gyrofry posted:lgp in all seriousness, expressing emotional pain over a failing personal relationship is an incredibly privileged and thoroughly misogynistic act
much like your posting
he would have been unabashedly pro-nuke, even post-electoral-career An Inconvenient Gore is. he claims the only real drawback is the cost in dollars
under a gore administration that would've meant big ass federal subsidies for construction & operation (i.e. shoveling cash at GE and PG&E etc)
plus marginalizing greens would have been a top "messaging" priority for a victorious DNC after 2000 so liberals would all be locked in step and On Board With This Clean Safe & Reliable Carbon-Neutral Energy Source, What Are You Some Kind Of Weirdo Hippie, Or Are You Some Kind Of Anti-Science Fundamentalist
littlegreenpills posted:i hate everybody and everything in the whole world. she seems to have reconciled with Lardlard Mysteryjunk and she hasn't come home all day and i miss her fuck you
i put you in a crew btw
SovietFriends posted:Squalid posted:There are a lot of reasons. One is simply a continuance of anti-nuclear policy from before climate change became an issue. Another is different emphasis placed on feasibility or philosophic concerns. Also differences in how humans respond to threats, with improbable but high danger risks getting weighted higher than probable but diffuse dangers. This last issue relates to public perception, but can influence institutional actors dependent on donations or vulnerable to political influences. Many environmentalists may not understand problems with baseload power or simply have faith in technological and engineering advances to overcome them.
I've noticed a divide between environmentalists with backgrounds in engineering and backgrounds in biology and the humanities, and this divide is reflected in places like Something Awful.
GF made a really good post on the psychology of climate change and environmentalism long ago, I'll see if I can dig it upyou missed the tone of my post i was saying that their is a reason
also knowing engineering doesnt mean you know the economics, social etc of climate change like i am fine with the idea that its totally clean and the only way to produce baseload of electricity, i am also fine with the idea that renweability is at best intermittent and also runs along secular trends in terms of the amount of electricity it can produce anyway, plus i get that nucleur like heat engines has massive advantages re portability and battery power
instead i think that their are no ways to deal with waste in a good way which is cheap, their is no discussion on to what extent nuclear can replace the scale of electricity production is uranium is limited, that the scalability of nucleur power to provide enough for the world would involve scaling disasters
instead i like fiskers position on energy that we need to treat the future as one where we will have less energy to utilise
that means maybe using nucleur power to some degree but its not relying on any form of technology to manage that shift in a flexible way
i think you completely miss that engineers are only one aspect of green power production at all because in the end its society that fits technology to its geospatial constraints and the contradictions always develop from that relationship first and foremost
ah, I guess I did miss your tone but I'm completely aware of the limits of one perspective on green power. I'm not particularly interested in taking sides on the issue, I'm not an engineer and I've heard cogent arguments from both sides over nuclear generation; all that concerns me is cutting carbon emissions. Germany's current shift away from nuclear has so far appeared to undermine this objective, it's going to be very interesting watching their energy economy develop in the coming decade.
Call it eschatology if you will, but the the preponderance of evidence suggests human induced climate change represents an existential threat to humanity.
Squalid posted:Call it eschatology if you will, but the the preponderance of evidence suggests human induced climate change represents an existential threat to humanity.
sufficiently sophisticated analysis is indistinguishable from eschatology
tpaine posted:i miss my wife too but she's dead and she isn't coming back even though every day for 30 years i wish she would
you'll see her again in heaven.
or at least in a drunk haze which approximates heaven.
littlegreenpills posted:i hate everybody and everything in the whole world. she seems to have reconciled with Lardlard Mysteryjunk and she hasn't come home all day and i miss her fuck you
littlegreenpills posted:i hate everybody and everything in the whole world. she seems to have reconciled with Lardlard Mysteryjunk and she hasn't come home all day and i miss her fuck you
Be grateful that she has made this choice for you, because you clearly were not going to make the right one. Fuck her (not literally; seriously don't even have sex with this hot mess again).
Goethestein posted:littlegreenpills posted:i hate everybody and everything in the whole world. she seems to have reconciled with Lardlard Mysteryjunk and she hasn't come home all day and i miss her fuck you
someone copy/paste lgp's story there
littlegreenpills posted:i hate everybody and everything in the whole world. she seems to have reconciled with Lardlard Mysteryjunk and she hasn't come home all day and i miss her fuck you
Get a lawyer and go to the courthouse before week's end and file for divorce.
ilmdge posted:Before the law sits a gatekeeper. To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment. The man thinks about it and then asks if he will be allowed to come in sometime later on. “It is possible,” says the gatekeeper, “but not now.” The gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try going inside in spite of my prohibition. But take note. I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I cannot endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat, at his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard, he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside. The gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down at the side in front of the gate. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be let in, and he wears the gatekeeper out with his requests. The gatekeeper often interrogates him briefly, questioning him about his homeland and many other things, but they are indifferent questions, the kind great men put, and at the end he always tells him once more that he cannot let him inside yet. The man, who has equipped himself with many things for his journey, spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper. The latter takes it all but, as he does so, says, “I am taking this only so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.” During the many years the man observes the gatekeeper almost continuously. He forgets the other gatekeepers, and this first one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law. He curses the unlucky circumstance, in the first years thoughtlessly and out loud; later, as he grows old, he only mumbles to himself. He becomes childish and, since in the long years studying the gatekeeper he has also come to know the fleas in his fur collar, he even asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper. Finally his eyesight grows weak, and he does not know whether things are really darker around him or whether his eyes are merely deceiving him. But he recognizes now in the darkness an illumination which breaks inextinguishably out of the gateway to the law. Now he no longer has much time to live. Before his death he gathers in his head all his experiences of the entire time up into one question which he has not yet put to the gatekeeper. He waves to him, since he can no longer lift up his stiffening body. The gatekeeper has to bend way down to him, for the great difference has changed things considerably to the disadvantage of the man. “What do you still want to know now?” asks the gatekeeper. “You are insatiable.” “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and, in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.”
Squalid posted:Call it eschatology if you will, but the the preponderance of evidence suggests human induced climate change represents an existential threat to humanity.
well yea obvs but low carbon is a bit daft if its unmanageable
http://economics.utah.edu/publications/2007_05.pdf is the paper i liked which changed my views (its only a working paper is more qualified work is in a range of books and journal articles etc)
also vox nilhi send me some stuff on nuclear waste please i thought it was ridiculously expensive to will be produced in to large a quantity to be happy with if we use it to produce loads more electricity?
VoxNihili posted:japan actually has pretty lax standards for its plants, and its agencies admitted that this contributed to their failure. japan had to import specialized US robots to deal with their meltdown. japan is another decaying liberal nation, it is not some sort of sublime, well-oiled bureaucracy
i invite you to examine france's system of nuclear power plants
the shrill comments about nuclear waste in this thread are pretty funny if you know anything at all about coal impoundments etc. the amount of waste actually created by nuclear plants is pretty negligible relative to that of conventional power sources and with certain types of modern reactors it can be reused. a centrall planning authority would have no trouble handling the waste in a way that is almost completely safe; even today nuclear waste causes less harm than coal waste, even proportionate to the amount of power produced.
further liberal hand-wringing itt will result in probations
cyclotron my balls
Squalid posted:I'm not an engineer
thats a positive. most engineers are libertarian autists and PUA-obsessives who are literally incapable of any worldview that is not 100% pro-whatever field theyre in
dipshit420 posted:Crow posted:Squalid posted:getfiscal posted:politics tends to have people's positions clump around obvious and simple solutions to large numbers of different problems and it is really obvious with climate change. like 90% of leftists hear that ecological issues will mean we need to have better regulation of the economy and then jump on board immediately. it also means they can sweep concerns of socialism being bad for growth under the carpet by saying that unlimited growth is the logic of the cancer cell or whatever. and a lot of them already hate that americans consume a lot and decide to add some puritan fears that it is somehow bad for more than just that person.
ronald reagan had a quote that it's gotten to the point where some people can't see a fat person standing beside a slim one without thinking that the fat person made the slim one that way. the love for ecosocialism comes from basically believing that's true.
the green party leader in canada is leading a campaign against smart meters because they have wireless components and she's implying that this is a dangerous health risk. so basically she's taking a position against electrical load-balancing, which is the most obvious first step of conservation, because she has largely baseless fears against a universally used technology. so like why should i trust that this person knows everything about climate science.how many jobs do you have now crow?
I have two jobs my dude, waiting to hear back from the third, so that I can consolidate into one Job
SovietFriends posted:Squalid posted:Call it eschatology if you will, but the the preponderance of evidence suggests human induced climate change represents an existential threat to humanity.
well yea obvs but low carbon is a bit daft if its unmanageable
http://economics.utah.edu/publications/2007_05.pdf is the paper i liked which changed my views (its only a working paper is more qualified work is in a range of books and journal articles etc)
also vox nilhi send me some stuff on nuclear waste please i thought it was ridiculously expensive to will be produced in to large a quantity to be happy with if we use it to produce loads more electricity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction
VoxNihili posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction
dont they still run into the problem of uranium running out even though they are more effective? especially in context of the point that trying to switch to a new energy production method implies that we will not attempt to cut back on the use of energy in the reproduction of society
plus arn't burner reactors far more common and breeder reactors far more expensive because of safety concerns to the point they basically are not used?
though the waste point is v.interesting that would seem to get rid of that the major major ecological fault of nuclear power (- the point that they aren't renewable due to first question above unless that is wrong as well)
if you want to attack the point more from my source this is basically from 7-8 of the pdf i linked, so if your know more about the details feel free to tear it apart (plus i would be interested in attacks on anymore of his conclusions since although he isn't the full argument of why we need to cut back of energy production from a Marxist perspective he certainly collects all the science and basics in one place due to it being a working paper)
100s of Phd researchers aided by computer tools and the internet constitute a swarm intelligence like superintelligence. It is likely that just as complex billion transistor chips can be built by them, and so can boeings, so too can eventually multicellular synthetic biology products.
Ageless organs, ageless bodies, ageless streets and buildings that self-repair. Synthetic biology probes that can terraform planets. The end of aging and decay, the era of abundance, full automation, and the abolition of work. A world were the virtual becomes prevalent, and the mind is freed from the confines of the flesh and the laws of physics.
Reproduction will require a license, and child abuse will be negligible. The government will provide a living wage and living accommodations to each and every citizen. Artificial wombs with full sterilization of the population will ensure abortion even natural abortion is a thing of the past.
Nuclear energy will provide the energy.
SovietFriends posted:VoxNihili posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction
dont they still run into the problem of uranium running out even though they are more effective? especially in context of the point that trying to switch to a new energy production method implies that we will not attempt to cut back on the use of energy in the reproduction of society
plus arn't burner reactors far more common and breeder reactors far more expensive because of safety concerns to the point they basically are not used?
though the waste point is v.interesting that would seem to get rid of that the major major ecological fault of nuclear power (- the point that they aren't renewable due to first question above unless that is wrong as well)
if you want to attack the point more from my source this is basically from 7-8 of the pdf i linked, so if your know more about the details feel free to tear it apart (plus i would be interested in attacks on anymore of his conclusions since although he isn't the full argument of why we need to cut back of energy production from a Marxist perspective he certainly collects all the science and basics in one place due to it being a working paper)
iirc breeder reactors aren't being built aggressively because they can produce plutonium and some UK PM didn't like the idea of it so he lobbied heavily against it.
But it's really hard to make a plutonium nuke so it's pretty stupid that we aren't pursuing breeders
Edited by hey ()
hey posted:iirc breeder reactors aren't being built aggressively because they can produce plutonium and some UK PM didn't like the idea of it so he lobbied heavily against it.
But it's really hard to make a plutonium nuke so it's pretty stupid that we aren't pursuing breeders
+ they have been completely unable to actually every do their role on a mass scale and we are discussing at minimum increasing the use of nuclear power by a factor of 12 to reach even the level of nuclear power utilized in the Stern review which was not only dependent on badly scaled up renweables
i mean its nice to think that that a rationally planned system could eventually overcome the real cost of creating working breeder plants but considering that all the might of the capitalist system which if anything is alright on tech and even more so re: nucleur power which as basically the dream for ages has been able to ever complete the cycle they are meant to go through to not produce waste + never achieve high energy production rates basically anwhere doesnt speak highly of much
p.s. not a scientist btw so could just be 100% wrong but reality + quality critiques of technology optimism = difficult to consider most points especially when the particular world-economy setup right now is basically screaming for a green mega tech to save capitalism yet they just fail constantly
Edited by SovietFriends ()
littlegreenpills posted:if climate change isn't a Thing then eternal liberal capitalism is the way to go as the last few decades have demonstrated that it's the best thing ever to happen to mankind sorry. I mean we talk about the great recession and sweatshop slaves and blood diamonds and all the rest of it, but the fact is more people than ever have toilets to shit in and do not need to shit on the ground or the beach or the road and i defy you to point out to me one example of somebody who had a toilet losing it as a result of capital's eternal march or some shit. impending environmental collapse is the only reason to have communism sorry
che guevara's quote about a latrine paradise
SovietFriends posted:hey posted:iirc breeder reactors aren't being built aggressively because they can produce plutonium and some UK PM didn't like the idea of it so he lobbied heavily against it.
But it's really hard to make a plutonium nuke so it's pretty stupid that we aren't pursuing breeders+ they have been completely unable to actually every do their role on a mass scale and we are discussing at minimum increasing the use of nuclear power by a factor of 12 to reach even the level of nuclear power utilized in the Stern review which was not only dependent on badly scaled up renweables
i mean its nice to think that that a rationally planned system could eventually overcome the real cost of creating working breeder plants but considering that all the might of the capitalist system which if anything is alright on tech and even more so re: nucleur power which as basically the dream for ages has been able to ever complete the cycle they are meant to go through to not produce waste + never achieve high energy production rates basically anwhere doesnt speak highly of much
p.s. not a scientist btw so could just be 100% wrong but reality + quality critiques of technology optimism = difficult to consider most points especially when the particular world-economy setup right now is basically screaming for a green mega tech to save capitalism yet they just fail constantly
it always baffles me that people never consider the most powerful industry in the world, oil&gas, when it comes to the failure of creating alternative energies. And everytime leftists argue against nuclear energy it's always from such a first world perspective. How the hell are developing countries going to power their industry and urban areas if it isn't renewables? fucking solar panels? lol
Nuclear is dead now though. fukushima drived the last nail in the coffin. Natural gas is the future. The pipe dream that we can power the world on solar panels and wind mills is fucking ludicrous. I don't give a shit though, I'll be laughing straight to the bank once gas prices soar.
hey posted:it always baffles me that people never consider the most powerful industry in the world, oil&gas, when it comes to the failure of creating alternative energies. And everytime leftists argue against nuclear energy it's always from such a first world perspective. How the hell are developing countries going to power their industry and urban areas if it isn't renewables? fucking solar panels? lol
Nuclear is dead now though. fukushima drived the last nail in the coffin. Natural gas is the future. The pipe dream that we can power the world on solar panels and wind mills is fucking ludicrous. I don't give a shit though, I'll be laughing straight to the bank once gas prices soar.
lookit all that third world sun
