121–130 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this name calling makes me sad. There was a time when trolls like you were banned from HN. Sigh. How times have changed.
You post an illogical, intelligence insulting crap and become "sad" when somebody calls the crap out. You're right - the HN debate culture has gone down. The strongest and most logical argument you've managed in the discussion on radiation doses [non]equivalency is to call me a troll.
How about all those people dying from cancer years later all over Russia and Central Europe? Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills years later. Stop spreading such nonsense articles, please! Just because the immediate impact is comparatively low, that doesn't mean it's harmless.
Half of all wild boars shot in central Europe can not be sold because their radiation levels are still too high for general consumption because of Chernobyl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excuse me. I didn't mean to imply that all greens are fascist. And I also meant Green in the broadest possible sense - as in environmentalists of all denominations. And this context I meant the extremist faction(s) when I said fascist green extremists. Because they only have one agenda: Stop corporations. Stop Nuclear Power. Stop Consuming Carbon power sources. But I don't see an alternative proposal how to deal with…
"If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy." We don't. That's your premise, and you argue that reducing energy consumption represents a regression. A week of vacation per year would consume less energy than someone working in many of the places I have worked. "Our demands" for energy are not realistic, valid or sustainable. We don't need more energy.
To attain our conflicting goals of improving living conditions for entire human populace, without increasing power consumption the average westerner would have to forfeit 80% of his energy consumption.
So you're telling me that we as species are willing to "devolve" to a standardized standard of living that is somewhere in the ballpark of early 50's? If so I think you are either dishonest or severely lack perspective and knowledge of human species.
I honestly believe that finding additional power sources and utilizing them to satisfy and further expand our consumption of power is the most pragmatic, fair and painless way forward for our species.
To express myself poetically - I believe that god wants us to increase our power consumption up to the level where we will be able to consume entire star systems and beyond. I might be weird, but I also believe that single "purpose" of life is to increase entropy. Thus a perfect life form would expand its power consumption to the level where it would drain the whole universe of its energy potential.
Disclaimer: Proposed 80% is a number I pulled out of where the sun don't shine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy." We don't. That's your premise, and you argue that reducing energy consumption represents a regression. A week of vacation per year would consume less energy than someone working in many of the places I have worked. "Our demands" for energy are not realistic, valid or sustainable. We don't need more energy.
Excuse me for assuming that you are from western world. To attain our conflicting goals of improving living conditions for entire human populace, without increasing power consumption the average westerner would have to forfeit 80% of his energy consumption. So you're telling me that we as species are willing to "devolve" to a standardized standard of living that is somewhere in the ballpark of early 50's? If so I thi…
It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals.
It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace.
You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions.
You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless.
Your poetic expression is utterly disgusting. What happens to your perfect life form after it has drained the whole universe of its energy potential? Or even before it has drained it, when the sun don't shine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excuse me for assuming that you are from western world. To attain our conflicting goals of improving living conditions for entire human populace, without increasing power consumption the average westerner would have to forfeit 80% of his energy consumption. So you're telling me that we as species are willing to "devolve" to a standardized standard of living that is somewhere in the ballpark of early 50's? If so I thi…
You are excused, I am from the western world. It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals. It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace. You are drawing conclu…
Huh? How do you propose increasing standard of living for 70% of worlds population that currently uses way less than you or me or our US cousins? ( Total Energy consumption per capita: US 87KWh, EU 40KWh, China 18KWh, India 6KWh, The World Average=6.6KWh). Unless you try to argue that standard of living has nothing to do with energy consumption or even that 3rd world people have higher standard of living than we do?
>It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace.
It is? If we freeze the quota of produced energy - then we have turned energy market into a zero sum market. Thus any increase of consumption by one party is counterbalanced by decrease of another. The 50's and 80% is indeed wrong - since I just used them as arbitrary placeholders. Please don't expect me to go on a 10year research, just due to an internet argument.
>You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions.
You haven't provided a single proof of your claims. You just keep spinning your make-believe story. Also I didn't say you're dishonest AND lacking in perspective. I said that you are either - but you might as well be both.
>You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless.
Its your delusion that there are painless or negative side effect free power sources. Those used currently are used since in fact they (due to various reasons) ARE the LEAST painful of known options. Also for nuclear power we by now know very well what the negative side effects are (under what circumstances).
What you're lobbying for has only plans - like some very smart people predicted we would be on Mars in 40 years. I certainly believe that all solar, wind, water and trees society is possible. But we need to get by until we get there.
Regarding my belief regarding energy consumption of living beings... The whole universe is trying to equalize its energy potentials (the entropy) and life is just one of mechanisms that helps to dissipate them. So any life at all, now matter how green and how much it tries to not eat animals (instead eating imported papayas?) it will contribute to the untimely thermic death of the universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are excused, I am from the western world. It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals. It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace. You are drawing conclu…
>It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals. Huh? How do you propose increasing standard of living for 70% of worlds population that currently uses way less than you or me or our US cousins? ( Total Energy consumption per capita: US 87KWh, EU 40KWh, China 18KWh, India 6KWh, The World Average=6.6KWh)…
I never stated that there were painless or negative side effect free power sources, you are the one who stated it was the most painless way forward. The additional power sources you are advocating are nuclear. I said nothing about eating animals. The whole universe isn't trying to do anything. When the power sources you speak of are consumed by your ideal life form, is it going to consume itself? Have you ever heard that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes form? Contributing to as animals do, against directly causing like you advocate your ideal form doing, are different notions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals. Huh? How do you propose increasing standard of living for 70% of worlds population that currently uses way less than you or me or our US cousins? ( Total Energy consumption per capita: US 87KWh, EU 40KWh, China 18KWh, India 6KWh, The World Average=6.6KWh)…
I don't need to argue that standard of living has nothing to do with energy consumption, it is self evident. Leave your air conditioning or heating on for 24 hours for no reason, or keep your engine running while in a tail back. Wonder at how your standard of living has not improved one iota. I propose improving standards of living by people being more efficient. QED this is not spinning a make believe story. Your fi…
As far as my hypothetical uber life form goes - its an thought experiment. It was never meant to go and devour all there is.
I'm well aware of conservation of energy and I wasn't talking about it. I was talking about equalization of potentials. Thats what entropy means. The tendency that our universe has to equalize energy potentials. Thats what wind is. And thats why stars shine, the ice melts etc... Because if an more stable (read equal) energy state is available - the universe will find a way to achieve it.
Just as all elements heavier the iron try to (and will eventually) fission into lighter particles and just as elements lighter than iron try to (and again will eventually) fuse together, until eventually whole universe will consist of nothing but iron atoms. That would be so called thermic death of the universe, which is valid only in some end of universe scenarios, which depend upon shape of spacetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't need to argue that standard of living has nothing to do with energy consumption, it is self evident. Leave your air conditioning or heating on for 24 hours for no reason, or keep your engine running while in a tail back. Wonder at how your standard of living has not improved one iota. I propose improving standards of living by people being more efficient. QED this is not spinning a make believe story. Your fi…
Standard of living != luxury As far as my hypothetical uber life form goes - its an thought experiment. It was never meant to go and devour all there is. I'm well aware of conservation of energy and I wasn't talking about it. I was talking about equalization of potentials. Thats what entropy means. The tendency that our universe has to equalize energy potentials. Thats what wind is. And thats why stars shine, the ice…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly agree with you here, but I do think the technology has advanced since the Fukishima (or certainly Chernobyl) were built. Those plants are fairly ancient. Newer facilities have much safer designs. What we need to do with both nuclear and conventional power facilities is close everything from pre-1985 or so. The pollution coming from the dirty, grandfathered-in (to higher pollution) coal plants in the South, f…
I mostly agree with you here, but I do think the technology has advanced since the Fukishima (or certainly Chernobyl) were built. Those plants are fairly ancient. Newer facilities have much safer designs. I don't like commenting on things I know only a little about, however, one thing is getting overlooked when people make this argument. The newer designs are usually PWRs which are stable by design as loss of water o…
Who is "we"? If the the author speaks for himself, I have no objection against him moving to Fukushima or buying a house close to another nuclear power plant. I'm sure there are people willing to sell and the price for real estate in those areas has most likely dropped considerably in the last few decades.
I wouldn't be so sure about your implication that nuclear power plants reduce property prices: "In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities: total property values, assessed valuations and median housing prices have often increased at rates above the national and state averages. In each local area, housing prices were several times higher th…