First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Earth facing "biological annihilation."
5558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 7/11/17 , edited 7/12/17

Roencia wrote:

We live in the information age, but I feel as if we have less truth and knowledge in just about every facet of life. Hard to know what truth anymore (fake news) when people have an agenda in just about everything. Even the definition of truth is wrong.

Dictionary:

Truth - a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

What? If something is accepted as true it's truth...? lol :)


Truth exists regardless of whether anyone accepts it or believes in it's existence.




5558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 7/11/17 , edited 7/12/17


Smallpox, HIV, SARS, and co are not super viruses hence they couldn't make humans go extinct. They are what I call...just a nail under your toe, but they don't do any major damage to the human population. There are even several (although rare) cases of people already having a natural immunity to HIV.

A super virus should have the mutation properties of HIV, the ability to mutate quickly, plus contagious via respiration. HIV dies super easily and quickly in an outside environment, it's near impossible to contract it outside of sex/syringe contamination. And the viruses that can survive for long periods in air can't mutate quickly enough to defend against vaccinations.

So count your blessings, but one day an evil scientist will hopefully make a super virus or nature will make one.


So the black death wasn't a super virus ?


The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population.[7] In total, the plague may have reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century


It killed approximately 22% of the world population... If that's not a super virus then I'm Hitlers bastard son who was conceived with the true heir of Jesus Christs great great great great great great great ........ Granddaughter.


They are what I call...just a nail under your toe, but they don't do any major damage to the human population.



A nail under our toes? No major damage to the human population?


The Black Death was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people in Eurasia and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–1353. The world population as a whole did not recover to pre-plague levels until the 17th century


Let me let that sink in for a while... (1346-1353) - (1600-1700).

It took 250-350 years to return THE WORLD POPULATION to pre-plague levels and it was no biggie, just a nail under our toes.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

amejia0 wrote:


LingLingJuju wrote:

So much truth in that article. Overpopulation of humans, pollution, global warming, rising ocean temperatures, extinctions--all of which are caused by human activities, and the cascade effects in the ecological systems due to all of these problems.

My solution? These scientists need to invent a human-targeted super virus that will wipe off 5 billion humans off this planet instantly--this is the only way to fix the current shit going on right now. I have no sympathy for humanity. Literally no point reasoning with politicians and retards.

Either that, or they need to stop combating pandemics, pandemics are nature's way of saying, "We need to get rid of these cancerous species right now".


Are you fucking kidding me? Doing that will remove almost any chance chance we have of actually finding a solution to these issues. We are the most intelligent life forms on this planet if we don't survive nothing else will be able to do anything about these issues. Indiscriminately destroying 71% of human life will also drastically reduce the amount of geniuses/smart people(who exist/are born into this world) who can actually contribute to finding a solution.


Yeah, let's make a super virus without a cure (to be provided to selected population), sounds totally ingenious.

Also I never said it's the best solution, it's an instant fix solution. But try convincing 7+ billion people to go green, and especially convincing those who believe in imaginary friends that global warming is real.
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

amejia0 wrote:

So the black death wasn't a super virus ?


Even if it wiped off the entire Europe continent, it still wouldn't constitute as a super virus. Do you know why super was put in front of virus?
The virus managed to kill off that many because they threw shit out of their window into the streets, I mean how dumb do you have to be to throw shit randomly, Asians and Africans were not killed by this.

It's like HIV and ebola aren't super virus just because they kill off a lot of Africans, people in the continent are ignorant or don't have the knowledge/resources to avoid contracting it.
27031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

LingLingJuju wrote:



Smallpox, HIV, SARS, and co are not super viruses hence they couldn't make humans go extinct. They are what I call...just a nail under your toe, but they don't do any major damage to the human population. There are even several (although rare) cases of people already having a natural immunity to HIV.

A super virus should have the mutation properties of HIV, the ability to mutate quickly, plus contagious via respiration. HIV dies super easily and quickly in an outside environment, it's near impossible to contract it outside of sex/syringe contamination. And the viruses that can survive for long periods in air can't mutate quickly enough to defend against vaccinations.

So count your blessings, but one day an evil scientist will hopefully make a super virus or nature will make one.


LOL, okay, so either evolution will suddenly conveniently do something it's not been able to do for millions of years or some genius mad scientist fictional archetype will become real and outsmart every other scientist on the planet so hard that all of them together can't make a cure for a disease he created.

Also, it's funny how you acknowledge the scientist who'd do something like that is evil, but don't notice how evil you are for wishing it would happen. At least a person smart enough to actually make a magical super-plague has some positive traits.
55359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17
I'm the one that cause it if you all remembered that I released the Virus to kill all Mortals in this world! :p


11318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

Rujikin wrote:

The birds most affected by this are large birds and often the predatory birds like eagles which tend to have population issues frequently. The smaller birds that are cat food are not as heavily affected. You really missed that important context.


China had the communist revolution designed to create a classless society. They created a communist state and like all communist states it turns into the haves (politicians and military) and the have nots (everyone else). This is the truest form of communism because they found a communistic system that is sustainable. "True" communism cannot exist with humans this is the closest you will get to communism short of everyone just starving to death.

Our population has clean drinking water and China doesnt. How exactly is China doing better than. The USA when we can drink our water and thy cannot? Do you see the logic disconnect?

So are you for nuclear power? We could power ourselves with that and its a clean energy that can work NOW.

The USA is quite sustainable along with all of the Americas and Europe. If we walled ourselves off and blocked off the Asians/Africans we would be sustainable while they would have mass starvations. We are much better off and doing a much better job than those countries.


Hey again Rujikin :)
Excellent points, tho I will nitpick some semantics -

On the bird strike, that is a fair point, and pre-build risk assessment should indeed be carried out to avoid migratory patterns and habitats of large birds, in the same way that it should occur (but often doesn't) for airports,
or planning of commercial fishing & shipping lanes to protect cetaceans, or planning of deforestation for any number of endangered native species, including primates.
I am in no way suggesting you bear this viewpoint from political bias against renewable sources of energy,
but it does seem a mite forced that this particular argument for environmental protection of birds against those 'nasty dangerous ugly-looking cancer-causing wind turbines' was even raised by anti-wind-turbine groups (i.e. pro coal), given their traditional rabble-raising catchcry of 'Greenie environmentalists are scum-sucking latte-sipping city-dwelling clueless leftie libtards'.

I dispute that China represents true communism, even if the origins of the CCCP were designed to be communist.
I do not dispute that with the way human society is now, all attempts to create communist government models in a world full of hostile nations attempting to overthrow other nation's governments in order to install their own puppet leaders, are likely to result in how China is, or how East Germany or the U.S.S.R. fell, and how North Korea is headed.
I do not dispute that government by committee with absolute control over the domestic marketplace & all industrial sectors, which attempts to sustain the entire population's needs in 5 year planning blocks without allowing for any free market forces to establish true need vs predicted need, is destined for failure, even if the original intention was to provide for everyone.
I assert that the contemporary western democratic model is rapidly leading to a worst case scenario on the other side of the spectrum, with small government, (i.e. insufficient regulation or oversight), low taxes, and omnipotent megacorporations which treat humans as cattle to be harvested for profit, guinea pigs for experimentation between sales quarters, and governments (including legislative, judicial & military) as tools to be used freely to further their control domestically & internationally, exploting natural resources as a basic right, while ensuring all costs resulting from their production cycle (toxic byproducts, environmental impacts, injuries & fatalities, social infrastructure impacts) are externalised and borne by the taxpayer.
Until some realisation dawns on voters in western democracies that a social agenda with a mandate for welfare, powers for regulation, oversight & transparency is not only required, but is in fact the reason why government exists in the first place,
we will collectively head towards a megacorporate dystopia, with the world's purposefully undereducated obese, type-2 diabetic kids feeding at the teat of propaganda continuing the endless cycle to sustain the wealthy elite.

On drinking water, again to contextualise:
China DOES have drinking water.
It is very true that most of the U.S. has sustainable access to clean drinking water, if not from aquifers or snowmelt, then at least bottled water commercially.
However, some U.S. groundwater has been impacted by mining & intensive irrigation practices, just as it has in Australia.
China does have very large arid regions which can be drought & climate impacted, even though their large population is necessarily spread out even in those regions.
According to WHO stats for access to drinking water,
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/03/access-water
China is worse off than 1st world western nations percentage wise (88%), but still doing better than others with non-communist governments, including sub-saharan & middle eastern nations (e.g. Afghanistan 22% ), which can be attributed (again) both to arid climatic conditions, & to civil unrest from continual military incursions by external forces seeking to control natural resources.
Australia cites 100% access to sustainable drinking water while the U.S. cites 99%, but given the vast uninhabitable internal land regions of Australia, that figure would be much closer to 10% or less for sustainable water sources if the population was spread out evenly, despite being a 1st world nation with a democratic government. But of course, we cheated, kicked out all the indigenous population from the river mouths, created cities & dams, and now we are kind of ok, despite only being capable of sustaining maybe a bit more than our current 23 million people in the next 50 years IF we come up with some really inventive & inexpensive way to desalinate water without having to dig up coal to power the massive electrical power requirements to do so.

On nuclear power, I have absolutely no objections to the technological capability of current designs to provide sustained baseload energy, and I have given my support to it in other forum posts,
HOWEVER (and it is a big however), going back to my assertion of how corporations work,
It is guaranteed that through a steady process of cost & corner cutting, lack of maintenance, executives 'signing off on risk', combined with elimination of government's ability to maintain oversight & transparency,
meltdowns & accidents with nuclear waste material will occur.
That's pretty much the part I'm not comfortable with.
Now so long as nuclear power stations can be positioned well away from population centres, and safe long term nuclear waste disposal can be achieved without transport through said population centres or anywhere near their groundwater sources,
I think we are onto a winner,
but unfortunately current high voltage power line technology does have limitations on ability to carry current without severe degradation over distance...

Is the U.S. self-sustainable? if you walled yourselves off from all trade & international interaction, that would require a drastic rethink of your current consumption of imported fossil fuels & minerals alone, not just for basic transport fuel & electrical production, but for production of plastics, technology & other manufacturing inputs. It would require massive retooling of manufacturing for goods currently primarily imported, and a great economic opportunity cost from loss of foreign technological advances. That is a rethink in living standards which U.S. voters have consistently railed against as an offence to their civil rights, akin to austerity measures.
Not to mention that the only reason the U.S. dollar has not crashed in global markets, given the existing U.S. national debt, is because it is used internationally as one of the major defacto trading baseline currencies. If the U.S. were to wall itself off, that value would cease to exist internationally, and should any future trade be required when some states inevitably run out of fresh water & arable farmland when another dust bowl similar to that seen in the great depression occurs due to changed climatic conditions, those starving citizens can again line up and encamp outside the White House until they are dispersed by brutal, fatal force, just like in 1932 with the bonus army, because the U.S. dollar would necessarily become worth less than an Argentinian Peso as far as the rest of the world is concerned, and you can't eat dust any more than you can eat a dollar bill.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dust-bowl-days-are-here-again/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016193
http://www.upworthy.com/wwi-vets-got-the-short-end-of-the-stick-in-the-great-depression-this-was-their-answer


5558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17
Fair enough the unsanitary conditions/habits present at that point in time were a major factor in the death toll.
84918 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

The issue with fusion power is that most people are still just a little skeptical about having a fusion reactor in their backyard... or anywhere near them. We'll see what'll happen when Europe jumps onto fusion power before the US (which is more likely than not). It'll be interesting to see if US ends up nuking themselves to death due to the earthquakes that plague the West Coast (at least one earthquake at 8.0 or higher per year and thousands of moderate to "major" earthquakes per year). The West could end up with a larger sample size of Japan and nuclear reactors.

Renewables are nice and all, just interesting to see how we're going to optimize the technology to stop damaging/impacting our environment overall.


Huh? I assume you are talking about the US West Coast, but there hasn't even been been any 7.0+ earthquakes there in the last decade, let alone an 8.0, unless you are including Alaska in "West Coast" (and Alaska has only had 7.x earthquakes).
23746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/13/17

morte111 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

The birds most affected by this are large birds and often the predatory birds like eagles which tend to have population issues frequently. The smaller birds that are cat food are not as heavily affected. You really missed that important context.


China had the communist revolution designed to create a classless society. They created a communist state and like all communist states it turns into the haves (politicians and military) and the have nots (everyone else). This is the truest form of communism because they found a communistic system that is sustainable. "True" communism cannot exist with humans this is the closest you will get to communism short of everyone just starving to death.

Our population has clean drinking water and China doesnt. How exactly is China doing better than. The USA when we can drink our water and thy cannot? Do you see the logic disconnect?

So are you for nuclear power? We could power ourselves with that and its a clean energy that can work NOW.

The USA is quite sustainable along with all of the Americas and Europe. If we walled ourselves off and blocked off the Asians/Africans we would be sustainable while they would have mass starvations. We are much better off and doing a much better job than those countries.


Hey again Rujikin :)
Excellent points, tho I will nitpick some semantics -

On the bird strike, that is a fair point, and pre-build risk assessment should indeed be carried out to avoid migratory patterns and habitats of large birds, in the same way that it should occur (but often doesn't) for airports,
or planning of commercial fishing & shipping lanes to protect cetaceans, or planning of deforestation for any number of endangered native species, including primates.
I am in no way suggesting you bear this viewpoint from political bias against renewable sources of energy,
but it does seem a mite forced that this particular argument for environmental protection of birds against those 'nasty dangerous ugly-looking cancer-causing wind turbines' was even raised by anti-wind-turbine groups (i.e. pro coal), given their traditional rabble-raising catchcry of 'Greenie environmentalists are scum-sucking latte-sipping city-dwelling clueless leftie libtards'.

I dispute that China represents true communism, even if the origins of the CCCP were designed to be communist.
I do not dispute that with the way human society is now, all attempts to create communist government models in a world full of hostile nations attempting to overthrow other nation's governments in order to install their own puppet leaders, are likely to result in how China is, or how East Germany or the U.S.S.R. fell, and how North Korea is headed.
I do not dispute that government by committee with absolute control over the domestic marketplace & all industrial sectors, which attempts to sustain the entire population's needs in 5 year planning blocks without allowing for any free market forces to establish true need vs predicted need, is destined for failure, even if the original intention was to provide for everyone.
I assert that the contemporary western democratic model is rapidly leading to a worst case scenario on the other side of the spectrum, with small government, (i.e. insufficient regulation or oversight), low taxes, and omnipotent megacorporations which treat humans as cattle to be harvested for profit, guinea pigs for experimentation between sales quarters, and governments (including legislative, judicial & military) as tools to be used freely to further their control domestically & internationally, exploting natural resources as a basic right, while ensuring all costs resulting from their production cycle (toxic byproducts, environmental impacts, injuries & fatalities, social infrastructure impacts) are externalised and borne by the taxpayer.
Until some realisation dawns on voters in western democracies that a social agenda with a mandate for welfare, powers for regulation, oversight & transparency is not only required, but is in fact the reason why government exists in the first place,
we will collectively head towards a megacorporate dystopia, with the world's purposefully undereducated obese, type-2 diabetic kids feeding at the teat of propaganda continuing the endless cycle to sustain the wealthy elite.

On drinking water, again to contextualise:
China DOES have drinking water.
It is very true that most of the U.S. has sustainable access to clean drinking water, if not from aquifers or snowmelt, then at least bottled water commercially.
However, some U.S. groundwater has been impacted by mining & intensive irrigation practices, just as it has in Australia.
China does have very large arid regions which can be drought & climate impacted, even though their large population is necessarily spread out even in those regions.
According to WHO stats for access to drinking water,
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/03/access-water
China is worse off than 1st world western nations percentage wise (88%), but still doing better than others with non-communist governments, including sub-saharan & middle eastern nations (e.g. Afghanistan 22% ), which can be attributed (again) both to arid climatic conditions, & to civil unrest from continual military incursions by external forces seeking to control natural resources.
Australia cites 100% access to sustainable drinking water while the U.S. cites 99%, but given the vast uninhabitable internal land regions of Australia, that figure would be much closer to 10% or less for sustainable water sources if the population was spread out evenly, despite being a 1st world nation with a democratic government. But of course, we cheated, kicked out all the indigenous population from the river mouths, created cities & dams, and now we are kind of ok, despite only being capable of sustaining maybe a bit more than our current 23 million people in the next 50 years IF we come up with some really inventive & inexpensive way to desalinate water without having to dig up coal to power the massive electrical power requirements to do so.

On nuclear power, I have absolutely no objections to the technological capability of current designs to provide sustained baseload energy, and I have given my support to it in other forum posts,
HOWEVER (and it is a big however), going back to my assertion of how corporations work,
It is guaranteed that through a steady process of cost & corner cutting, lack of maintenance, executives 'signing off on risk', combined with elimination of government's ability to maintain oversight & transparency,
meltdowns & accidents with nuclear waste material will occur.
That's pretty much the part I'm not comfortable with.
Now so long as nuclear power stations can be positioned well away from population centres, and safe long term nuclear waste disposal can be achieved without transport through said population centres or anywhere near their groundwater sources,
I think we are onto a winner,
but unfortunately current high voltage power line technology does have limitations on ability to carry current without severe degradation over distance...

Is the U.S. self-sustainable? if you walled yourselves off from all trade & international interaction, that would require a drastic rethink of your current consumption of imported fossil fuels & minerals alone, not just for basic transport fuel & electrical production, but for production of plastics, technology & other manufacturing inputs. It would require massive retooling of manufacturing for goods currently primarily imported, and a great economic opportunity cost from loss of foreign technological advances. That is a rethink in living standards which U.S. voters have consistently railed against as an offence to their civil rights, akin to austerity measures.
Not to mention that the only reason the U.S. dollar has not crashed in global markets, given the existing U.S. national debt, is because it is used internationally as one of the major defacto trading baseline currencies. If the U.S. were to wall itself off, that value would cease to exist internationally, and should any future trade be required when some states inevitably run out of fresh water & arable farmland when another dust bowl similar to that seen in the great depression occurs due to changed climatic conditions, those starving citizens can again line up and encamp outside the White House until they are dispersed by brutal, fatal force, just like in 1932 with the bonus army, because the U.S. dollar would necessarily become worth less than an Argentinian Peso as far as the rest of the world is concerned, and you can't eat dust any more than you can eat a dollar bill.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dust-bowl-days-are-here-again/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016193
http://www.upworthy.com/wwi-vets-got-the-short-end-of-the-stick-in-the-great-depression-this-was-their-answer




Alright so your posting way too much on way too many subjects all at once. Reduce your subjects a little, one thing at a time. I'm making posts on mobile lately. Can't sit down and waste an hour on this.

First off I am for renewables but I dont think of them as a magical pill but a machine that has advantages and downsides. Wind is great but most of its power is at night and it has a problem with killing endangered birds.... I'm sure we can fix the bird issue with research though. Also I like the look of windmills they are calming.

Solar could be good but because of fucking China its horrible. The Chinese practices for obtaining the raw materials and processing the solar cells are horrible for the environment, not to mention all the human rights violations. China manufactures a large portion of solar cells because they are so cheap. Its cheap because they are ditching environmental standards. Solar cells should cost quite a bit more just for safe waste processing costs.

Our taxes are way too high and why would we want to follow the big government model of communism? It just keeps failing. Are the Chinese people relly better off then Americans? No.

I and many Americans can drink water out of a well and live to tell the tale. Thats a hospital visit in China. Chinas water pollution is unacceptable. Their people will be completely dependant on the government for water instead of being able to fend for themselves.... Ya know that sounds like a plan communists would think up.

Meltdowns are impossible with modern nuclear plants. The old plants were based around military designs which favored high density power production vs easy to manage power production. The old designs required an array of enriched uranium that burned super hot. The new designs are focused on boiling water and not being space efficient but safe and easy to manage. Modern plants use 5% enriched uranium which burns at 1000-2000 degrees which is easy to maintain and contain. The reaction. Requires water to react and taking away water stops the reaction. Its hot but not so hot it can pull a Fukushima, which was an old plant and if it was allowed to be replaced the accident would have never happened.

90% of nuclear waste is reusable. You can reprocess it, mix in some fresh uranium, and reuse it over and over. The remaining 10% is made up of elements unable to perform nuclear fission anymore so they dont even have much radiation.

P.S. nuclear power plants dont go boom like in the movies. Causing a nuclear explosion is actually quite hard.

I've got to go to bed. Ja matta.
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/13/17
Hell yeah boys. It's going down
11318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17

Rujikin wrote:

Alright so your posting way too much on way too many subjects all at once. Reduce your subjects a little, one thing at a time. I'm making posts on mobile lately. Can't sit down and waste an hour on this.

First off I am for renewables but I dont think of them as a magical pill but a machine that has advantages and downsides. Wind is great but most of its power is at night and it has a problem with killing endangered birds.... I'm sure we can fix the bird issue with research though. Also I like the look of windmills they are calming.

Solar could be good but because of fucking China its horrible. The Chinese practices for obtaining the raw materials and processing the solar cells are horrible for the environment, not to mention all the human rights violations. China manufactures a large portion of solar cells because they are so cheap. Its cheap because they are ditching environmental standards. Solar cells should cost quite a bit more just for safe waste processing costs.

Our taxes are way too high and why would we want to follow the big government model of communism? It just keeps failing. Are the Chinese people relly better off then Americans? No.

I and many Americans can drink water out of a well and live to tell the tale. Thats a hospital visit in China. Chinas water pollution is unacceptable. Their people will be completely dependant on the government for water instead of being able to fend for themselves.... Ya know that sounds like a plan communists would think up.

Meltdowns are impossible with modern nuclear plants. The old plants were based around military designs which favored high density power production vs easy to manage power production. The old designs required an array of enriched uranium that burned super hot. The new designs are focused on boiling water and not being space efficient but safe and easy to manage. Modern plants use 5% enriched uranium which burns at 1000-2000 degrees which is easy to maintain and contain. The reaction. Requires water to react and taking away water stops the reaction. Its hot but not so hot it can pull a Fukushima, which was an old plant and if it was allowed to be replaced the accident would have never happened.

90% of nuclear waste is reusable. You can reprocess it, mix in some fresh uranium, and reuse it over and over. The remaining 10% is made up of elements unable to perform nuclear fission anymore so they dont even have much radiation.

P.S. nuclear power plants dont go boom like in the movies. Causing a nuclear explosion is actually quite hard.

I've got to go to bed. Ja matta.


Apologies for long posts, I have a bad habit needing to fully respond and even then feel like I've left things out.

No disagreement on renewables as machines to an end (energy supply)
No disagreement on China production methods for photovoltaic cells, remembering they are the same abhorrent practices used in extraction of rare earth minerals for mass production of excessively rapid & wasteful production cycles of mobile devices in infinitely varying form factors and increasingly hot CPU/GPU SOIs, leading to battery fires both in Apple & Samsung high end. (Apple just has better PR control in US media)

Your U.S. taxes on low income earning citizens ARE too high, agreed. And they are way too low on corporate executives & corporations, including laws which allow fraudulent accounting practices to claim that taxable income is earnt within borders of foreign tax havens, rather than in the country in which the transaction occurred.

I don't believe in any form of overly big government model, merely a regulatory system capable of basic checks & balances, which keeps both congress & corporate bastards honest, maintains transparency, and gathers enough funding via tax to do so, without relying on quidproquo corporate lobby sponsorships & kickbacks, e.g. to feed junk food & PR campaigns to school kids disguised as 'education funding'.
I believe privatisation of social services (e.g. prisons) is an abusive recipe for a new underclass of permanently recycled incarcerated slave labour.


I guess WHO are making up their figures on 88% of China having sustainable access to drinking water then
- having said which, drinking unprocessed bore water in almost any place in Australia is pretty much a death sentence, and I'm pretty sure we are not a communist country, or a totalitarian dictatorial capitalist committee like China.
Australia gets all our 'sustainable drinking water' from water processing plants sourced from dams, so if the infrastructure goes, we're pretty screwed.

Not sure if you are referring to the BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) or Hybrid Fission-Fusion water heat exchange reactor design?
Is it in this list?
https://www.slideshare.net/NishitDesai6/types-of-nuclear-reactor

The 'meltdown-proof' design Gas cooled pebble-bed & liquid sodium cooled/ liquid flouride thorium heat exchange designs are superior in terms of reduced coolant dependency & complexity, making them much safer designs in some ways.
Having said that, the latter 'meltdown-proof' nuclear power station designs are only really designs with failsafes, the meltdown still can occur in as much as the core stops functioning in the event of overheating or a manual shutdown, through design to drop the fuel away before temperatures reach catastrophic levels, provided things like liquid sodium density are not impacted by stagnation from blockages and provided the fuel rods or pebble cores are not brought together through forces outside the control of the station design (e.g. reactor core breaches from seismic events, or poor maintenance or undetected structural faults from material stresses, poor quality graphite shells... basically any number of the usual cost & corner cutting measures I mentioned previously)
I am quite aware of how radiation emissions do not resemble explosions, - hopefully that was directed to other readers.
A scary example of the visible effects of invisible radiation emission / ionisation :
http://englishrussia.com/2007/02/18/helicopter-crash-in-chernobyl/

other linkage:

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/meltdown-proof
https://sites.google.com/a/illinois.edu/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor/lftr-disadvantages

明日まで
:)
1641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Canada, Toronto
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17

Rujikin wrote:


sinoakayumi wrote:

This hypothetical ecological disaster could be an example of Capitalism failing due to its negate of external cost, public good, and shared resource. The natural environment can be a sort of public good that provide resource like clean water, food, shelter, and medicine to both humans and animals. Those resources can be shared but not owned as they cannot be stored for long period. The more advanced human societies will alter the local habitat as the internal cost of environmental destruction outweight the benefit of land development even when it incur enomous cost to other animals who live in those habitat.


Capitalism does a much better job than the communist delusion.

More Than 80 Percent of China’s Groundwater Polluted: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2031587-more-than-80-percent-of-chinas-groundwater-polluted/


I read the article on your link and it attribute the pollution to the priority of economic development over the environment. The Communists is not like the Western Capitalists who establsih puppet government on the third world after WW2 for raw resource and externalize the pollution to the developing nations. The US military spending during peacetime is hidden for a reason: a huge military spending is used to maintain colonies without colonial government. Also, you should not underestimate the Communists since they arise from the most pure Capitalist society.


LingLingJuju wrote:

So much truth in that article. Overpopulation of humans, pollution, global warming, rising ocean temperatures, extinctions--all of which are caused by human activities, and the cascade effects in the ecological systems due to all of these problems.

My solution? These scientists need to invent a human-targeted super virus that will wipe off 5 billion humans off this planet instantly--this is the only way to fix the current shit going on right now. I have no sympathy for humanity. Literally no point reasoning with politicians and retards.

Either that, or they need to stop combating pandemics, pandemics are nature's way of saying, "We need to get rid of these cancerous species right now".


There are more practical methods to control population: suicide jobs can be legalized; safety concern should not be given too much priorty; abortion can be legalized.

There are also less noticable methods as well:
1) the culture can be modified to promote community connection so a human death would not be too devasting to their close ones.
2) provide property ownership, at least in the non-business context, so the parents will produce less children to prevent conflict over property inheritance. The homeless people have no incentive to limit the number of children as they have no property inheritance to pass on.
3) Make family connection important for the same incentive as personal property.
4) give women more power in the public sphere so they are not pressured to bear child to gain social status.
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / places lmao
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17
Who cares we're all gunna die anyway.
23746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/13/17 , edited 7/13/17

morte111 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Alright so your posting way too much on way too many subjects all at once. Reduce your subjects a little, one thing at a time. I'm making posts on mobile lately. Can't sit down and waste an hour on this.

First off I am for renewables but I dont think of them as a magical pill but a machine that has advantages and downsides. Wind is great but most of its power is at night and it has a problem with killing endangered birds.... I'm sure we can fix the bird issue with research though. Also I like the look of windmills they are calming.

Solar could be good but because of fucking China its horrible. The Chinese practices for obtaining the raw materials and processing the solar cells are horrible for the environment, not to mention all the human rights violations. China manufactures a large portion of solar cells because they are so cheap. Its cheap because they are ditching environmental standards. Solar cells should cost quite a bit more just for safe waste processing costs.

Our taxes are way too high and why would we want to follow the big government model of communism? It just keeps failing. Are the Chinese people relly better off then Americans? No.

I and many Americans can drink water out of a well and live to tell the tale. Thats a hospital visit in China. Chinas water pollution is unacceptable. Their people will be completely dependant on the government for water instead of being able to fend for themselves.... Ya know that sounds like a plan communists would think up.

Meltdowns are impossible with modern nuclear plants. The old plants were based around military designs which favored high density power production vs easy to manage power production. The old designs required an array of enriched uranium that burned super hot. The new designs are focused on boiling water and not being space efficient but safe and easy to manage. Modern plants use 5% enriched uranium which burns at 1000-2000 degrees which is easy to maintain and contain. The reaction. Requires water to react and taking away water stops the reaction. Its hot but not so hot it can pull a Fukushima, which was an old plant and if it was allowed to be replaced the accident would have never happened.

90% of nuclear waste is reusable. You can reprocess it, mix in some fresh uranium, and reuse it over and over. The remaining 10% is made up of elements unable to perform nuclear fission anymore so they dont even have much radiation.

P.S. nuclear power plants dont go boom like in the movies. Causing a nuclear explosion is actually quite hard.

I've got to go to bed. Ja matta.


Apologies for long posts, I have a bad habit needing to fully respond and even then feel like I've left things out.

No disagreement on renewables as machines to an end (energy supply)
No disagreement on China production methods for photovoltaic cells, remembering they are the same abhorrent practices used in extraction of rare earth minerals for mass production of excessively rapid & wasteful production cycles of mobile devices in infinitely varying form factors and increasingly hot CPU/GPU SOIs, leading to battery fires both in Apple & Samsung high end. (Apple just has better PR control in US media)

Your U.S. taxes on low income earning citizens ARE too high, agreed. And they are way too low on corporate executives & corporations, including laws which allow fraudulent accounting practices to claim that taxable income is earnt within borders of foreign tax havens, rather than in the country in which the transaction occurred.

I don't believe in any form of overly big government model, merely a regulatory system capable of basic checks & balances, which keeps both congress & corporate bastards honest, maintains transparency, and gathers enough funding via tax to do so, without relying on quidproquo corporate lobby sponsorships & kickbacks, e.g. to feed junk food & PR campaigns to school kids disguised as 'education funding'.
I believe privatisation of social services (e.g. prisons) is an abusive recipe for a new underclass of permanently recycled incarcerated slave labour.


I guess WHO are making up their figures on 88% of China having sustainable access to drinking water then
- having said which, drinking unprocessed bore water in almost any place in Australia is pretty much a death sentence, and I'm pretty sure we are not a communist country, or a totalitarian dictatorial capitalist committee like China.
Australia gets all our 'sustainable drinking water' from water processing plants sourced from dams, so if the infrastructure goes, we're pretty screwed.

Not sure if you are referring to the BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) or Hybrid Fission-Fusion water heat exchange reactor design?
Is it in this list?
https://www.slideshare.net/NishitDesai6/types-of-nuclear-reactor

The 'meltdown-proof' design Gas cooled pebble-bed & liquid sodium cooled/ liquid flouride thorium heat exchange designs are superior in terms of reduced coolant dependency & complexity, making them much safer designs in some ways.
Having said that, the latter 'meltdown-proof' nuclear power station designs are only really designs with failsafes, the meltdown still can occur in as much as the core stops functioning in the event of overheating or a manual shutdown, through design to drop the fuel away before temperatures reach catastrophic levels, provided things like liquid sodium density are not impacted by stagnation from blockages and provided the fuel rods or pebble cores are not brought together through forces outside the control of the station design (e.g. reactor core breaches from seismic events, or poor maintenance or undetected structural faults from material stresses, poor quality graphite shells... basically any number of the usual cost & corner cutting measures I mentioned previously)
I am quite aware of how radiation emissions do not resemble explosions, - hopefully that was directed to other readers.
A scary example of the visible effects of invisible radiation emission / ionisation :
http://englishrussia.com/2007/02/18/helicopter-crash-in-chernobyl/

other linkage:

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/meltdown-proof
https://sites.google.com/a/illinois.edu/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor/lftr-disadvantages

明日まで
:)


I'd say the rich pay enough if they actually paid their actual tax rate. Right now there are tens of thousands of tlpages to the tax code and hurried within it are tons of loopholes that only the super rich can do along with special exceptions they exploit like hell. Not all the rich can even use all the same tax breaks so even among people of the same tax bracket its unfair. Income made on the stock market is taxed at a different rate than if you own a business and actually produce goods so some rich are in a special tax bracket because they exploit our tax system.

Then you have the rich all making non-profit foundations where they cross donate to one another then deduct it off their taxes so they pay less taxes while they still have access to use the money via their foundation. Ever wonder how our politicians are worth 100 million when they have been in politics all their lives and the most they officially made working was 175K? Another story I remember was that GE or GM managed to both have record setting dividends for investors while also having a massive loss so large the government owed them millions due to our tax code loop holes. Raising taxes won't solve that only remaking the tax code will.

Some privatized prisons are really good but most are just schemes for politicians to funnel money, looking at you Illinois. The best regulation is preventing anti competitive behavior and preventing companies from merging into super corporations.

China has to do a lot to their water to make it drinkable. They will keep having rain but they have to spend so much on cleaning it that your completely reliant on the government for water. I dont know much about the OZ water supply. Is it naturally undrinkable or did you contaminate the small areas of drinking wateras

Throium reactors sound interesting but they are really following the same concept as current generation nuclear plants. You use radioactive elements that get hot enough to turn water into steam but you dont get do hot that the pellets can burn a hole through the containing shell. You dont need to get to 6000 degrees to boil water you just need a little over 500 degrees. Then containing and managing the fuel becomes simpler, cheaper, and safer. You do this by using uranium that has a low enrichment 5% is common. Then you make your reactor larger than before but the materials you use can be cheaper due to not needing extreme heat materials. Due to the low enrichment the pellets REQUIRE water as part of their reaction thanks to waters surface tension. The surface tension bounces back alpha and beta particles which continue the nuclear reaction and without the water the reaction stops due to losing all of its alpha and beta radiation.

That's why I say meltdown proof. It cannot melt through the containing materials and the reaction stops when you remove the water. So unless you have the nuclear plant falling into an ocean you won't have an issue. Even then tungsten and ceramics could pick up the pellets without melting like at Fukushima.

I never know how much nuclear knowledge someone has so I assume low knowledge and talk as such.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.