Seaweed Biofuel Breakthrough Found

I would rather people spend their time on other ways to solve our "energy" problems. There's something about "biofuel," for machines, as a concept, that strikes my gut wrong. I think it is short-sighted. I suppose if the technology can be used in a confined environment it might be considered for a "stop-gap" measure until better plans and/or technology supplants the current paradigm. But we need to recognize that the world does have an addiction to oil, mostly for transportation, and therefore, combustion engine technology. It is in vogue to realize the need to cut back on deficit spending, yet very few people seem to understand the same applies to our current use of fuel which serves to feed transportation. One of the simplest ways to alter our need for energy is simply to change our transportation paradigm.

I'm also not so crazy about a new, "engineered" form of E. Coli. But I guess that cat is already out of the bag. I think it is not so far-fetched to consider that, fears turned into movie plots, of robots that gain supremacy over humans, might be played out at the micro level of life. Synthetic organisms might be even more threatening than natural ones. This brings to mind the PBS NOVA program about Caulerpa taxifolia. Also, accidents like imported fire ants. If you live in a region where they exist you've likely experienced the nuisance that they can be. Coincidentally, Turner Classic Movies, recently ran movies on the theme of biological threats. The original "Andromeda Strain" and "The Satan Bug," were 2 of them.

When I think about the weather disasters that have increased in recent years -- flooding due to massive rainfalls, I can't imagine not introspecting about our possible influence on the global climate as a species. As one who knows what it is like to have one's home flooded, I can empathize with victims of such events. And to think "we" might have had some responsibility for them occurring, is sobering. Since this is part of the "great debate," a counter perspective is usually deemed "crying wolf," or "the sky is falling." I would submit that "caretakers or stewards of this world" is a better self-image for survival of our species as opposed to "why should I worry? I'll be dead and gone."

I am not against scientific progress. Only that's the point. One man's progress (the feather in the cap, so to speak) might be everyone's large thorn in the side -- or worse. Many who helped develop the atomic bomb later regretted it. As the above examples indicate, man has a funny way of fostering "accidents." Suchlike technology carries both a positive and negative capability. That's almost always true of technology. And like fire, to think that the negative side won't manifest is naive. Let's hope that a thorough analysis is made and presented by opponents of any new technology, as they are the most likely to provide the worst-case scenario for consideration by the rest of us... and that we actually can have some say in it's use.