It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Bioluminescence is the production and emission of light by a living organism as the result of a chemical reaction during which chemical energy is converted to light energy.
Bioluminescence is a form of luminescence, or "cold light" emission; less than 20% of the light generates thermal radiation.
Question 1). Don't you believe that creating and distributing the 'eternal light bulb' would decrease production dramatically, and therefore jobs, once there was no longer a continual need to produce new merchandise for products that are currently quickly 'turned over' and purchased?
Question 2). In some areas, light bulb manufacturing jobs are all that is available, much like the elves at the North Pole. So in comparison and reversing the situation, what would become of Santa and the elves at the North Pole, dependent on their jobs, if toys were made to be indestructible, never needed to be replaced, and last years toys were every bit as functional, thus ending the need for possibly 90% of new toy production?
Question 3). Do you think it is wrong for the government to be able to tell you what type of light bulb you are allowed to use in your own private home?
Question 4). Do you recognize the fact that while Rudolph's luminous nose is natural and safe, artificial lighting is what lights up our man-made bulbs?
...A thin, enclosed layer of a light-producing organ between the dermis and the epidermis. Inside this layer is luciferin, a light-producing substance, and luciferase, an enzyme that catalyzes the light-producing reaction... Most bioluminescent life forms, like fireflies, produce green light. The outermost part of Rudolph's nose, however, would be a red phosphorescent layer -- once the light-producing organ started creating light, the phosphorescent part of his nose would absorb the green light and emit a red light... Bioluminescence often requires another substance, like oxygen, to make light, and Rudolph would breathe lots of oxygen right near the light-producing organs, providing enough reactions for long, intensely shiny bursts of light. 1
They have the duty to protect the environment, safe this planet for our children.
Because no known 'eternal' light bulb currently exists, we'll have to use what does currently exis
As Santa is a Boss, who really cares for his staff, he will develop areas for his elves to have different jobs. And we shouldn’t forget that the number of human beings on this planet is increasing nearly every day. More children, more toys, more elves work!
GE downsizing light bulb production
General Electric is reported planning to close seven of its 54 light-bulb making plants and warehouses with the loss of some 1,400 jobs. In moving further from its 128-year-old incandescent heritage, GE is responding to global pressure to switch to energy-efficient lighting... GE's lighting division employs around 25,000 people around the world but over two years the company will have eliminated 16 percent of its lighting work force. GE previously laid off 3,000 workers in the unit (1).
It has to be a honorable duty for bosses to create new jobs for those, who are no longer used for addle and monotonic light bulb production.
but this can’t necessarily mean that there will never be a eternal light bulb. As I claimed before, only visions make real progress possible.
A light bulb works with electric energy. We know that this energy usually doesn’t just falls down from sky, it has to be produced, usually in power plants. Power plants, which run on gas, on coal or even worse on nuclear power.
But this simply isn't 'real world' logic.
A basic income is a proposed system of social security, that periodically provides each citizen with a sum of money that is sufficient to live on. Except for citizenship, a basic income is entirely unconditional.
The connection between more and better has been broken; our needs for many products and services are already more than adequately met, and many of our as-yet- unsatisfied needs will be met not by producing more, but by producing differently, producing other things, or even producing less. This is especially true as regards our needs for air, water, space, silence, beauty, time and human contact...
The elves have little ones to feed, bills to pay (I doubt their houses are lit off the energy of Rudolph's nose), and a North pole economy to support. I have a hard time imagining what other jobs would be created to fulfill the losses if we had 'eternal toys.'
A continual light bulb is most definitely a [futuristic] vision. The thing my opponent might not realize is the fact this is a purely hypothetical debate on a purely hypothetical invention.
Eternal light bulbs do not exist yet.
Light bulbs aren't organic.
EU to ban traditional light bulbs, but at what cost to health and the environment?
Natural News reports that “according to health advocates including the Skin Care Campaign, Spectrum and even the British Association of Dermatologists, fluorescent light bulbs are known to worsen skin rashes in people with a variety of diseases and conditions including dermatitis, eczema, lupus, photosensitivity, porphyria and Xeroderma Pigmentosum.”
“The groups warned that a complete ban on incandescent lighting for people with such conditions would violate the Disability Discrimination Act, and that employers should also be allowed to purchase incandescent lights if their employees have a need for them.”
Normal lightbulbs on prescription perhaps? I wonder what the ’street’ value would be (2).
The European Union began the process on Monday of moving away from the incandescent light bulb but the energy-efficient alternatives may not be all they're cracked up to be [as] they contain harmful substances and disposal is difficult.
The plan envisions the gradual disappearance of incandescent bulbs, first introduced by Thomas Edison 130 years ago.
The Commission estimates that up to 3,000 jobs could be lost in the European Union as a result of the switch.
Furthermore, CFLs contain mercury and other harmful substances that can be dangerous if the bulb is broken. It is also illegal in many countries, including Germany, to dispose of them in household trash. At present, there is no system for the disposal of such light bulbs in Germany, forcing consumers to take expired bulbs to electronic recycling centers themselves (3).
No it is not wrong!
I don’t think it is wrong. Some people might think that in this case government is interfering too much in the freedom of our people. But government has a duty not only towards the people of the present, also towards the people of the future. They have the duty to protect the environment, safe this planet for our children.
No wheel, no cars, no airplanes, no computers, no internet.
wheels to telephones to Internet to computers to rockets to space labs
What makes you so sure that an eternal light bulb won’t be organic?
How can you claim that an organic light source might not be possible?
Two hundred years ago light sources haven’t been electric, people used candle light.
Bioluminescence is a very efficient process. Some 90% of the energy a firefly uses to create light is actually converted into visible light.
Socratic Question 1: Do you think it is wrong for the government to be able to tell you what type of light bulb you are allowed to use in your own private home even if the type of bulb consists of harmful neurotoxins like mercury or adversely affects your health but you are forced to use it anyways and not purchase another type of bulb that does not have these negative side effects?
Socratic Question 2: What makes you so sure eternal light bulbs will be organic?
Throughout this debate we have shown how Rudolph’s red and shiny nose is working, a – in my opinion – very realistic opportunity for an eternal light bulb. The phenomenon is a kind of chemical reaction, which is called bioluminescence.
In my opinion it is not wrong.
My opponent is mixing the duty of mankind and of our government in caring for future generations by saving energy resources and possible health risks.
We have to differentiate clearly between these two topics.
She shows a consistently lack of visions in this case.
Holiday Skirmish: orange-light vs AshleyD: "Oh Rudolph With Your Nose So Bright"
Interesting reading. OL made a good case with the naturalness of the light and the idea of a vision for the future, she just needed to flesh it out a little more. She had some good points to build on and could have possibly refute Ashley's job loss argument but only skirted it.
Ashley did well in showing that with current technology, possible risks involved with next generation lightbulbs may pose risks to us in several ways.
Lots of Christmas cheer from both fighters
Good job to both the ladies. By a narrow margin, I give it to Ashley.
First, I would like to congratulate both fighters on providing us with a very entertaining yet informative debate. It is the nature of the "holiday skirmish" to balance fun and facts and both fighters achieved this admirably.
Both fighters started strong presenting their respective cases though orange-light seemed to make the most of the holiday spirit whereas AshleyD focused more on the technical, social, and overall pragmatic aspects of the discussion.
I believe orange-light gained the upper hand with her introduction of bioluminescence as a viable alternative technology to existing lightbulb technology. That was a great transition from the "story" of Santa and Rudolph to what could well be the answer to our lightbulb dilemma.
AshelyD countered with the fact that we are not yet at the point to make use of this Rudolph based technology and that the present technology of longer lasting light bulbs is in fact more harmful than the old incandescent lightbulb. Whereas this might well be true it is in fact not the topic of the debate. The topic is: "We Should Have Light Bulbs That Last Forever," it is not are current long lasting bulbs adequate.
This point is further emphasized by orange-light when she calls AshleyD's lack of vision to task:
Right, they do not exist yet. If we follow the arguments of my dear opponent, it will never have a chance to exist. To my opponent it is much more important to keep the status quo than to create a future, which makes life worth living, for us and our offsprings.
What makes you so sure that an eternal light bulb won’t be organic? True today’s light bulbs aren’t organic. Two hundred years ago light sources haven’t been electric, people used candle light.
AshleyD spent a lot of time in this debate arguing that permanent light bulbs would lead to job loses. I found this argument to be extremely lacking. It is the argument of the carriage maker at the time the automobile was invented and it has been proven over time to be a poor one. As orange-light put it:
imagine what this world would look like if everybody with a new idea would have drawn back himself: “Na I won’t try to fill my idea with life! Na I won’t make my dream come true. What if somebody loses his job due to it?”
Nothing would have changed in this world. Nothing at all!
AshleyD made some good points throughout the debate but as I said before relied too much on exposing the downside of existing technology rather than talking directly to the true topic of the debate as stated above. It is true that debating that light bulbs should not be eternal is a difficult position to defend requiring a creative argument. This however was never attempted.
For this and all the other reasons stated above, I make orange-light the winner!
In my opinion, AshleyD (AD) wins this debate, although orange-light (OL) did a great job. It was a hard debate to judge because OL's strength may actually have worked against her here. OL really kept the spirit of the debate light and in holiday spirit, and was enjoyable to read. But AD managed to stay in the spirit and also to score some good points with her attention to detail.
OL's use of "magic" and "vision" were appealing, but needed something firmer to back them up. And AD scored a major point when she pointed out that OL admitted Rudolph's nose relied on magic: "I'm left wondering how 'magic' would come into play for creating eternal light bulbs."
OL makes a start at backing up her position when she says "So it is very easy to gain a tissue, which can be breed in labs to be the basic of ever lasting light" in her second post, but she doesn't follow through on the point, which could have seriously undermined AD's