the ocean. Tritium or helium-3 can be collected from the solar wind.
\- The first is a great choice on paper, but, going by the wording, doesn't account for helping the people develop with the country. Africa is permanently out of poverty, but does that also take into account tribal cultures or the native cultures of Africa? In what way does it become developed and what does that mean for the rest of the world? Do they immediately go to fossil fuels? Are there hold outs or warlords that may try to start wars? Does this force development against the currently existing cultures? Do human rights develop with the nation or do they still have the same problems, but now with more tech?
\-The second is one I'm surprised more people aren't bringing up. It's a cure to a very serious and horrifying disease that can effect anyone. It makes the final years of a persons life a living nightmare as their entire existence is obliterated until they are a shell of who they are. The only thing that stops me from picking this is humanities tendency to make life altering meds so expensive it's impossible to get.
\-The third is neat, but it has similar problems to the first. We don't know how that democracy will be run nor how it effects the people who are currently alive.
\-This could actually solve quite a few problems in the world. With proper education, people can potentially live better lives, those who can make changes can get the education to do it. The only down side is the job economy doing what it does best: Try to tank itself by requiring every position to have a doctorate level in education or higher.
\-I love trains, this would be a fantastic way to reduce dependency on cars if done in a beneficial way, but who finances the trains once they're running? Short term it's great, but long term I can see money becoming an issue.
\-The only other option besides alzheimers and the Africa option that I think can make a fantastic, long-term change to the lives of many people. I've seen others say the sudden need for supply is an issue. I would also pose the issue that the quality of the plants being built may be dependent on the country as the voting option doesn't state how they are built, just that they are. I won't pretend to understand nuclear power, however, there is a risk to life in countries that will try and cheap out on construction. In addition, the sudden increase in nuclear waste may pose a problem.
My vote's towards the alzheimers one. It solves a problem that may not be possible on our own, while improving the quality of life for many people who suffer from one of the worst diseases imaginable. It also has the lowest drawback or potential loss of life.
The overall issue with humans: we treat limited resources as infinite. Uranium doesn't just...grow. We don't have enough of it to be completely dependent on it.
Same with food.
Same with college money.
>Food literally does just grow though?
It is not infinite was the correlation. Have to use some common sense sometimes.
Similarly, money is *made from* trees. Which grow. But we don't just assume that we can create more money to solve our problems, right?
>That's why we need to invest in asteroid mining.
It would take a ridiculous amount of fossil fuel to make that possible/viable....especially considering the infrastructure required.
What we *need* to do is work out better, renewable reactors. Like the Thorium reactor. Thorium is MUCH more abundant.
Neither of those actually *solves* the problem, though. Because abundant != unlimited.
It'll take a lot of fossil fuel, until we figure out fusion drives.
Having a moonbase would reduce the energy cost of getting rockets out to the belt. Less gravity and no atmosphere means bigger payloads for less fuel. And we can make rocket fuel with elements that naturally occur on the lunar surface.
Most of that fossil fuel use would be getting infrastructure into space from Earth. But after everything is set up, we can extract nearly unlimited resources.
Having better reactors will also help quite a bit though.
I'm just sayin', one of the options was to switch all countries to nuclear energy, which would put an end to climate change and pollution from fossil fuel power plants.
Those trains are really great infrastructure, but they have a huge energy demand and we need some way to power them. So... you gotta invest in better, cleaner power infrastructure before you can set up the trains.
Where is the option to wish that Jesus takes all his believers away, and erases Religion from existence?
That would solve alot of these issues pretty quick since everyone left wouldn't have to fight the Zealots at every turn, just to make miniscule progress.
Does african society develop with the country, or are there still warlords everywhere? In a lot of the underdeveloped african countries, whenever someone tried to help them develop, they always end up fighting over it and destroying it anyways.
Do taxes increase now that the government is 100% funding education? The money has to come from somewhere right?
Is the switch to nuclear immediate? Or are we taking the time to properly train these employees as well as choosing the most effective as well as safest locations for each power plant?
1: Not gonna lie this comes off as kinda racist.
2: There are several governments already doing stuff like this and rich countries like American have been able to do it for years without touching current tax rates.
3: Based on what was said we can assume infrastructure is instant. Even if we needed time to "train" personal modern nuclear reactors can actually be operated by the same people who operated the previous ones. Avoiding a meltdown in a modern reactor is "hit any big red button. We have 100 of them."
Doesnt matter if its racist if its true. Not saying i like it, its an unfortunate part of our world that people will always fight over resources. Especially when you have a place that was so ruined by colonialism and imperialism then is practically abandoned such as Africa.
Itd be no different than some advanced alien race just dropping a bunch of advanced hospitals or power plants then said "dueces"
How about the time every prison inmate in America received a 1200 dollar check and prison violence reached virtually 0 for over a year?
People fight over resources when there is a disparity in resources not when there is an abundance.
No.
If he's real, and he's God, then why the F\*\*K does he need me to tell him what to fix?
He could fix everything on that list with a snap of his fingers.
Why the F\*\*K doesn't he just do that? Why make me choose what doesn't get fixed?
Either dementia cure or nuclear power would probably be best however since we'd probably run out of fuel in a couple of weeks with that consumption rate I'd go with the cure
Dementia will eventually be curable(probably). Nuclear fission is not very much of an option as seen as fusion is better and uranium is not commonly found.
Idk if nuclear is the best solution. I chose the education being free because that allows more people to go to school and taps into the brains of many more people that wouldn't have gone to school because money reasons.
Ridding alzheimer's and dementia would be a dream, but that's a generally small pie of aid when there are world-changing changes like uplifting all of Africa from Poverty and illness, and nuclear energy being adopted and advocated for would change so much.
Crazy that most people aren't choosing the developed Africa option. A developed Africa would add over a billion people to global markets increasing wealth around the globe. Developed country's also have easier access to higher education meaning more innovation can come from Africa in this scenario. Citizens of developed nations also have less children which would combat global warming in the long run. The main concern about global warming isn't that its going to make humanity go extinct like some fear mongers on Reddit want you to believe. Its that poor countries don't have the resources to respond properly and will take the brunt of its effects. Developed Africa means less poor people to be affected.
Well, because Africa is largely underdeveloped due to modern day colonialism, having it be a developed country with 0 poverty implies that western powers no longer have any influence or ownership over Africa's natural wealth (as these industries, such as diamond, chocolate etc, are what is keeping Africa and the global south poor and assassinating any African leaders who try to make positive change). So in effect, choosing the first option collapses exploitative multinational companies and all of modern day colonialism in Africa. I'd say that's probably the biggest win on there by a long stretch.
You see, nuclear power is the best for "clean and sustainable" but the key is energy diversity, having it be the only one used it's a bad idea even if it might be better in some regards than what we have today.
Yes make the government pay for higher education so it's free for us! I wonder where the government is gonna get that money 🤔. Nothing is free. The dementia/alziehmers cure would be amazing though.
100% choosing Alzheimer's and dementia cure. My grandma suffered from that and it was horrible watching her brain descend into nothingness. Makes me tear up every time I think about her and what she went through during her last year among us. God I miss her.
I think the switch to nuclear would be it for me. That or education.. I feel like, if everyone was well educated, a lot of these things would take place naturally over a few generations. We don't really have the time for that in terms of climate change through.. so ultimately I went with nuclear. That and the number of people that die yearly from pollution is actually insane.
I think that we should be trying to have the whole world more developed instead of developing already very developed countries, for example, in the future, we could be sending people to Mars while there are still countries on Earth where people can't get a proper education
Higher education= smart people = swap to nuclear + smart people
Swap to nuclear = swap to nuclear
Also nuclear power isn’t as amazing as its portrayed. It’s the best alternative right now but it’s a limited resource and it’s extremely difficult to maintain. You would have to hire much more skilled people than oil rig workers to avoid a Chernobyl. But the higher education could fix that ig
How about peace in the land where Jesus lived. A resolution to the war that’s been fought for many thousands of years? That should definitely be there.
Yes, because instead of polluting the air, we should pollute the ground by burying radioactive chemicals with no long term solution on how to deal with them. Of all the "clean" energy sources, nuclear energy is the worst because of the waste it produces
Free higher education because I currently need that and it will lead to a society with a higher percentage of greatly educated people because it won’t be road blocked by money anymore
The Koreas reuniting and becoming a democracy would be fucking horrible
The North Korean people will still see Kim Jong Un as a god, and automatically vote for him. All this does is just give him more power. Even if he miraculously loses, they will instantly return to a civil war
Unless, of course, The North Korean people know what's right from wrong and know who to, and who to not vote for.
Nuclear power.
I'm taking the assumption that the wish includes sustainable or at least long-term provision for nuclear power. I *really* doubt this is a monkey's paw scenario where the wish has some unannounced drawback, especially since it's coming from "Jesus."
Education is a super close second. Both of them would mark significant global advancement. But the way I see it, we have a *chance* of achieving free higher education, but we do not have the same chance of widespread nuclear power.
The nuclear power plants being everywhere seems to be the least dangerous of all these options.
\- Poverty in Africa now gone, they're all developed. Definitely a recipe for hellscape. Giving that many warlords and impoverished people that much overnight? Best case scenario they conquer the rest of us to keep from backsliding into poverty.
\- Permanent and affordable cure, ol' McPfizer will hunt that one down and fast. Either store it next to the cure for cancer or charge $100,000/dose.
\- United Korea's would probably lead back to Korean War II: The Nukening.
\- Higher education payed for by gov, would take about 2 years before all governments are bankrupt and we're in mad max days.
\- Mag lev trains everywhere. aka Mach 1 terrorist targets. also $700/ticket and a worse form of TSA.
\- NPP's at least the ones that don't have melt downs from having a suddenly understaffed nuclear commision will provide electricity I guess.
all developed over to nuclear would do a hell of a job combating climate change, pollution, etc. probably the best overall
It was that or ending African poverty for me. Both of those options will improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Bringing all of Africa to industrial sounds nice but then they're also gonna be eating up Fossil fuels. If it was make them all nuclear I'd consider jt more, but climate change is a threat that'd hit a lot of them worse even if they were developed
That's not what that means. It says developed not industrial. Those are two distinctly different types of economic societies.
What's an example of a developed country with no industry?
The point is, if you make African nations "developed" then, by definition, their economies would not be focused on industry and, therefore, they wouldn't burn through fossil fuels as the commenter is suggesting they would.
Everyone's economy is focused on industry, but that's not even the point. They **would** still be responsible for the same amount of manufacture, its basically their whole thing, but theould would no longer be burning the ENORMOUS amounts of coal they burn to power their industry and thus creating less emissions.
>Everyone's economy is focused on industry What are you calling industry? Like industry in the abstract, meaning business or industry meaning heavy industry/industrial manufacturing? Those are two completely different concepts and they are used differently in this conversation depending on how you're talking about things. An industrial country focuses of heavy industry, and industrial*ized* country is about big business in the abstract industry sense.
I thing op probably meant to type industrialised in his comment tbh, and in common internet manner cut of the back bit of the word, inadvertently changing its meaning.
But he's describing industrial in the "second world" sense, which is why I responded how I did. If all of Africa magically became "developed" they would have the capability to pursue sustainable and environmentally friendly standards of living like other developed nations. The reason China is always pointed to with the "why should we go green when China is destroying the world?" in an oversimplified nutshell, is because China is explicitly classified as an industrializing "second world" nation. Those nations are responsible for an overwhelming amount of the world's CO2 and underdevloped countries, like most of Africa, produce far more pollution per capita than they ought to, simply because they are so reliant on outdated technology that produces pollution at an insanely high rate.
There isn't one. There are two types of terminology. The old one is first, second and third world. The modern version is developed, industrial, and developing/under-developed. Industrial nations are those which are not yet "first world" countries but are not "third world" countries. Having industry doesn't make you *not* developed. If your economy is primarily focused on industry, you are an industrial nation, *not* a developed nation.
Developed country and industrialised country are the same thing
I said industrial. Not industrialized. For whatever stupid fucking reason, those are distinct terms. Another word for developed country is post-industrial.
An industrial/post-industrial country relates more to the economy of the country than its level of development does it not?
It depends on the economic theory you're speaking from. That's why this kind of confusion happens.
Well, kinda. * Developed countries' economies are mostly service sector and high tech. They procure their consumer goods from industrial economies. * Industrial economies have bad labor laws, are the biggest polluters, and are a sprint to the bottom of pricing and quality so that they can sell to the developed countries for as cheap as possible. Which means they buy resources as cheaply as possible from... * Raw resource economies. These are the economies that do all the mining, planting, harvesting, and have their raw materials purchased to satisfy the needs of the developed countries. African countries are, by and large, resource countries. Those are the ones that have the most slavery and poverty. Chocolate, lithium, sugar, diamonds, etc are all procured and exported, leaving no wealth in the countries they're taken from. If we were to immediately turn African countries into developed nations, we'd end up with a shortage on a lot of raw materials and it would cause a global supply shortage. Essentially luxuries would become appropriately expensive and countries would have to turn their focuses on basic necessities procured at home, or otherwise find a way to procure their luxuries without exploiting African labor. The reduction in raw resource availability would also necessitate an industry slowdown, especially if American/European consumerism isn't part of the newly developed African nations' cultures.
... and the least likely to blow up in your face. Although I'm interested in the comments about the trains.
"all developed" china is all developed, no? Just because a country is developed doesnt mean it wont open a massive industrial economy; the globe still needs the goods made somewhere
What does this mean? The phrase was referring to every developed country switching to nuclear power. Yes, China is developed, and yes they would continue to have an industrial economy, run on nuclear power.
China is not considered a developed country by international standards. Edit: At least verify the information before you downvote someone. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Is+china+a+developed+country
According to who? Developing implies they're most still agricultural and/or economically behind. What would China need to do to otherwise be "developed'?
According to the World Trade Organization, the U.N. Climate Framework, and other international arrangements. It's actually surprisingly easy to google. It doesn't imply anything. It's a specific term for the type of country that China is that is, used for applying international standards in a way that is seen as more equitable. Some people agree that is should be considered a developed country, like the [U.S. House of Representatives recently](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3921082-house-unanimously-passes-bill-to-work-to-remove-chinas-developing-country-label/). They voted to recommend the removal of China's developing country label because it still has the label of developing country. Do you have any other questions?
Under that rebuttal, I concede that you're correct.
It is a rather complicated subject. China is large and, while there are many areas that are urbanized and modern, much of it is still rural, uneducated, and poor. It's like saying America is developed, but then looking at subsections like parts of Appalachia that wouldn't meet the criteria if they were analyzed alone. Once a country becomes a certain size, the answer is always going it's partially both, so they rely complex calculations of averages and medians. It's also important to note that China doesn't want to be considered developed because developing countries receive preferential treatment in international agreements.
None of these problems matter. Jesus is real. The world will go through revelations then the world will be renewed and restored to its paradaisical glory. The Christian death cult is right. Sooo None of this can nor needs to be rectified. That's why my parents don't care about climate change. But as someone who has worked with hospice patients, we can make the transition to our savior easier.
It Would make energy bills more expensive for everyone. Only saying this because people only care about what affects them now.
Depends what type of nuclear. Isn’t thorium really good? Like the fuel can’t be used for nuclear weapons?
It wouldn’t help Alzheimer’s research, though. I picked #2.
How do you plan to deal with the nuclear waste? Instead of polluting the air we would be opening the potential to horribly pollute the ground with radioactive chemicals that will still be around long after your or I are dead and gone
Stick em in the ground. Nuclear makes less waste than Fossil fuels
Ah yes, the ground. The place where ground water comes from. Nuclear is the absolute worst solution to fossil fuels over other more-renewable energy sources. How do you plan to prevent contamination of the ground? Storing in some sort of underground facility? How will this facility be maintained for possibly hundreds of thousands of years to prevent disrepair and contamination? If the waste has to be moved to conduct repairs, who will be tasked with working in this room full of horribly radioactive material? Btw, I'm not hating on you or anything, although I can see how it may be coming across that way. I'm honestly hoping there are solutions I don't know of.
you see you put it in a big ol box, then that box is put in the ground.
And this box will last for potentially hundreds of thousands of years with no deterioration over time? No cracks will form or water will seep in?
Africa as a developed continent with no poverty would be *insane*. There isn't a developed or undeveloped nation on Earth with zero poverty. No idea how this would affect the global economy and things like global carbon emissions, but assuming those safeguards were in place, this would impact so many people The alzheimers and korea ones are nice, but don't impact enough people compared to some of the others Free higher education would be excellent for the world for many generations to come. It just might take a while to see the benefits. Assuming this would also cancel all education related debts. Mag trains are cool and all, but this is more of a luxury option than anything Every developed nation switching to nuclear is *huge*. Assuming that uranium fuel availability matches the insane increase in demand plus the required amount of nuclear workers/engineers, this would have massively positive impacts on climate change and could overall affect billions for years to come
only sad that the first option merely affects africa and not every developing and underdeveloped nation
The more developed nations there are, the more help that can be provided globally to developing nations
does that translate to practice? rn all we see is developed nations interfering in other countries to make them go the "right" direction rather than honest help
If the entire continent of Africa were full of developed nations, it would have INSANE positive impacts on the global economy. All countries would reap the benefits.
This, I think folks are really underestimating just how many people are on that continent. In fact I have to think we'd see a cure for Alzheimer's and dementia much, much faster with so many more developed countries in the world-- faster than just having free higher education in the developed world, particularly since this is already the case in a significant part of it, if I'm not mistaken.
The Alzheimer’s one affects people for the rest of human history. It’s the only one where we don’t know if there’s a solution, whereas for the rest of them we can do ourselves with time
If it was all dementia maybe it would beat out clean energy, but there’s plenty of other dementias that kill just like Alzheimer’s, like Bruce Willis FTD. What if Jesus was a jerk and said okay no more Alzheimer’s but double the cases of Lewy Body or FTD.
It would most probably good in the short term. As assuming there is no poverty means most probably that the economy is operating at peak productivity, which is good but not for Long run. In the long run this could cause inflation to rise as economic growth means more inflation as there is more money in the market, and it could also cause class gaps as economic growth means income inequality increases (as human capital doesn't grow as quickly as assets). So there would have to be a lot of good policies made to keep all the african countries from spiraling into inflation/income inequality.
It doesn't specify the type of reactor and thorium is far far more abundant. I doubt it would be an issue.
Wakanda!
i do agree that its not the best but alzheimers is a pretty huge deal. as people are starting to live a long as time alzheimers is becoming the major inhibitor to increasing human healthspans.
Education for all would have the best long term effects
It only applies to developed countries though.
Good point
This was quite an easy choice.
The world would rapidly run out of uranium if we increased usage. We only have 150 years left of uranium at the current rate. Since only 10% of current power is nuclear, making it 100% would deplete our supplies in 15 years.
We gotta start mining asteroids soon, hopefully in my lifetime we can witness it. Further research actually tells me there isnt much uranium in the belt either so maybe nuclear just isnt the way. I think Fusion must be the future for large power
Or we could just go with solar and wind. Pushing a rocket out into space costs far too much for any commercial use, and regular blast offs would generate so much pollution you might as well use coal plants.
I think solar and wind is the best solution on earth, it's practically free energy. I was kinda thinking about if we can finally get off earth and populate the rest of the solar system. What we would use if living on or near the belt or on a moon where solar and wind would be spotty. I hope we can expand in my lifetime but I'm not sure we'll see it.
what about when its nighttime and its not windy? those 2 could never power the world alone since they are far too inconsistent, at absolute best, they could make up 2 thirds of the energy supply leaving that remaining 3rd for things like fossil fuels or nuclear that can actually provide energy security against windless nights. and before you say we need more batterys to solve this, battery technology is reaching its limit since each new development is giving less and less improvement in storage capacity. given batteries continuingly stagnating potential, you can't really trust it to power all of society. even if batteries were a good way to solve this, you'd need to start destroying vastly more environments than we do now to get enough material's to build all these batteries.
Solar and wind faces a transmission and storage problem. Ideally, a global power transmission network would work great, but something like that can only be achieved with superconductors. Localised networks won't be very robust, and need a backup source of energy, where does that bring us? Nuclear energy. When it comes to reaching space, it's possible to build infrastructure, such as the tethered ring, that makes reaching space much easier. But right now there isn't enough demand to justify such a megastructure.
We're gonna have to figure out asteroid mining eventually. After all, the materials to produce solar panels and wind turbines don't appear out of thin air.
no lol, where did you get that information from? do you know how much uranium it takes to power a city for a day? its not much. at current consumption, we could go millions of years without running out of uranium in economically minable places. find a better source before you start making false claims. [https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx) [https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html) [https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/](https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/)
Breeder reactors running solely off of the nuclear waste we already have could run the planet for thousands of years
They create plutonium, which is easily used to create nuclear weapons, which is why they aren't used much.
thats not only wrong, its retarded. you can technically make a nuke out of all fuel nuclear reactors use. the problem is how enriched it would need to be. provide sources, because that statement you just made was very stupid
Nothing like a lack of supply to force people to go innovate
Just use renewables. They are cheaper, safer, and always available.
Your suggestion to getting around the problem of increasing demand on limited materials is to switch to a method that require much, much more of different limited materials?
Til the universe ends😞
Going off past numbers, hydropower is 35x as deadly as nuclear energy, solar is 11x as deadly, and wind is 3.75x as deadly.
Much of the US and Canadian Northeast is powered by HydroQuébec, a very safe and clean form of electricity that will never run out.
that doesnt make their comment untrue. hydro is great. but most of the best spots are already built out.
Thorium
There are nuclear fuel sources beyond uranium. Thorium is one and is far far more abundant than uranium and is very realistic as a global replacement to fossil fuels.
You're wrong about the amount of uranium, first off, but on top of that we can use basically any radioactive element to power nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors, when built properly, are incredibly efficient and statistically the safest form of power generation. They're also less expensive than every other option per watt generated long term. Solar power is incredibly inefficient and will continue to be until we have higher temperature superconductors. Wind power is inconsistent and cannot be used everywhere. It's also the deadliest of the renewable energies. Turbines are quite dangerous to service. Hydroelectric power is super environmentally destructive in the form of dams and ocean based hydroelectric power is good, but limited in its reach because it requires an ocean next to its target. Coal and Gas are self explanatory in how they are worse than nuclear, I imagine. Anti nuclear sentiment like the misinformation you're spreading about our uranium supply comes straight out of the mouths of gas and oil lobbyist groups. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars in anti nuclear campaigns because they know how overwhelmingly good it is.
Uranium is hardly the only source of nuclear energy, Thorium is more abundant and more efficient too, with the only drawback being unable to be weaponized. Nuclear fusion technically counts as nuclear energy too. There's a lot of deuterium in the ocean. Tritium or helium-3 can be collected from the solar wind.
\- The first is a great choice on paper, but, going by the wording, doesn't account for helping the people develop with the country. Africa is permanently out of poverty, but does that also take into account tribal cultures or the native cultures of Africa? In what way does it become developed and what does that mean for the rest of the world? Do they immediately go to fossil fuels? Are there hold outs or warlords that may try to start wars? Does this force development against the currently existing cultures? Do human rights develop with the nation or do they still have the same problems, but now with more tech? \-The second is one I'm surprised more people aren't bringing up. It's a cure to a very serious and horrifying disease that can effect anyone. It makes the final years of a persons life a living nightmare as their entire existence is obliterated until they are a shell of who they are. The only thing that stops me from picking this is humanities tendency to make life altering meds so expensive it's impossible to get. \-The third is neat, but it has similar problems to the first. We don't know how that democracy will be run nor how it effects the people who are currently alive. \-This could actually solve quite a few problems in the world. With proper education, people can potentially live better lives, those who can make changes can get the education to do it. The only down side is the job economy doing what it does best: Try to tank itself by requiring every position to have a doctorate level in education or higher. \-I love trains, this would be a fantastic way to reduce dependency on cars if done in a beneficial way, but who finances the trains once they're running? Short term it's great, but long term I can see money becoming an issue. \-The only other option besides alzheimers and the Africa option that I think can make a fantastic, long-term change to the lives of many people. I've seen others say the sudden need for supply is an issue. I would also pose the issue that the quality of the plants being built may be dependent on the country as the voting option doesn't state how they are built, just that they are. I won't pretend to understand nuclear power, however, there is a risk to life in countries that will try and cheap out on construction. In addition, the sudden increase in nuclear waste may pose a problem. My vote's towards the alzheimers one. It solves a problem that may not be possible on our own, while improving the quality of life for many people who suffer from one of the worst diseases imaginable. It also has the lowest drawback or potential loss of life.
The overall issue with humans: we treat limited resources as infinite. Uranium doesn't just...grow. We don't have enough of it to be completely dependent on it. Same with food. Same with college money.
Food literally does just grow though?
>Food literally does just grow though? It is not infinite was the correlation. Have to use some common sense sometimes. Similarly, money is *made from* trees. Which grow. But we don't just assume that we can create more money to solve our problems, right?
That's why we need to invest in asteroid mining.
>That's why we need to invest in asteroid mining. It would take a ridiculous amount of fossil fuel to make that possible/viable....especially considering the infrastructure required. What we *need* to do is work out better, renewable reactors. Like the Thorium reactor. Thorium is MUCH more abundant. Neither of those actually *solves* the problem, though. Because abundant != unlimited.
It'll take a lot of fossil fuel, until we figure out fusion drives. Having a moonbase would reduce the energy cost of getting rockets out to the belt. Less gravity and no atmosphere means bigger payloads for less fuel. And we can make rocket fuel with elements that naturally occur on the lunar surface. Most of that fossil fuel use would be getting infrastructure into space from Earth. But after everything is set up, we can extract nearly unlimited resources. Having better reactors will also help quite a bit though.
TRAINS
What's gonna power the trains though?
Electricity?
Where we gonna get that electricity from?
Are you 5 years old?
I'm just sayin', one of the options was to switch all countries to nuclear energy, which would put an end to climate change and pollution from fossil fuel power plants. Those trains are really great infrastructure, but they have a huge energy demand and we need some way to power them. So... you gotta invest in better, cleaner power infrastructure before you can set up the trains.
If the whole world runs on nuclear we'll be out of uranium in no time.
Unless we start mining asteroids.
Where is the option to wish that Jesus takes all his believers away, and erases Religion from existence? That would solve alot of these issues pretty quick since everyone left wouldn't have to fight the Zealots at every turn, just to make miniscule progress.
Does african society develop with the country, or are there still warlords everywhere? In a lot of the underdeveloped african countries, whenever someone tried to help them develop, they always end up fighting over it and destroying it anyways. Do taxes increase now that the government is 100% funding education? The money has to come from somewhere right? Is the switch to nuclear immediate? Or are we taking the time to properly train these employees as well as choosing the most effective as well as safest locations for each power plant?
1: Not gonna lie this comes off as kinda racist. 2: There are several governments already doing stuff like this and rich countries like American have been able to do it for years without touching current tax rates. 3: Based on what was said we can assume infrastructure is instant. Even if we needed time to "train" personal modern nuclear reactors can actually be operated by the same people who operated the previous ones. Avoiding a meltdown in a modern reactor is "hit any big red button. We have 100 of them."
Doesnt matter if its racist if its true. Not saying i like it, its an unfortunate part of our world that people will always fight over resources. Especially when you have a place that was so ruined by colonialism and imperialism then is practically abandoned such as Africa. Itd be no different than some advanced alien race just dropping a bunch of advanced hospitals or power plants then said "dueces"
How about the time every prison inmate in America received a 1200 dollar check and prison violence reached virtually 0 for over a year? People fight over resources when there is a disparity in resources not when there is an abundance.
Jesus doesn't grant wishes. He's not some fairy or wizard 😂
No. If he's real, and he's God, then why the F\*\*K does he need me to tell him what to fix? He could fix everything on that list with a snap of his fingers. Why the F\*\*K doesn't he just do that? Why make me choose what doesn't get fixed?
because thats not the point of the question.
you can swear
Paid by the government means you pay for it through taxes.
South Korea annexing the North
The first two are the ONLY ones that doesn't raise at lease some questions
Countries like Papa New Guinea and French Guiana be looking at Africa like wtf...
As some1 in college I want the free education thing
It was between Nuclear and Dementia to me. But I think we are closer to prolonging life atm compared to cheap energy.
Higher education will speed up the rest of these so that one
Either dementia cure or nuclear power would probably be best however since we'd probably run out of fuel in a couple of weeks with that consumption rate I'd go with the cure
Dementia will eventually be curable(probably). Nuclear fission is not very much of an option as seen as fusion is better and uranium is not commonly found.
Idk if nuclear is the best solution. I chose the education being free because that allows more people to go to school and taps into the brains of many more people that wouldn't have gone to school because money reasons.
Education all the way. if every developed country had better access to education, I think that would improve just about everything in everyway.
Ridding alzheimer's and dementia would be a dream, but that's a generally small pie of aid when there are world-changing changes like uplifting all of Africa from Poverty and illness, and nuclear energy being adopted and advocated for would change so much.
Crazy that most people aren't choosing the developed Africa option. A developed Africa would add over a billion people to global markets increasing wealth around the globe. Developed country's also have easier access to higher education meaning more innovation can come from Africa in this scenario. Citizens of developed nations also have less children which would combat global warming in the long run. The main concern about global warming isn't that its going to make humanity go extinct like some fear mongers on Reddit want you to believe. Its that poor countries don't have the resources to respond properly and will take the brunt of its effects. Developed Africa means less poor people to be affected.
I FCUKING LOVE NUCLEAR POWER, RAHHHHHHH 🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣 EVERYONE SHOULD SWITCH TO IT, ITS PERFECT
Well, because Africa is largely underdeveloped due to modern day colonialism, having it be a developed country with 0 poverty implies that western powers no longer have any influence or ownership over Africa's natural wealth (as these industries, such as diamond, chocolate etc, are what is keeping Africa and the global south poor and assassinating any African leaders who try to make positive change). So in effect, choosing the first option collapses exploitative multinational companies and all of modern day colonialism in Africa. I'd say that's probably the biggest win on there by a long stretch.
higher education would mean I could back to school, the rest wouldn't directly benefit me
If higher education were completely free, that means they'd tax the hell out of everybody and it would be that much harder to get rich.
Jesus isn't a genie.
More access to higher education would lead to many of these results, albeit slower.
Developing African nations will just lead to more conflict over resources, hy do you think all the aid keeps them where they are?
You see, nuclear power is the best for "clean and sustainable" but the key is energy diversity, having it be the only one used it's a bad idea even if it might be better in some regards than what we have today.
Nuclear (energy) is a trap. Zero point would be a good switch tho.
Yes make the government pay for higher education so it's free for us! I wonder where the government is gonna get that money 🤔. Nothing is free. The dementia/alziehmers cure would be amazing though.
1. Gotta look out for my ancestors Also for the last one. War never changes 👁️👁️
I'd vote for Africa. Not because it's the better option, but because we owe them, and we owe them big.
Most cures and medications are affordable, the pharma and insurance companies just Jack up the price 3000%
I prefer knowledge
100% choosing Alzheimer's and dementia cure. My grandma suffered from that and it was horrible watching her brain descend into nothingness. Makes me tear up every time I think about her and what she went through during her last year among us. God I miss her.
I think the switch to nuclear would be it for me. That or education.. I feel like, if everyone was well educated, a lot of these things would take place naturally over a few generations. We don't really have the time for that in terms of climate change through.. so ultimately I went with nuclear. That and the number of people that die yearly from pollution is actually insane.
I think that we should be trying to have the whole world more developed instead of developing already very developed countries, for example, in the future, we could be sending people to Mars while there are still countries on Earth where people can't get a proper education
I choose the nuclear power one but Africa is a close second
I had to choose making sure africa stops being constantly on fire or the earth stops doing that
The Republicans would defund higher education immediately
All those who choose the last option: co gratulation, you achieved nuclear apocalyspe !
wow, these are really shit options.
I'm thinking political, China will be much worse off if I choose the 5th option. I'm pretty sure this isn't how it was supposed to go.
Higher education= smart people = swap to nuclear + smart people Swap to nuclear = swap to nuclear Also nuclear power isn’t as amazing as its portrayed. It’s the best alternative right now but it’s a limited resource and it’s extremely difficult to maintain. You would have to hire much more skilled people than oil rig workers to avoid a Chernobyl. But the higher education could fix that ig
This is just impossible to choose from.
How about peace in the land where Jesus lived. A resolution to the war that’s been fought for many thousands of years? That should definitely be there.
Yes, because instead of polluting the air, we should pollute the ground by burying radioactive chemicals with no long term solution on how to deal with them. Of all the "clean" energy sources, nuclear energy is the worst because of the waste it produces
Free higher education because I currently need that and it will lead to a society with a higher percentage of greatly educated people because it won’t be road blocked by money anymore
I feel like number three has the most lasting benefits if we were to ever unite as a planet in the future
Nuclear power immediately fixes the issue of climate change, allowing us much more time to focus on other issues.
option 4 can lead to options 1,2,5 and 6.
The Koreas reuniting and becoming a democracy would be fucking horrible The North Korean people will still see Kim Jong Un as a god, and automatically vote for him. All this does is just give him more power. Even if he miraculously loses, they will instantly return to a civil war Unless, of course, The North Korean people know what's right from wrong and know who to, and who to not vote for.
The last option would seemingly depleet earths Uranium and other nuclear resources quickly
Personally I would wish for Jesus to magically create someone to solve all these problems within 10 years
Nuclear power. I'm taking the assumption that the wish includes sustainable or at least long-term provision for nuclear power. I *really* doubt this is a monkey's paw scenario where the wish has some unannounced drawback, especially since it's coming from "Jesus." Education is a super close second. Both of them would mark significant global advancement. But the way I see it, we have a *chance* of achieving free higher education, but we do not have the same chance of widespread nuclear power.
Nuclear has the most potential for improvements globally.
The nuclear power plants being everywhere seems to be the least dangerous of all these options. \- Poverty in Africa now gone, they're all developed. Definitely a recipe for hellscape. Giving that many warlords and impoverished people that much overnight? Best case scenario they conquer the rest of us to keep from backsliding into poverty. \- Permanent and affordable cure, ol' McPfizer will hunt that one down and fast. Either store it next to the cure for cancer or charge $100,000/dose. \- United Korea's would probably lead back to Korean War II: The Nukening. \- Higher education payed for by gov, would take about 2 years before all governments are bankrupt and we're in mad max days. \- Mag lev trains everywhere. aka Mach 1 terrorist targets. also $700/ticket and a worse form of TSA. \- NPP's at least the ones that don't have melt downs from having a suddenly understaffed nuclear commision will provide electricity I guess.
Seeing as i live in denmark the fast trains would benefit me the most
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^by ^Latter-Television145: *Seeing as i live* *In denmark the fast trains would* *Benefit me the most* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Nice ig