Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]


And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Space can handle it, if we could get it there.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Building viable Nuclear power plants will reduce carbon emmissions it will not end carbon emissions or reliance on fossil fuels for other things, transportion is one example but there are many others.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

If the need is great the technology will follow. All energy is fungible.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Loosen regs on nuclear power

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of using the state to beat people down, why not simply do the above in a big way. I know that ruins the liberal rush of micro-managing everyone's life but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into the ground.

I agree that nuclear power is likely our only hope, but current technology does not adequately deal with the byproducts of nuclear consumption. This "solution" is not "ready" for implementation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the standard to use here should not be whether or not it is "adequate", but whether or not it is better than the alternative.

Nuclear power definitely meets the standard of being the lesser of two evils.

Re: A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon

[/ QUOTE ]

You're like a parody of what conservatives picture a radical leftwinger to be like. You actually WANT for catastrophic destruction visited upon mankind because you hate everything so much. You are awesome.

natedogg

Re: A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon

[/ QUOTE ]

You're like a parody of what conservatives picture a radical leftwinger to be like. You actually WANT for catastrophic destruction visited upon mankind because you hate everything so much. You are awesome.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
I took his statement to mean not that he wants a "significant enough" natural catastrophe to happen, but that barring one people won't "awaken... to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon."

This interpretation seems pretty clear to me from the context and Mickey's posting history. I'm not sure why you'd assume he meant what you said he meant.

Re: A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon

[/ QUOTE ]

You're like a parody of what conservatives picture a radical leftwinger to be like. You actually WANT for catastrophic destruction visited upon mankind because you hate everything so much. You are awesome.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
I took his statement to mean not that he wants a "significant enough" natural catastrophe to happen, but that barring one people won't "awaken... to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon."

This interpretation seems pretty clear to me from the context and Mickey's posting history. I'm not sure why you'd assume he meant what you said he meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, the overpopulation problem is being generated prinarily from the second and third countries which can not be categorized as first-world high consumers. The richer countries are having fewer kids, bordering even on below replacement levels. So I don't see the point of conflating "over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon" because the first doesn't typically go with the second and third.

Yes, I agree a serious problem is overpopulation, but given the correlative evidence, it would suggest that capitalism is not the cause of overpopulation. If overpopulation is a problem to be solved, how about starting in those places and cultures where they are actually producing kids at much higher than replacement levels? There's where the overpopulation is coming from; not from the capitalistic West.

Moreover, people in the West are more likely to acknowledge that overpopulation may be a problem. Try telling that to most people living in Africa or in the Middle East. So it's a double-bind because those who are contributing most to overall population growth are generally the least likely to think that having more, and more, and more, and more kids is not a good thing.

Yes, people in the West will wake up to the problems of overpopulation (or already have), but that won't stop large portions of the world from continuing to exacerbate the situation.

Does the poster think that natural calamities will cause these second- and third-worlders to say "hey wait a minute, maybe we should have fewer children?"? No, it will be lost on them, and the lesson will be absorbed by those who already know it and who are not contributing to population growth. So it's too simplistic to talk about "mankind" waking up: the people that need to be waking up, are generally among the least likely to do so. So natural calamities will serve no good lesson as far as "teaching humanity" something. The lesson will reinforce what those who have few offspring already believe, and will fall on deaf ears of those who are relatively breeding like the proverbial rabbits.

Some may think overpopulation is not a problem at all, but that's another discussion. I just wanted to point out that I see no positive corelation between capitalism and excessive population growth rates, and maybe even an inverse correlation has been coming to exist in the last several decades.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you've never been to Nevada.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good call. Since AC has no way of dealing with global warming

[/ QUOTE ]
false