Good Things for America and the WorldUse hydrolysis to get Hydrogen from Water, Add the hydrogen to Carbon Dioxide filtered from the air and oceans, Make butane from this using the Wurtz reaction. Include this into the economy to feed the people energy and grow the economy of many if not all nations. The science is sound. Use this to advance humanity, around the world. By using this method we can cut fuel cost and energy costs, We can make unlimited things to help our fellow man or at least our country. If Europe is have a high cost for energy they can use the same method to reduce cost of energy and therefor materials as well.The sun provides 622 Exawatts of energy per hour to Earth, We can reduce the cost of all materials, both domestically and in foreign lands as well. Help me to understand why this would be not optimal for mankind. The Wurtz Reaction in Chemistry combines Methane into Ethane and Ethane to Butane, we can use butane to fuel our vehicles. we can recycle carbo0n dioxide out of the atmosphere and use it for fuel. We can bring cost down and help humanity. Please comment on this post, I'd love to hear what you think. I have been studying for a long time, The only thing I have trouble figuring out is why the news pretends that this is limited. Please Comment, Let me know what you think.
I grew up during a time when, at least to the average person, there seemed a logic about life and its disputes and difficulties. When there was debate, there was also discourse. When something was identified as being “wrong” or even “inferior” to some other viewpoint or plan of action, people pretty much set about looking into the matter and, after a period of time, those involved returned with some sort of conclusion. Obviously, not everyone would be convinced that his point of view was wrong or inferior, but on the whole, the culture was able to reach a reasonable consensus from which came—if required—some plan of action to deal with the matter under consideration. But, alas, such sane, reasonable, civilized acts within the body politic no longer exist at least among a large percentage of people. The reasonable, rational adult has been replaced by the unreasonable, irrational child. The adult brain and its ability to determine that just because something is greatly desired does not necessarily mean that it is good [much less right!] has given way to what has been called by Dr. Steven Stosny, “the toddler brain.” According to Dr. Stosney in his article Anger in the Age of Entitlement,” smart people make the same mistakes over and over and get, as he puts it, “stressed out” because we have been duped by our current culture of “feelings over facts” into “living and loving in the wrong part of the brain.” Dr. Stosney identifies the difference between the “adult brain,” and the “toddler brain,” stating: “Suffering and failure begin in the volatile limbic system, or Toddler brain, which reaches full structural maturity around age three. When we're not under stress, we’re able to turn pain and failure into growth and accomplishment in the Adult brain—the prefrontal cortex, which is the most profoundly evolved part of the most complex organism in the known universe. In the Adult brain, which reaches full maturity around age 28, we have the mental capacity to construct a solid sense of self. Living in it, we’re able to improve situations, connect to others, protect all that we value, and appreciate people, ideas, nature and creative beauty. We can stand for something, learn from our mistakes, make the world a better place, and forge a legacy. When we retreat to the Toddler brain under stress, we create conflict and almost invariably act out self-defeating behavior. In the Adult brain, we create value, meaning, and purpose. The signature process of the limbic system is to sound alarms. This more primitive part of the brain lacks reality-testing, which is why we can become alarmed when we’re dreaming or when nothing is happening outside of our active imagination. The prefrontal cortex regulates limbic alarms by testing them against reality (Is there really a fire?) and by assessing the threat (How serious is the fire?). It then chooses a course of action—put out the fire; evacuate; or declare a false alarm and go back to work. Unfortunately, the assess and improve modes of our prefrontal cortex can often hijacked by habits forged in the Toddler brain—when those habits are repeatedly reinforced in adulthood. Instead of regulating alarms with reality-testing, then, our thought processes amplify and magnify them. Intelligence and creativity go to justifying the alarm. Commandeered by Toddler brain habits, the prefrontal cortex can reduce the alarm only temporarily by blaming it on someone, denying responsibility for it, or avoiding it through distractions. That's right: It employs the familiar toddler coping mechanisms of blame, denial, and avoidance.” Looking at the above, it becomes far easier to understand why people fall prey to the same conclusions and solutions that have proven entirely useless and unsatisfactory in attempts to deal with real world situations. This is illustrated in an old definition of insanity, to wit: “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” But whereas this has been a human situation virtually since the beginning of mankind, it has grown appreciably worse today. In the recent past—my youth as noted—such a reluctance to accept reality was limited to matters that, though real, were often subjective and intangible. Hard facts could not be “wished away” by the most insistent toddler brain and thus there were matters that could be settled even if the conclusion was diametric to the desires of those involved. I first got a glimpse of the fact that this reality-check was no longer in place when, during the Administration of Ronald Reagan, some of Reagan’s choices for a place in his White House were being charged with crimes as a means of denying the President their services. For instance, Raymond Donovan, Reagan’s choice for Secretary of Labor, was brought up on charges that eventually proved false, but the process destroyed his ability to serve. I distinctly remember Donovan, leaving the court in New Jersey, asking the media, “Where do I go to get my reputation back?” But though Donovan was innocent of any wrongdoing, there was no effort on the part of that same media to help him “get his reputation back” and in the end, innocent or not, Donovan was removed from service. Another victim of this attempt of political assassination via criminal prosecution was Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese. Much was charged against Meese and the news media worked overtime to be sure that every such charge—reasonable or otherwise—was well publicized. In the end, when Meese had been cleared of every possible wrongdoing, his prosecutors—or more correctly, his persecutors—still did not altogether clear him. Rather, they stated vaguely that there was “the perception of impropriety” in his Justice Department. Amazingly, these same “prosecutors” and their descendants seemed unable to find actual impropriety on the part of liberal Democrats! But that was not the worst! The Democrats in Congress, having been assured Meese did not do that with which he had been charged, instead of accepting the findings of their own prosecutor, now looked around for more charges to bring! In other words, a valid finding of innocence was not accepted because it was not wanted! And so, the next step was to find “something else” to prosecute. Of course, such a process could go on quite literally forever! And as any reasonable adult knows, when a reasonable, rational, intelligent and honest decision can be rejected because it is not wanted, there is no longer any foundation upon which civilization is able to rest. The same can be said for any controversial matter. Take, for instance the matter of the American “civil war.” Once, it was possible to argue the reasons for the war, how they came to be, who bore the greatest portion of blame, and so forth. And for a long time, this debate allowed both sides to have their say, make their points and continue to hold opinions based on culture, class and Christianity. Those days are over. Now, only one side’s arguments are permitted even when those can be clearly, historically and indisputably refuted. In other words, what the facts are, what the truth is and what really happened is of no interest or value to the current “historical orthodoxy.” All that matters is what that “orthodoxy” says matters whether it be true or false, real or fable, right or wrong. When this becomes the criteria upon which “history” is based, you no longer have “history,” but the “winner’s version” no matter how skewed and mendacious. The rational argument which may find facts on both sides of any debate is replaced by the lie which cares nothing at all for fact. In the days of my youth, we acknowledged that there were people who preferred the winner’s version, but, at least they did not represent the majority of those who formed the culture. Today, alas, they do—and as a result, the basis of civilization itself is swiftly becoming moribund.
