And the only logical conclusion is, no problem is solvable. Kind of the best thing the parasites could wish for, right? And only because people cant distinguish sincere politics anymore.
Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity?
The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?
Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
>Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions
A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
So benefits i guess? Or pensions? Sounds like you want the government to only spend money on capital projects which is reasonable, but it'll be very difficult to get there from here, given all the benefits/transfers that governments engage in.
Ah ok, I see where you're coming from. Very difficult to achieve this in a democracy though, so probably productivity increases and wealth taxes will be needed to fill this gap.
>Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people...
Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
It might be true that nuclear power produces less waste but we have to consider the scales of global energy demand, multiply it by the time scales of nuclear waste to reach what threshold exactly? When and how would nuclear waste become a problem. Would it take ~200 years like the industrial revolution with CO2? Would it be okay if it where 300 years? or 500? What do we do, when background radiation is rising from ground water and soil? Switch back to natural instead of green energy, hoping the next millenias will be fine?
I dont think nuclear power is a solution. It can be step in an energy transition strategy, but no solution.
> When and how would nuclear waste become a problem.
Never. If there is ever "too much" of it we reprocess it as per OP article to remove the "non-usable" stuff and burn up the rest. It seems that there's an order of magnitude reduce by recycling (96% is usable fuel, so 4% is left over):
Among specialists the consensus is that "Internationally, it is understood that there is no reliable scientific basis for predicting the process or likelihood of inadvertent human intrusion."
Source: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/201...
Getting smacked with an asteroid like with the dinosaurs is also a source of concern.
This endless list of nit picky objections that go on and on and on and on and on, that are brought up no matter how low the probability, is why we can't have nice things (like cheap, reliable, zero-emission electricity available 24/7).
More people will die from plane crashes—which is amongst the safest ways to travel—than from nuclear waste radiation in the next few hundred years.
Geraldine Thomas, the co-founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, says there are more worrisome things than radiation:
There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear.
One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane.
A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future.
Note: my own brother was killed during a jetliner crash (Swissair SR111, 1998).
> There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear.
Sure there is (with enough warning); it's just physics:
To date, nuclear energy has cost the province $58B and has generated 3300 TWh, while our renewable experiment with the Green Energy Act will cost several billion per year over the life of the twenty year contacts and generate 200 TWh.
> In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet:
Perhaps they should get more nuclear so they burn less fossil fuels. Ontario's mix:
There are currently plans to expand the nuclear fleet.
> One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future.
It threatens the people who live >500m underneath the ground once it is buried.
We cannot cancel this risk, and we can cancel the risk of nuclear accident by not exploiting nuclear reactor (this is now possible thanks to renewables).
> To date, nuclear energy has
> while our renewable experiment
The LCOE is the gold standard.
Comparing an existing fleet of reactors with many hidden costs (indirectly paid for by the taxpayer or the consumer) with the full cost of renewables, and neglecting the cost of any nuclear mishap (accident, waste, decommission...) is a classic trick. In France some even compare the official production cost of the amortized fleet (w/o the investment) to the complete cost of renewables. Yay!
> once it is buried
Who will bury an industrial nuclear reactor during a major accident, and how will they do it? Where is this even only a plan?
Or is it about building it underground, and what about skyrocketing inspection and maintenance costs? Where is this even only a plan? Do your really believe that a broken nuclear reactor vessel vomiting corium will be safe underground, and in such a case why are waste long-term repositories (way less 'active') so difficult and expensive to design and build (as already stated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517316 )?
I agree with your notion, that we reciprocally amplify our cognitive deficiencies but i don't get how smaller communities would be a solution, considering global issues like climate change, which could still occur in such a world, combined with different biases like diffusion of responsibilities.
Cancellation or isolation does not help. I my opinion, education (or proper dialog) is the only option we have.
Yes, I understand that perspective. I'm uninterested in whatever latest hype projects are sucking up money from get-rich-quick investors and it's unfortunate that the general understanding of what cryptocurrencies are has shifted, because that's how you end up with FUD articles that don't differentiate between Bitcoin and other projects.
But ultimately, alt projects don't affect the Bitcoin technology and centralized platforms don't affect anyone's ability to self-custody.
Thank you for your optimism, now let me balance that out a little.
Propulsion maybe the easier part of engineering. Afaik we are nowhere near to life support and environment control that could be considered stable for a time period of maybe 10 years or more.
The biggest biological advantage, adaptation is meaningless for large organism on such a timescale and maybe dangerous on a microbial level.
You are correct that we are nowhere near that in life support technology, however, there don't seem to be an fundamental hurdles there. If we end up opting for a biological life support system, adaptation would not even enter the equation - it'd be a matter of genetic engineering. An obvious danger would always be onboard ecosystem collapse, of course.
>It would save the community from re-doing the same analysis
I vaguely disagree. Secure software is not a well defined state so security analysis is not a process with an end condition, so theoretically, you can never stop looking.
But documenting failed attempts and methods is still worthy because duplicate work may still teach a lessons.
I know you're just trying to make a point here, but not all of the Ivermectin research was fraudulent. There was some (seemingly) legit work from India/Bangladesh where Ivermectin did significantly increase the chance of survival among COVID patients.
(To be fair, these same regions where the legit studies are from also have a high prevalence of parasitic worm infections, but it's still a poignant reminder that removing complicating factors can help heal the primary disease.)
Thank you for bringing this up because so much of the Ivermectin discourse forgets about it and I continue to be very glad that doctors in those areas have an extra tool for saving lives.
The anglosphere yelling at itself in counterproductive ways would, I presume, have happened anyway albeit over a different treatment, so this seems to me like it was at least close to a pure win and "fewer dead people" is a pretty solid win, all things considered.
_-_renewable_energy.svg){kind=link}
https://keygenmusic.tk/#track=Reloaded/RELOADED%20-%20Seriou...