Slashdot Mirror
Vatican To Build 100 Megawatt Solar Power Plant
Karim Y. writes "The Vatican is going solar in a big way. The tiny state recently announced that it intends to spend 660 million dollars to create what will effectively be Europe's largest solar power plant. This massive 100 megawatt photovoltaic installation will provide enough energy to make the Vatican the first solar powered nation state in the world! 'The 100 megawatts unleashed by the station will supply about 40,000 households. That will far outstrip demand by Pope Benedict XVI and the 900 inhabitants of the 0.2 square-mile country nestled across Rome's Tiber River. The plant will cover nine times the needs of Vatican Radio, whose transmission tower is strong enough to reach 35 countries including Asia.'"
...about the Father, the Sun, and the Holy Ghost here.
Rock is dead. Long live scissors and paper!
Holy megawatts Batman!
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Now that we've dealt with that...
...is not a country.
So, how exactly are we planning to run them six million over budget, here?
Where it is going.
If they need extra power on certain days, they could just have the sun stop in the sky for a while.
"You see, Government is a system that is based on weapons." -- Timster
Putting Jesus through college?
So it appears that the Marketing department has won once again. After ~2000 years they have decided to 'freshen things up a little'. Looks like Buddy Christ lost.
So now that the Vatican is a Solar sect, does that mean using sunblock SPF-50 is a sin?
Skin cancer the new stigmata?
Remember kids; everything old is new again, I'm just waiting for my Leisure Suits to come back into style.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
God got tired of Satan bragging about his "all naturally-environmentally-powered controlled climate system" so he upped the ante a bit.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's like raaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiaaaaaaaan....
Putting hits and stalkers out on folks who don't agree with the Catholic agenda and defense fees for pedophile priests.
But as long as the crazy zealots go to Mass every Sunday and pay their dues then all will be forgiven.
As I recall (and Wikipedia backs it up, FWIW), Vatican Radio may not be such a good example of a successful, well-received project. It takes a lot of juice to pump a radio signal from Italy to Asia, and from what I've heard, the folks who live nearby aren't too happy about it. Take the debate over cell phone (non-ionizing) radiation, and multiply it by a few megawatts.
OTOH, maybe it's a final solution to the problem: buy out everyone living near the tower, and replace the whole swath of land with solar concentrators. It's, um, brilliant!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
And all this time I thought the Vatican ran on a 12 volt Interstate Battery recharged by some monk on a bicycle.
Whew, thanks for the correction.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Asia is not a country, you silly people! You're thinking of Africa.
Regards,
Sarah P.
Either everyone has lots of houses, they plan to fire up another 6-7 radiostations, or some engineers went a little nuts with the Church's charge card. Serious overcapacity! :P
!Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
I'm guessing that Vatican City is connected to Italy's power grid - passing the collection plate isn't the only way to make $$.
i can has citation?
Why else did God set the Sun in orbit around the Earth?
Solar PV is one of the least efficient ways to take money and make the world greener. As a charitable organization, the Vatican could get 50x the MWH offsets per buck by giving away efficient lighting, or if that is too abstract it could get 3x the MWH offset per dollar by buying new fridges for the poor who have old fridges from 1990 and earlier. Those fridges from the past use 2-3 times the energy per year that a modern one does, and so it is much greener if the Vatican buys them for the poor and uses grid power itself rather than putting up wasteful solar panels.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
There will be a lot more people dying prematurely from starvation and other avoidable causes if global warming isn't checked. That aside, its hardly as if the Roman Catholic Church is uninvolved in feeding or providing medical care to the needy. On the more general "platform" issue, one could RTFA:
This is a job for Sol Invictus.
Churches do operate under the 'do good' platform, but they do good for the church, not for the individuals in the church and certainly not for individuals outside the church. This is why, for example, the Catholic church prohibits contraception; it makes the church grow more quickly. The fact that it encourages poverty and overtaxes the planets resources, causes wars, and increases the spread of aids are simply side effects (although the increase in poverty is beneficial, since the church finds it easier to spread its doctrine amongst people who can be convinced that their material poverty translates to spiritual wealth).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Water into wine... Loaves and fishes... These guys have been doing it for years.
Quokka bites are not a medical emergency!
The Catholic church is widely regarded to be the most wealthy organization in the world, by a long shot.
Personally, I'm happy to see them put it to work a bit, especially after seeing the Cuzco Church of Santo Domingo literally COVERED in gold and silver and the royal grandeur that is Saint Peter's Square. Add together the rest of the real estate, hard assets, art, donations, low cost of labor, etc, etc and you have a truly mighty organization that can do a lot more than it is. I swear, I saw both Cuzco and the Vatican years ago, and the wealth still boggles my mind.
Personally, I'm happy to see that money actually doing something other than contributing to opulence. I think they should be doing much more of this investment.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
You know, I'm all for renewable power, but, aren't there a whole lot of starving people that this money could be feeding? Diseases to cure? Good to do? I kinda thought that churches operated under the do good platform...
I would tend to agree with you, however I think the Vatican's main reason for the solar power is to practice good stewardship of the earth by reducing carbon emissions (which can benefit starving people indirectly). But it is true that there are better things to be done with 660 million dollars that would be more beneficial for humanity in general than just providing power for a few hundred people.
In Vatican, sun orbit YOU!
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Damnit, there goes the production capacity of Nanosolar Inc. for ANOTHER two years. Cheap solar cell retail availability gets shooooved to the right to ------> 2012.
<Godwin>First those damn Germans bought up all their production, attempting to perpetuate their Fourth Reich!<tinfoilhat>Now it's a conspiracy to preempt and prevent micro-generation!</tinfoilhat></Godwin>
Of course, with the pope's uncanny resemblance to Emperor Palpatine, I can't resist the thought of hearing, upon completion of the 100 MegaWatt facility, the words: "NOW YOU WILL WITNESS THE POWER OF THIS FULLY OPERATIONAL BATTLE STATION!"...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This is why, for example, the Catholic church prohibits contraception; it makes the church grow more quickly.
Do you really believe that the reason the Catholic Church prohibits contraception is because they simply want more members?
there's no proof of this, only vague predictions and bad hollywood movies.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Maybe with all those page hits, the hamster got tired. No wonder they need a solar plant
... the Vatican is building a solar power plant in Italian territory, subsidized by Italian money, to export energy to Italy? That seems like a good deal.
Well, Hell. This is at least on topic (sorta):
-
Controversy
The Vatican Bank is said to be a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US$10 billion in foreign companies. In 1968 Vatican authorities hired Michele Sindona as a financial advisor, despite Sindona's questionable past. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family's heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation "Mabusi". This laundering was accomplished with the help of another banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge.[8]
When Pope John Paul I became Pope in 1978 he was informed about the allegations of wrongdoing at the Vatican Bank, and instructed Jean-Marie Villot, Cardinal Secretary of State and head of the papal Curia, to investigate the matter thoroughly. Pope John Paul I died after only 33 days in office, leading to claims that he had been murdered as a result of discovering a scandal. Pope John Paul I is generally accepted to have died from natural causes, although some medical experts believe that he may have died from a pulmonary embolism or an adverse reaction to the medication that he was taking rather than from a heart attack as was stated in original press reports of his death.
[edit] Banco Ambrosiano scandal
Main article: Banco Ambrosiano
The Vatican Bank was Banco Ambrosiano's main share-holder. Father Paul Marcinkus, head of the Institute for Religious Works from 1971 to 1989, was indicted in Italy in 1982 as an accessory in the $3.5 billion collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, one of the major post-war financial scandals. Banco Ambrosiano was accused of laundering drug money for the Sicilian Mafia, which used Propaganda Due (aka "P2"), a mobbed up Masonic lodge, as an intermediary. P2 and its Worshipful Master, Licio Gelli, were also involved in financing right wing terror groups during the 1970s. As for Fr. Marcinkus, he would never come to trial in Italy, where courts ruled that he possessed diplomatic immunity. He lived in retirement in Sun City, Arizona (US) until his death on February 21, 2006.
The Vatican Bank has denied having legal responsibility for the Ambrosiano's downfall but did acknowledge "moral involvement", and paid $241m (£169m) to creditors. As of 2006, investigations are continuing concerning the murder of Ambrosiano's chairman, Roberto Calvi, which, according to Ernest Backes, former #3 of Clearstream, may have been linked to the death of Gérard Soisson, who used to work for Clearstream, a "bank of banks" which practices financial clearing. According to recent wiretap information,[citation needed] however, Calvi's death was almost certainly decreed by the Cupola, the ruling council of the Sicilian Mafia, which had come to view Calvi as a liability since the bank's collapse.
[edit] Other allegations
Several books[clarification needed] that appeared during the 1990s were highly critical of the Vatican Bank's historical relations with right-wing governments and especially in the collaborationist regime of the Independent State of Croatia. They engendered initial defensive hostility and controversy. The controversy centers on conclusions drawn from the documentation rather than the documents themselves.
According to a 1998 report issued by the US State Department, the Nazi Croatian treasury was illicitly transferred to the Vatican Bank and other banks after the end of World War II. For its part, the Vatican has repeatedly denied any Franciscan participation in Ustashi crimes or the disappearance of the Croatian Treasury, yet has refused to open its wartime records to substantiate its denial.
A 1946 memo from US Treasury agent Emerson Bigelow, declassified in 1997, quoted a "reliable source in Italy", who alerted his superior that Croatian officials had sent 350 million confiscated Swiss francs (CHF) to the Vatican Bank "for safekeeping". On the way s
zosxavius photography
...isn't a country.
\x72\x6D\x20\x2D\x72\x66
Quote: "Solar PV is one of the least efficient ways to take money and make the world greener." I would like to see some reference to that claim, because it's totally wrong. PV solar is getting VERY close to the tipping point of being economically viable (2015 projected date), when compared with fossile based technologies. It's the ONLY green technology (besides, conservation) to be that close.
What we are seeing here is an evolution of technology, where less adapted technologies are replaced by more adapted technologies.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Proof?
There's an Oasis in Egypt that's drying up. (Siwa? Can't remember exactly) Once it's gone, all the people living there will either have to move or die.
There's plenty of proof out there. Global warming may not be globally bad, but it sure is shitty for quite a few countries. If you can't see that, you're a buffoon.
For some reason I think I've read that were Jupiter a star at its present size, if such a thing were even possible, at the distance to the earth it wouldn't be too horrible. The closest approach between Jupiter and Earth places is nearly twice as far as the Sun is from Mars. It might jack up the temperature by a degree and melt all the icecaps on earth, but other than that, it wouldn't be too big of a deal...
This is my sig.
Let me help:
"Putting hits and stalkers out of folks who don't agree with the Catholic agenda" See: Bill Donahue or The Holy Office of the Inquisition.
"Defense fees for pedophile priests" See: Diocese of Boston.
Here's a link to an article that makes reference to both of the GPs assertions of "hits and stalkers" and "defense fees for pedophiles".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hey woman, your fine Solar Power, brand-new and expensive, should have been saved for the poor. Why has it been wasted? We could've raised maybe 300 silver pieces or more. People who are hungry, people who are starving, they matter more than your electrical power generation.
With apologies to Andrew Lloyd Webber
Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
You know, I'm all for renewable power, but, aren't there a whole lot of starving people that this money could be feeding? Diseases to cure?
Retards-who-don't-understand-the-nature-of-capital-investment to educate?
Just callin' it like I see it.
You sir are a geek as well
Originally, yes. Just like priests not having children increased the wealth of the church. Nowadays...? Tradition?
Considering there is no mention of contraception in the bible, I would like to hear why you think it prohibits contraception.
You are welcome on my lawn.
> The Vatican is going solar in a big way. The tiny state recently announced that it intends to spend 660 million dollars to create what will effectively be Europe's largest solar power plant.
For only 6 million dollars more they can add an option to generate power from the conversion of pure evil.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
It's an investment. Spending $100 now to save $10/year for the next 15 years means more money for the poor further down the road.
Is that some kind of sick sexual code?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You and the GP are both looking at it wrong. It costs $660 million dollars now, but it cuts the Vatican's power bill to zero, and the spare power can be sold to Italy at the market rate, resulting in a significant financial win for the Vatican. The money saved is money that can then be spent on humanitarian projects around the world. Over the expected life of the panels, the money the Church could spend should be far greater and can do far more good than spending the $660 on humanitarian causes up front.
It's like the people who suggested that the Church should sell all its properties (which some have estimated at on the order of $1-2 trillion dollars) and spend the money on the poor. The problem is that there are an estimated 963 million people in the world who are hungry, so even if you could feed them all for a net cost of only a dollar a day, the assets would last only about 3-6 years. Given the scale involved, a more realistic cost estimate would put that closer to 6 months. And, of course, when the money runs out, those hungry people would still be dirt poor, but there wouldn't be any more money coming in without congregants putting money in the collection basket every week. Thus, beyond a very short term view, that would be a foolish thing to do.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
There are so little data about solar engineer. How they will affect food production and weather.
There are nothing pure good in this world. Please carefully review it after it put into work.
... 660 million dollars is petty cash to the Vatican, so perhaps this amounts to the kind of thing you and I might do on a Friday night to blow off a little steam and empty our pockets of jingling coin.
If there's a hint of bitterness in that, perhaps it's because the Vatican takes in billions of dollars every year from addictive delusional suckers, just like lotteries and casinos... only worse: they then use those billions to control people's action and thought, unlike lotteries and casinos, not to mention cajoling them into donating further billions. It's not about saving souls, it's about funding a minority's desire to wear nice funky robes and feel ridiculously important.
Churches do operate under the 'do good' platform, but they do good for the church, not for the individuals in the church and certainly not for individuals outside the church.
There are plenty of churches that do good for individuals outside the church, and I say that as someone who is agnostic.
Off the top of my head, my mother's church has a weekly free dinner for low-income families that's open to everyone, and during the severe flooding two winters ago here in the Northwest, the Mormons donated emergency supplies to victims.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
This is the Vatican we're talking about. What the hell are you doing telling them 'there's no proof of this'? It's never stopped them before.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I know there are batteries but what size of batteries or what storage setup would be employed in banking the power captured during the day for use during night time?
The Catholic church is widely regarded to be the most wealthy organization in the world, by a long shot.
The only way the Catholic Church is worth a hundred billion of anything is when you calculate its worth in Lira.
It's really not rich. The most recent estimate is that the Vatican is only worth about a billion dollars. The church hasn't really had a giant amount of money since the late dark ages, and then after that they lost all their dough to various asset seizures by broke European Kings. Henry the 8th comes to mind... but he wasn't the only one.
This is my sig.
It costs $660 million dollars now, but it cuts the Vatican's power bill to zero, and the spare power can be sold to Italy at the market rate, resulting in a significant financial win for the Vatican. The money saved is money that can then be spent on humanitarian projects around the world.
By that argument, the Vatican should operate a casino, sell storage silos for nuclear waste in the catacombs beneath Vatican City, open a brothel, and spend the profits on humanitarian projects around the world.
John
yay conspiracy wanker modded 3: informative in slashdot!
Let's celebrate!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
but it cuts the Vatican's power bill to zero, and the spare power can be sold to Italy at the market rate, resulting in a significant financial win for the Vatican.
This would only be a "significant financial win" if the money gained by selling electricity in a reasonable time frame (say, 15 years) not only covered the cost of the panels and their maintenance, but paid more than a safe investment.
If this were the case, there would be capitalists all over the world assembling massive solar arrays for electricity production.
Do the math..
No, but there is a passage that explicitly states "go forth and multiply," which can be interpreted without much stretching as "attempting not to have children is bad".
Of course, reinterpreting it in in terms of the limited carrying capacity of the planet and what is good for the survival of the human race as a whole, it doesn't seem like the best idea, but its not like its unreasonable to see where it comes from.
It's something I often wonder about, actually: what's their excuse for anything beyond utilitarian buildings and equipment?
I'm sure it's fun having huge chunks of gold around the place, but when their religious text contains categorical denunciation of wealth it strikes me as odd.
They will need 6 more millions to make it work.
it down that big cesspool we call Congress here in the states. At least the Vatican isn't building war machines with it. They are one of the largest charities in the world taking care of more people regardless of politics. Can't say that about any government. How much is poured into the UN and for what good? Yeah they have had their bad times but what organization throughout the history of man hasn't? At least they move forward.
They run nearly 6000 hospitals, 9000 orphanages, and tens of thousands of facilities for the elderly and sick that get passed over by governments. How is that really a bad thing? Is the view of contempt simply because they are a religious organization?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
BOLGIAS 8 AND 9, Rome, Monday — The Vatican intends to build the biggest renewable energy plant in Europe, running solely on guilt.
"Now is the time to strike," said Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, governor of Vatican City. "The financial crisis has unleashed huge and renewable sources of guilt, which in the long run will reap incomparable rewards for the Church."
Italy has a binding target for renewable energy consumption of 17 percent. The Vatican will export energy to Italy, powered by raw guilt from the largely Catholic populace. "So far it's proven indefinitely renewable."
Pope Benedict XVI has been outspoken on environmental issues. "The destruction of the environment, its improper or selfish use and the violent hoarding of the Earth's resources cause grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development. You should FEEL BAD about that. And give us money."
The plant will be topped up at night by Dante-esque treadmills walked by priests sent back for kiddy-fiddling. "We feel terrible, terrible," said Fr O'Pederast. "I mean, we got caught."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Either that's an EXTREMELY expensive college or he's going for a LOOOONG time...
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
As in finally to something other than gold trinkets and popemobiles? I'm not catholic (or even religious), but this is about the most compelling argument I've seen for converting, well, pretty much ever.
improper or selfish use, and the violent hoarding of the Earth's resources cause grievances, conflicts and wars
Brought to you by the same group with great hits like: "The Crusades", "Inquisition", "Abstinence only", "Using condoms makes baby Jesus cry" and "Touching little boys".
Act now and you'll get the whole box-set including other greats: "Before BigBang? Honey, I don't wanna know" and "Flat earth, because we like it that way".
So yeah, an oasis in Egypt that's drying up is proof of local warming. Just a point.
-knewter
When God tells you to do something, don't do it by half measure. Seems that people are reading more into that passage than was intended.
Which really isn't surprising.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
What do you think it takes to power a private hotline to God ?!
Shhhh!
You clearly don't understand American Christianity.
In American Christianity God says: "Be nice to your neighbor.* As defined by a lawyer so as to not get sued." "Feed the poor.* But fight foodstamps and welfare tooth and nail." "Store up your treasures in heaven not here on earth.* But if someone suggests that maybe you should pay higher taxes cry communism and theft." "Do not lend to your neighbor and expect a return.* Unless he took out a mortage then he's irresponsible and had better pay back every penny!"
Jesus was practically a hippy.
Wow, life in your mother's basement must be tough, eh? Try going to church - it will be tough to be in the light, but the Lord will stand by you.
Thomas Aquinas argues that "each and every part of man, and every one of his acts, should attain the proper end. Now though the male semen is superfluous in regard to the preservation of the individual, it is nevertheless necessary in regard to the propagation of the species." [He here argues that the purpose of semen is only to be emitted for reproduction] "Therefore the emission of semen ought to be so ordered that it will result in both the production of the proper offspring and in the upbringing of this offspring." That is, he writes that while ejaculation for reproduction is desirable, it is only desirable in marriage, as this is [he goes on to argue] the only natural state in which the offspring will be raised properly. You can't sleep with your neighbor's wife, even if you don't use a condom.
Furthermore, he writes, "It is evident from this that every emission of semen in such a way that generation cannot follow is contrary to the good for man."
The Catholic Church is a rather conservative institution, so yes, such arguments are still relevant.
The source of the preceding quotes is "Summa against the Gentiles" in Reading the Middle Ages, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, in case you wondered and would like to pursue his argument in more depth.
There are companies specialized in those pricing matters. The Sistine Chapel would be an absolutely awesome meeting room for an awesomely rich organization with cash to spare that already has everything it could reasonably need.
Oh, wait... Doh!
I'm not sure of that, how much power does it take to send a radio signal over 1373.81 km?
When the next pope is elected, they won't use white fume. In order to prevent the greenhouse effect they are going to use the batman signal
It's not actually wrong to say that the Catholic church is rich, but it's only true in the same sense that, say, Los Angeles is rich. There's a hell of a lot of wealth there, yes; but no single body has control over all of it.
The church is monolithic only in a theological sense. In an economic sense every branch of the church, every religious order, every diocese, is more or less autonomous. The Vatican has economic control only over what's inside its own borders, which is not a great deal (and usually runs at a budget deficit). If cathedrals in Cuzco and Rome are wealthy, that wealth is under the control of the separate dioceses. The pope can't tell the bishop of Cuzco what to do with the gold and silver in his cathedral (well, he can try, but the bishop of Cuzco doesn't have to listen); the pope's authority over the bishop of Cuzco is purely theological, which is to say, non-existent in real terms.
Basically, wanting "the church" to pay for stuff is like wanting the entire population of a city to pay for stuff -- and about as likely to happen. The collective wealth of the city's population may amount to billions, but the mayor's own budget is pretty tiny by comparison. The mayor can raise cash via taxation, but the Vatican can't -- or not easily; the Vatican receives about $100 million a year in donations (ear-marked by donors for the Vatican, viz. Peter's pence), and that's kind of peanuts when you have a country (and numerous embassies) to run.
Now, I won't make any apologies for the bishop of Cuzco; but aim your vitriol at the right place. "The church" as a single body simply doesn't exist in a real-world sense.
Uhhh walmart made 405Billion dollars last year. Unless you just assume all the stuff the catholic church owns are priceless you are way off. They have the most wealth that is not producing maybe. But that is like seeing a guy smoking weed out of a 100$ bill and assuming he's richer than the guy with a 500$ car from 1988.
Not that I don't appreciate all the art, I frigging loved my trip to Rome and taking a tour of the vatican you definately get the feeling that they have more culture and art than most countries. I saw more art and culture in 3hours inside the vatican than I most people see over 5 maybe 10 years in North America.
I'm surprised they never thought to harness the prodigious amounts of HOT AIR they produce, to harvest energy from.
I like to think of it like social darwinism at work. Religions that like small families and abhor sex or enforce condom usage would die out. From a spiritual pov being 'clean' would mean not having sex at all but that doesn't really work out since you wouldn't get new members. Religions like Catholicism thrive because they push for people having large families.
Typically, solar panels pay for themselves in 10 years, but if you read the article, you'd find that they haven't decided how much to do with photovoltaic cells and how much to do with turbine-based systems. The latter is quite profitable, and there are many commercial power providers that operate in this space.
I'm assuming, therefore, that most of this money will be spent on solar turbines, in which case it would be a very good investment. The typical ROI on solar turbine systems is close to 100% in the first year, so if you reinvest in new solar turbine systems in other places every year, until you hit market saturation, you have the potential for nearly guaranteed exponential growth.
Even if they go with PV, though, I should note that I wasn't comparing solar to other investments, only to spending the money up front. And even with PV cells, going solar has some nice side effects---as someone else noted, in the long term, reducing our environmental impact reduces the amount of money needed to feed the hungry. It's hard to say whether PV cells would be a good idea or not. It isn't throwing money away by any stretch of the imagination, but solar turbine systems would be much, much smarter.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Actually, on looking further, I think my source for that ROI figure is probably pretty unreliable. Does anybody have figures from broad deployments?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
There's an obligatory Futurama line here. I can just feel it.
I think in this case it ends with "You know what, forget the hookers... and the bingo."
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Technically, what Onan was condemned for was refusing to produce a child by his brother's widow to be his brother's heir.
It's an odd quirk of law that he was required to do this when his brother died without issue, to carry on his brother's line.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
There will be a lot more people dying prematurely from starvation and other avoidable causes if global warming isn't checked.
You better hope so. Because about the only real way to "check" global warming is for these untold millions to die. And they need to get about that business (dying) pretty quickly, too.
The problem is that it comes down to most of the Western world living like Bangledeshi farmers (esp. the USA) or having lots and lots fewer people using energy. Failure to implement either of these plans will certainly result in no real change. Which means we will not have affected the climate of the planet in the desired direction.
Opulence, more like stewardship. The Vatican houses the worlds largest collection of art much of which was commissioned by the church.
[citation needed]
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Actually, there is a mention of a form of it. Onan practiced coitus interruptus (Genesis 38), and was condemned for it. But is this really on topic?
A fairly common interpretation of that story is that Onan was killed because he refused to fulfill his obligation to give his brother an heir, having nothing to do with the "spilling his seed" part.
This is why, for example, the Catholic church prohibits contraception; it makes the church grow more quickly.
Hardly. Here is the argument:
1) God created nature, and nature was good. Thus, the law of nature, or "natural law", is good and God-created, and must not be broken. Therefore, things that are "unnatural", or break the law of nature, are evil.
2) In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
The first is pretty commonly accepted, but by no means universal, even by those who disagree on the Catholic church's position. To see one case where this plays out, most people's response to homosexuals is, "Ew, gross. That's just wrong. It's not natural." A large number of peoples aversions fall into this category.
Also realize that the Christian church grew out of the Jewish religion, where "spilling one's seed" or other non-procreative sexual acts were condemned, since that was not Yahweh's purpose for sex.
Suffice it to say, the argument is usually one about what is "natural" or not. If, however, you can argue against natural law being God's law, then that works too.
It was not until recently that sex for non-procreative purposes was determined "natural" by the Anglican church, and then once one had taken the plunge, almost every other denomination followed. The Catholic church has a hierarchy that creates immense inertia, which is why their official stance has not changed, even though many of their members do not agree with it.
Of course, at various times, there were other things that supported the church's opinion. For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being, which was just housed by the woman until birth, and so prevention of conception was tantamount to killing an unborn person, which is murder.
He here argues that the purpose of semen is only to be emitted for reproduction
Honest question. Does he then argue that men shouldn't have sex with their wives when they are pregnant? Wasted seeds...
Heretic! Blasphemer! [points finger] Get him!
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
There are big commercial solar PV projects going up all over, some for direct industrial uses, other just for generating peak power in hot climates to help with midday demand. If you knew what peak power costs at utility scales, not your kilowatt hour rate you pay at home but what heat of the day high demand costs were, you'd grok this better on how solar can be competitive now, let alone into the future. And you make money by being ahead of the curve, not behind it. In other words, the guys at the Vatican are pretty smart about this.
One really large proposal that was in the news and even covered here on slashdot would have truly massive solar farms in northern africa and run the power to europe as part of a "supergrid". If you followed solar power news you would be aware of these issues.
Solar PV is still one of the fastest growing global industries out there, even despite the latest recession, because demand has been very good for years now. And the demand has been fueling some really excellent R and D efforts as well to make it even better. The FTA is just another one, albeit the planned largest one in Europe, but there are plenty of still large operational farms out there and many more on track to be built or contracted, a lot of them by commercial existing utilities, who are in the energy business to make a buck. The companies that make them can't keep up with demand,(that's why prices have remained high for the last several years), so several new fabs are going online this year and next year just to make the silicon wafers needed. For the longest time solar PV makers relied on cast off rejects from chip manufacture, but now demand is so high they can have their own fabs.
It is still in the early stages of large scale production, but it's here now, and thin film production will magnify the efforts by hundred's fold. Think of it as a rough analogy of desktop computer use in the early 80s. Within 20 years it will be rare to be able to go out and about and *not* see solar PV everywhere.
As a Catholic, I often have people remind me that many of our traditions are not mentioned in the bible. An example would be giving up something for lent. It is useful to remember that the early Christians did not have a written Bible to work off of, and so their worship practices were based off of tradition. On other words, we Catholics don't find anything wrong with continuing traditions that were established a long time ago even if they aren't in the bible. This is not an answer to your contraception question. I'm just trying to point out that just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean that we can't practice or believe it.
Matthew 26:6-13
Mark 14:3-9
Luke 7:36-50
John 12:1-8
Sometimes feeding the poor is not the only immediate thing to do. There is a lot here to think about regarding priorities. One must care for oneself so that one can care for others. If I have the choice between giving all my food away and keeping enough for myself so I don't starve, the latter is the appropriate thing to do. Think capital investment.
Thanks, I guess, but my point (so far as I can tell from deep sustained self-analysis) wasn't to preach to the choir and get a standing ovation, rather it was to goad people not in the choir into giving the notion a moment's reflection once they calmed down from the insult of my blunt delivery. Being "tactful" might serve my goal better, I know, but tact is tantamount to emotional manipulation of others for my perceived benefit and I don't condone it.
If that happens to mean that I rock, it's incidental to the purpose. It might mean I'll be more inclined to further repeat the words and behavior that rock, which might be your intended purpose for saying it, but I probably would have done so anyway... the supporting evidence is inclination enough for me. :-)
A lot more people die of cold than tropical disease. With global warming there will be less cold. More land will open to farming - less starving.
What you may see is mass migration out of certain areas but there is a chance of less dying overall.
Holy Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible either... The "it's not in the Bible" argument doesn't apply to the Catholic Church since it doesn't subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Besides, if the Church simply wanted more members, why are they against non Catholics using contraception too? If they want more members, why do they not permit infertile couples from using artificial fertilization procedures? The Church teaches that sex and reproduction go hand in hand. That isn't to say that all sex that doesn't result in fertilization is sinful, but there must not be an attempt to interfere with the process of fertilization (whether using condoms, chemicals, outercourse, etc).
I'm sure it's fun having huge chunks of gold around the place, but when their religious text contains categorical denunciation of wealth it strikes me as odd.
Ahem...
"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head."
"And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her."
"And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her"
"Ahh, screw the whole thing."
John
"Using condoms makes baby Jesus cry"
Only if it's a priest using condoms ON Baby Jesus.
Churches do operate under the 'do good' platform, but they do good for the church, not for the individuals in the church and certainly not for individuals outside the church. This is why, for example, the Catholic church prohibits contraception; it makes the church grow more quickly.
What BS. All major versions of Christianity prohibited contraception up until 1930, when the Anglicans/Episcopalians taught that contraception was actually okay after all... though only when used by married couples under certain conditions.
What has happened in this case -- and in many others -- is that the Catholic Church hold to their original teachings, while most Protestants have varied theirs according to the times and situations they find themselves in.
You are saying that a churches teach whatever is of material advantage to themselves as a body. But for this to be true, one would expect the teachings often to change when the external circumstances change, since what is advantageous at one time may seem to be a liability half a century later.
But this rate of change and modification is simply not characteristic of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
Part (not all) of this is because people donate to this particular project. One of the things about directed donations in most countries is that they can only be used for what they are directed towards. If Bill Gates wanted to spend every last penny he had giving every church in the world a solid gold roof, that is what the money would have to go towards if the Church wanted to keep it. There are a lot of environmentalists in the Church, one of the being the pope. This should not surprise you, nor would most Catholics disagree with this decision.
Troll, n. - Someone who disagrees with me
Exactly, he would equally have been condemned if he'd simply refused to have sex with his brother's wife at all. The classical Church interpretation of this passage is that it's a sin to masturbate or attempt contraception, but it could equally (in fact, IMO, could more accurately) be read as it being a sin to deprive a childless widow of the opportunity to carry a child.
- fractoid (anon to preserve moderations)
Or perhaps just local drought... the lake my cabin is on has dropped 8 feet in the last 5 years. 40 miles away they've had flooding 3 out of the last 4 years. If you localize your anecdotal evidence enough you can come to any conclusion you want :)
Have you even done the math? This power plant will supply power to 40,000 homes and costs $660 million to build, so assuming the average monthly power bill for each of these homes is $100, it would take 13.75 years just to recoup the costs of building the plant... And that is all assuming that it requires no maintenance whatsoever after the initial build. A more realistic figure would be about 20-25 years.
Another consideration is how long the solar cells last before needing replacement.
Just don't forget the pancake breakfasts. That's the best part.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Global warming is a theory, not a proven fact. Not to mention if it is true, it could be absolutely 100% natural. Feast your eyes: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking-/articleshow/4418558.cms
As far as I am aware, the Tirupati temple in India is the wealthiest religious organisation in the world, in terms of disposable income. The Vatican is the richest in assets, but most of these assets aren't liquid, and most are immensely difficult, if not outright impossible, to liquidate.
Honest question. Does he then argue that men shouldn't have sex with their wives when they are pregnant? Wasted seeds...
It's quite a reasonable question. He doesn't directly address it, but he does address the question of sex between sterile couples.
Now I am speaking of a way from which, in itself, generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. But, if by accident generation cannot result from the emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature, or a sin; as for instance, if the woman happens to be sterile.
Thus I would expect him to be perfectly accepting of sex under the conditions you mention. Likewise, he would not accept sex between an unmarried, sterile couple, even though children cannot result, as their sterility is an accident---they should continue to follow the proper and natural order.
Putting Jesus through college?
Si!
Maybe you have seen them, Christian groups in the US have aired environmental ads on TV. Here's an article about the "four most important biblical passages for a Christian enviromentalism".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Reading TFA it's likely a local utility will be buying the electricity, it says "The 100 megawatts unleashed by the station will supply about 40,000 households." So the solar farm will be offsetting the electricity the Vatican uses.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I guess that means they'll have enough power to easily hide the hydroponics operation ;)
- James
So spending it on earth friendly power sources is wasteful and it would be ok if they spent it on more conventional power sources?
Just want to make sure I've figured out the message, since we've obviously read your tone.
I hope Stephen Hawking can get out of the hospital soon.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It's something I often wonder about, actually: what's their excuse for anything beyond utilitarian buildings and equipment?
I can't say for Catholics, but Russian (and, so far as I know, other) Orthodox churches are even more lavishly decorated, and there the explanation is that it is to better highlight the glory of God, particularly to laity. So priests don't go around in gold-trimmed clothing all the time, but only when they perform priestly services. All the wealth is seen as belonging to God, ultimately, not to his servants.
Of course, this doesn't stop the Russian Patriarch from riding around on the best car money can buy...
The mayor can raise cash via taxation, but the Vatican can't
The Vatican has something more powerful, eternal damnation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Considering there is no mention of contraception in the bible, I would like to hear why you think it prohibits contraception.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics (and Orthodox) do not believe in sola scriptura (this was in fact one of the most major dividing points). There's also the Sacred Tradition, represented in the teaching of the Church Fathers. Supposedly, as those teachings have passed from man to man from the very first apostles, and to them from Christ - or at least some of them did, and we cannot truly distinguish one parts from the other - it is a good idea to follow them. At worst, it won't hurt (if you follow the parts that aren't truly divinely inspired), since saints did the same, and they're, well, saints. And for the chance that they're truly divine inspired, following them might actually help on the path to redemption.
Of course, Catholics also have Papal proclamations in addition to all that. In any case, point is that it is not a requirement in Catholicism to justify every policy with the Scripture. There are other sources.
(Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Christian).
This would only be a "significant financial win" if the money gained by selling electricity in a reasonable time frame (say, 15 years) not only covered the cost of the panels and their maintenance, but paid more than a safe investment.
Why do you think that the measle 15 years is a "reasonable time frame" for Vatican? It has been there for over a millennium, and it's certainly not going away anytime soon.
Blessed solar power... beat that...
I can't tell you about broad deployment, but I can refer you to the pdf that the US National Renewable Energy Labs made -- although this is roughly 5 years old, by my memory. Their claim is that using the least efficient current market solar cells, and including the cost of installation and hardware, will have a payback time of 5 years in solar conditions slightly lower than average US conditions; using what they considered anticipated technology, that is optimistic but close to actual current tech (but still including hardware and installation) reduces it to about 14 months payback.
This doesn't take into account opportunity cost, as best I can tell.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Does everybody else here enjoy the delicious irony of this? This is the same organization that, for the past several centuries, have castigated and demonized the very groups of early scientists who laid the foundation for this technology to begin with?
Sure, renounce your science, at least until we can use it and claim we're doing what's right for the planet.
Behold, the power of fleas...
"This would only be a "significant financial win" if the money gained by selling electricity in a reasonable time frame (say, 15 years) not only covered the cost of the panels and their maintenance,"
[...]
There have no more electrical bills. They likely even get cleaner power than they are receiving now (less equipment expenditure). They get solid infrastructure. They get immunity from energy price flunctuations. They get to sell at market rates which outstrips conventional power sources.
It's a solid financial win and will save them money over the long haul. At current rates in the US, a rough estimate is that they are paid back in probably 25 years. Sounds bad, esp. considering the lack of interest the money would be making. However:
(a) energy prices are going up still, esp. electrical generation, and that's despite a general global recession; energy is shifting to non-carbon souces anyways, aka electricity
(b) energy demand will likely accelerate if any economic recovery comes about (and it will probably at least twice within a 25 year time frame)
(c) they are likely banking on the global warming aka big green money making tax machine payout that comes from carbon taxes
(a) and (b) would make them break even in roughly 15 years, even less. Solar lasts for decades, so anything beyond 15 years would cover the compounded interest lost from what you speculate as "safe" investments. If (c) occurs or the economic recovery turns to spur energy demand, they will make a lot of money.
All in all, sounds like a damn smart investment they are making--and they still help out with reducing carbon emissions, less pollution, press and advocacy, plus the aforementioned benefits to them noted in my first paragraph.
[...]
"but paid more than a safe investment."
Define safe investment. Most safe investments in the last 10 years have been shown not to be safe. Even those based on government bonds are subject to getting hammered if the government cannot meet it's other financial demands. The US and EU both have threats to them in the financial world, so I don't have a clue what you think is a sure bet out there or it's payout.
If anything, despite the current bust and that's only looking back in the short-term, real estate development which is land and structures are a good thing, and that's what they are doing (infrastructure).
"If this were the case, there would be capitalists all over the world assembling massive solar arrays for electricity production."
There are. Many of the oil/energy companies people badmouth have some of the largest setups. These companies are certainly comprised of and run by capitalists.
If you are referring to a very restrictive get rich quick club, those capitalists generally go for short-term payouts for the expenditures we are talking about. They are not interested in putting in billions to get a payout 2 decades later, as there are other things they can get a faster return on. One's expected lifetime or the expected payout usually rules such investment decisions. This is also why current regular folks like myself don't go as green as they'd like--$20k-$40k over 20 years or $2k a year for conventional sources.
Anyways, the point of this isn't to get into a debate about Kyoto, global warming, or the viability of solar and renewables (which they are), but to bring a counter point to your view--I think it's a smart risk.
This post brought to you by an agnostic non-religious conservative.
The Vatican listed pollution as one of seven "social" sins in an effort last year to update the cardinal vices that date to the 6th century.
Naw they didnt update it. All they did was increase the scope of greed.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
If this were the case, there would be capitalists all over the world assembling massive solar arrays for electricity production.
There are people doing precisely this throughout the world.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A caveat to the Vatican, they may find the Italian monopoly of the export market leads to some thin margins
I'll refer to TFA again, where it says "He said the Vatican will benefit from Italy's solar incentives that include requiring local utilities to buy sun power at above-market prices."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Trouble is, the peak power from a solar cell is in the summer - just the time when everybody's lightbulbs and central heating systems spend most of the time off,
And when the demand for AC is greatest.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Okay, so I have a stupid question about the price.
They are paying 500 million euros to get a 100 million watts power station.
So they are paying 5 euro per watt.
But when I pay for electricity I pay in kilowatt _hours_.
I pay about 17 cents per kWh, and I use 11.1 kWh per day.
So here's my question, does their 100 million watt power station produce 100 million watts every hour on the hour, or does it produce 100 million watts every year?
If I'm using on average 450 watthours per hour, and I could pay 5 euro per watthour to make that go away _forever_, it would pay for itself in a year or two.
What is wrong with this picture? If large organizations can build power plants with a 50-100% return on capital per year then screw ponzi schemes and Apple options, surely this is much better?
(Of course I'd still need to be hooked to the grid for peak/off peak efficiencies...?)
In the article they talk about a different vatican solar panel project which produces 300 kWh per year, and they say that is enough for 100 homes. Well, based on my figure of 11.1 kWh per day that is only enough for 27 homes (if it is 300 kWh per day). But if it is 300kWh per _hour_, and I use 450 per hour then that is enough for _666_ homes (maybe less if the 300 kWh is only during sunny daylight hours... is that where they get the 100 homes figure from???). On the other hand, if it really is 300 kWh per year, then that isn't even enough to run my _fridge_, which has a big red sticker on it saying it uses 488 kWh per year...
What about hydroelectric? Both are relatively green, and are economically viable.
Not really, neither are green nor economically viable. Wall Street will not pay for nuclear power without government subsidies. Nor is it green. First there's the mining for fuel, then the processing which uses a lot of energy, then the long term storage. As for hydro, darn I didn't find it but a UN study of dams concluded that they are not economically efficient in the long run. And environmentally they cause a lot of land to be submerged. In such anaerobic settings decaying plants produce methane which is more than 20 tymes more powerful as a greenhouse gas as CO2.
Also they don't have the problem of failing to generate electricity at night, or when there are too many clouds out, and can be used to generate the power grids base load.
There are other energy systems that can be used as well, such as wind. And for a baseload geothermal can be used.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I've been to church 'once or twice'. Which is how I know that: Revenge (Capitol Punishment), War Mongering (Kill the Terrorists!), Intolerance (Kill the Fags!), Greed (Cut assistance to impoverished families!) and the other trappings of the modern American conservative movement are at odds with a man who disavowed wealth, taught humility and generosity.
If we were to really follow in Christ's steps we would be a bunch of hippy communists who give up everything we have to serve those most in need.
There's a terrible irony that the conservative movement has attached itself to the most inhumane and socially unconsciounable platforms while simultaneously claiming some sort of divine ordination.
Can you see Jesus waterboarding terrorists? Can you see Jesus cutting health insurance for children? Can you see Jesus denying a group of people the right to marry and interfering in state affairs? Can you see Jesus lobbying Pilot to pass laws to exclude a group of people from Roman Life? Can you see Jesus suggesting that we shouldn't talk to enemies? Can you see Jesus advocating toxic dumping and pollution because it's "not financially vaible to be stewards of the earth?". Can you see Jesus mocking the environmental movement for wanting to protect his creation? Can you see Jesus mocking doves and calling them "silly spineless liberals". Can you see Jesus wanting to have anything to do with Rush Limbaugh? Can you see Jesus wanting anything to do with Sean Hannity?
The conservatives have claimed God in the US. But if there is a Jesus and Lord then he's got to be pissed with what they're doing with his supposed endorsement.
My bath ran dry today. I guess I better leave home and set up somewhere else.
Asia is not a country.
If there were ever a sign that Jesus was back I would think that sign would be water vanishing all over the world.
How many people do you know who wouldn't be asking Jesus to turn water into wine within the first 5 minutes of meeting him ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Growing up through the 70s and 80s, all I remember hearing about on the news Bangladesh is floods. It seems to have been flodding for ages. Flooded coastal areas seems like more of the same for them.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Is what the cost will go up to when the contractors (High Efficiency Light Ltd) suffer from a cost overrun.....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The first climate refugees? In the history of humans, or since people started paying all this attention?
I can't wait to put a badge on my computer that says "Powered by Jesus Juice"
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
The Catholic church is widely regarded to be the most wealthy organization in the world, by a long shot.
I really doubt this is true. While it is impossible to value some of the ancient treasures the Catholic church owns, most of them would only fetch in the millions at most.
I have seen estimates of Catholic worth at about $100 billion, well short of, for instance, the Chinese Treasury, which has reserves of more than one trillion dollars.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
Personally, I'm happy to see that money actually doing something other than contributing to opulence. I think they should be doing much more of this investment.
As someone else said, the majority of the 'wealth' of the Church is tied up in assets of low fungibility. Clergy and religious live on modest stipends (comparable or less than that of a postgraduate researcher). The reason for lavishly-decorated churches and vestments is to glorify God -- and often, the 'opulence' you describe is possible due to the donation by the laity of funds specifically for that purpose. Central episcopal funds seem to be very rarely used to do more than emergency remedial work on a church's structure -- charitable and missionary work appear to be a higher priority.
Pirate Party UK
Also realize that the Christian church grew out of the Jewish religion, where "spilling one's seed" or other non-procreative sexual acts were condemned, since that was not Yahweh's purpose for sex.
You're giving the church a bit to much credit here.
The purpose of sex is to make more followers, any activity which doesn't result in more worshipers is denounced.
be fruitful and multiply Gen. 1:28 - sounds like a mission statement to me.
Well in that case it has to be the biggest solar plant in the world !!!
Since the biggest one in the world is located in Portugal (hence in Europe) if the "holy one" is set to be the biggest one in Europe it will also be the biggest one in the world !
In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
Nature has a habit of throwing some curve balls at you. Many animals have sex for fun.
A friend's dog couldn't stop humping anything that moved, and I saw a documentary once where a cane toad was having sex with another toad that was squashed flat on a road.
Some life-forms also reproduce by means of cloning themselves. Does this mean that because asexual reproduction is "natural" that god won't have a problem with human cloning?
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
That amount of gold is a joke compared to the amount of Inca's gold that went to Spain's coffins.
Did you visit the "Gold Museum" at Lima - Peru?
That is just a tiny microscopic amount of the Inca's Empire gold.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
Peru's glaciars are melting very fast. I saw them first time 15 years ago, last time last year, and I can tell you THEY ARE ALMOST GONE.
Sorry for not posting pics (go to google images and search for "pastoruri glacier" if you want) but I get sad and depressed when I see them. We humans are so SO stupid.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
Uh.. the point of Mark 14:3-9 is not "wealth is bad", it's "Jesus deserves cool stuff".
It wasn't a choice between 'make money' vs 'help people' - it was 'make money to give to the poor' vs 'make Jesus smell pretty'.
"For it might have been sold [...] and have been given to the poor"
"For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always"
The NIV translation is a little clearer:
3While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5It could have been sold for more than a year's wages[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
6"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.
There are other passages that are anti-greed, but this isn't one of them. If anything, this passage would actually support spending lots of money on glorifying Jesus - for example, by spending lots of gold and silver to build crazy expensive buildings, when they could use that money to help the poor.
If there were ever a sign that Jesus was back I would think that sign would be water vanishing all over the world.
That's the sign of humans being irresponsible. BTW water is not vanishing, it is evaporating and will eventually fall over you.
Why do humans like to blame gods or supernatural powers for their own stupidity?
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
The Church teaches that sex and reproduction go hand in hand.
Your church teaches that because they are blind to see that the main consequence of sex in humans is a flood of endorphines (aka pleasure), not fertilization. Copulating for pleasure and fun has been documented and studied in other species as well
It's common for your church to teach believes that oppose to logic and science (remember Galileo?).
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it's because they're too stupid to know better ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Uhm... Having all your children survive and living more than 35 years is also 'unnatural'. And I'm not even speaking about surgery, dental care and airplanes.
The main reason to deny sex is control. Pure and simple.
"No, but there is a passage that explicitly states "go forth and multiply,"
it was very badly interpreted, they actually meant "fuck off"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Out with the old religion, in with the new?
The Catholic Church doesn't leverage damnation against its followers for financial contributions. You might be thinking of fundamentalist roadshow evangelists, or the IRS.
"May Ra be with us." Should we start listening this in the end of the catholic cerimonies ?
Just because a practice or belief is held for religious reasons does not make it right, justified, or even harmless.
Tradition and doctrine do not cut it as tools to manage your civilization in the face a of rapidly changing environmental, sociological and technological landscape. Worse, they get used as a special pass to justify the continuance of practices that would otherwise be considered wasteful, foolish or even barbaric.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it's because they're too stupid to know better ?
It also allows them to claim it's not their fault - "It was like that when I found it Dad"
That was supposed to be "Thoughts from England"
For a good take on the subject of church and sex and the people in between, read the funny (and eye-opening) novel by David Lodge: How Far Can You Go?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
The purpose of eating is to gain energy from food. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as food fights, diets, giving up chocolate for Lent, and pictures made from pasta shapes.
Ah, but I forget, religious logic only applies to those things they decide it should apply to, right?
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
"There's an Oasis in Egypt that's drying up. (Siwa? Can't remember exactly) Once it's gone, all the people living there will either have to move or die."
So they adapt or croak. If a place becomes untenable, sentiment should go out the window/tent flap/whatever.
People have a habit of living in areas that are marginal at best and spewing out lots of offspring to ensure both family survival and low quality of life. If they get displaced, that's their problem.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Given that the church was funding research into heliocentrism and Galileo's problems came from insulting comments he made about the Pope, the question is: how well do you remember Galileo?
I don't see in the article any indication as to how the Vatican plans to capitalize the project. I sincerely hope that the suggestion is not that they actually have access to $660M dollars from their own coffers, whilst around the world there are to found impoverished Catholics who regularly donate to the collection plate yet don't have shoes on their feet or food in their bellies.
I also don't see any suggestion of who will be the beneficiary of any profit that is generated by the Vatican exporting energy.
For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being
You mean a Homunculus?
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
Have you ever tried to walk 72 miles in a day? Even back in my infantry days I would have called you nuts.
One mile every 20 minutes (one km every 12 min for most of you) is actually quite brisk, and pretty fatiguing over 2 or 3 hours, let alone 24. Factor in time to eat, drink, change socks, cover blisters, relieve your self, etc, and you are looking at having to run-walk to keep that kind of pace.
While actual athletes may be able to do more, I would put the absolute limit for a fit person at around 40 miles in 24 hours if the person must carry nothing, the weather is neither too hot nor too cold and the person is very motivated. A fit person could comfortably walk around 18 miles in a day, and 12 miles per day at a sustained rate.
For the overwhelming majority of humanity (with the possible exceptions of Kenyans...) 72 miles in a 24 hour period is simply not possible.
In the case at hand, the site is 27 kilometers (a little more than 18 miles) from the Vatican.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
This massive 100 megawatt photovoltaic installation will provide enough energy to make the Vatican the first solar powered nation state in the world!
ALL our energy sources for most of mankinds' existence have been either direct or indirectly derived from the sun. The only arguable exceptions would be nuclear (derived from the heavy elements of OTHER suns collapse and explosion) and tidal (the moon).
popes required so much electricity!
or for that matter money, private jets, custom limousines, and radio stations...but you know what they say...dont question the pope!!!
Good people go to bed earlier.
Vatican is not a nation state, because it does not represent any nation. It is a city state (like Monaco).
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being, which was just housed by the woman until birth, and so prevention of conception was tantamount to killing an unborn person, which is murder.
So can I sue BangBros and Kleenex for accesory to murder?
Therefore, things that are "unnatural", or break the laws of nature, are evil.
That's why you never see Catholics jumping out of tall buildings and falling up...
But what will they do for power when the sun goes around to the other side of the earth for the night?
Personally, I'm happy to see them put it to work a bit, especially after seeing the Cuzco Church of Santo Domingo literally COVERED in gold and silver and the royal grandeur that is Saint Peter's Square. Add together the rest of the real estate, hard assets, art, donations, low cost of labor, etc, etc and you have a truly mighty organization that can do a lot more than it is. I swear, I saw both Cuzco and the Vatican years ago, and the wealth still boggles my mind.
And what is the upkeep on all of that? While all of this sounds opulent, it's not like they can sell it for a profit.
Similarly for any works of art that the Vatican can own: it'd be like selling the Mona Lisa. At best they put the stuff into galleries and museums and hope that the entrance fee offsets their costs.
The Vatican city state publicly publishes their budget every year, and their budget is about US$ 400M. They ran a deficit over the last two years.
Galileo's problems came from insulting comments he made about the Pope
Actually, Galileo was commissioned by the pope at the time (Pope Urban VIII) to write a book detailing both sides of the argument for and against heliocentrism. Galileo was instructed to make it unbiased but made the character Simplicio (who was in support of Geocentrism) seem foolish in his arguments. The pope (who clearly must have supported geocentrism) was offended by this and thought that it was a personal attack made by Galileo. This is widely accepted by modern historians to not have been Galileo's intentions.
And then, in a truly revealing act by the church, the publication of Galileo's book supporting heliocentrism was banned, along with all of his past and potential future works.
After all of this happened in 1633, Galileo died in 1642. He was denied burial with the rest of his family (at the order of the same Pope who opposed him) and this was maintained until 1737, almost 100 years later when they moved his body to a new site near his ancestors.
In all it wasn't until 1758 before books supporting heliocentrism were removed from the index of banned books (although Galileo's book remained banned) and not until 1835 before Galileo's book was removed from the index (along with all others advocating heliocentrism).
This clearly shows that the church opposed scientific advancement for over 200 years, using censorship and supression to repress an idea that had been suggested since the 4th century BC (by Ancient Greeks, but possibly earlier too).
1178161 is prime...
If this were the case, there would be capitalists all over the world assembling massive solar arrays for electricity production.
*coughs*
No, suppose there aren't any companies like that that you can invest in that go around and build massive solar arrays for clients.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Marketing.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Parent is not a troll, just someone you disagree with.
The best solution, therefore, is to start killing from the richest down until we reach our target of untold millions. As a bonus, the poorest will probably die on their own anyways.
Apparently you haven't heard of the previous Pope's Theology of the Body. In it he elevates shared sexual pleasure between a married couple to a worthy end in and of itself, basically a mutual expression of love. Also his first book on this theology was published in the 1950's and after becoming Pope he spent hundreds of his Wednesday audiences on the subject. So obviously Pope John Paul II belived that there was more to sex than procreation at about the time the Sexual Revolution in the rest of the world, and that belief apparently didn't limit his career in the Church hierarchy.
Siwa Oasis?
Back in my day, we just pumped water from one end of the oasis to another.
The germans would put up a heck of a fight though, at the tunnel exits.
Thanks, Wolf:ET...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Excuse me, but 100 MW is a pretty small power plant. You'd need 20 of them to replace ONE typical (2 gig or so) coal or nuclear plant.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
The Vatican gouges around 1 Billion Euros from the Italian Taxpayer funding per annum. Basically they skim the best part of 0.8% of the taxpayers returns through a bizarre formula ("otto per mille" = 8 per 1000). What doesn't get spent on new Churches gets spent on advertising. Basically 600 Million is chump change to the Vatican.
This deserves an "Insightful" mod, but depending on which Slashdot faction has the most points today it could just as easily get "Troll".
When it's opulence in the Lord's name, it's alright. Remember the story of the woman washing Jesus' feet with expensive oil, and Judas saying they should sell the oil and give the money to the poor.
Jesus' response was: "You shall always have the poor, but you shall not always have me."
By the same token, the church does its best to help others and be Good Samaritans, but in the end it promotes the glory of God as best it can. And if its best is through riches and extravagance, so be it.
Yes, in the southern US AC is in more demand than heating. When I lived in Florida AC was typically on longer than heating. People would keep it on 4 to 6 months but only have heating on 2 or 3.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Also realize that the "spilling one's seed" quote was in the context of coitus interruptus.
A fairly common interpretation of that story is that Onan was killed because he refused to fulfill his obligation to give his brother an heir, having nothing to do with the "spilling his seed" part.
Or that it did have something to do with the "spilling his seed" part, in the sense that he refused to fulfill his obligation to give his brother an heir, but he was willing to fuck his brother's wife for his own pleasure.
I can easily see that as being considered especially wicked, without it being a general condemnation of sex-without-procreation.
The enemies of Democracy are
That's one argument. Here's another:
For a Christian who believes in the Trinity, the Trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God) is the perfect family. The Father is so powerful that his intellect is the Son, and the Father and Son's love for one another is the Holy Spirit. This is what the Bible is talking about when it says "God is love," that the existence of the Trinity is based on a creative Love, without which, God wouldn't exist.
Human sexual relations are designed to be imitative of the procreative love that is God, in order that humanity might learn about God by understanding human sexuality. All non-procreative acts are a violation of this design. Masturbation, homosexual sex, and contraceptive sex are all prohibited as violations of this design.
The commandment against adultery makes other potentially procreative acts illicit, namely adultery, fornication, and threesomes which is just a more sophisticated form of adultery or fornication.
The Pope has been reading Mary Shelley and has figured out a surefire way to bring Jesus back.
How can that be?
Miller-McCune.com writer Tom Jacobs posts a story about how the world's various religious traditions may speak of respect for and stewardship of nature, but the current ecological plight suggests the message may need some reinforcement as it moves from pulpit to pew. Check it out here: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture_society/religions-to-worship-ecologically-1157
As you yourself have said, the Pope thought it was a personal attack. Whether it was or not, it was at least perceived to be, so it becomes difficult to argue that the action was taken purely on the basis of an opinion on science. If heliocentrism was the root problem, surely action would have been taken earlier? The fact that it wasn't taken until the insult makes it rather likely that heliocentrism wasn't the issue. And before you blame it all on 'church' remember that there were plenty of Christians outside the Roman Catholic church and there were plenty within who supported heliocentrism. Really the issue here was one Pope, whose influence lasted longer than it should have because of the authority structures and weight of tradition within the RC church.
Of course, even if it was true that the Christian church as a whole opposed heliocentrism for a period of time, that says nect to nothing about whether the church (I'm not sure if it original comment was addressed against the RCs, or all Christians) commonly teaches things that are opposed to logic and science. One debatable historical incident is not proof of continuing, widespread action or attitude, otherwise I could say that Americans commonly try to assassinate their president.
Yes. Thank you.
In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
Nature has a habit of throwing some curve balls at you. Many animals have sex for fun.
A friend's dog couldn't stop humping anything that moved, and I saw a documentary once where a cane toad was having sex with another toad that was squashed flat on a road.
Nice devil's advocate. This is exactly the sort of thing that has been used to move away from procreation-centered sex. Another is a discussion about couples that are infertile for one reason or another, the most common being menopause.
Some life-forms also reproduce by means of cloning themselves. Does this mean that because asexual reproduction is "natural" that god won't have a problem with human cloning?
Now back at you: those life forms naturally reproduce that way. Humans don't. Thus, cloning, in vitro fertilization, and other medically assisted means are unnatural, and so evil.
Uhm... Having all your children survive and living more than 35 years is also 'unnatural'. And I'm not even speaking about surgery, dental care and airplanes.
Arguable both ways.
The main reason to deny sex is control. Pure and simple.
It is not simple. I suggest you go out and read up on the Catholic church's position, the history of various denomination's stances, and natural law. You will find some pretty interesting ideas and arguments out there, even if wrong. They are not to be dismissed so lightly.
"Arguable both ways."
How? Average lifetime of a caveman (you can't get more 'natural' than that) was about 30 years. With horrible child mortality.
That's NATURAL.
"It is not simple. I suggest you go out and read up on the Catholic church's position, the history of various denomination's stances, and natural law. You will find some pretty interesting ideas and arguments out there, even if wrong. They are not to be dismissed so lightly."
I've read tons of literature on history (including Christian history). Frankly, the more I read - the more I despise all religions.
And controlling sex desires is one of the ultimate control methods.
2) In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
The purpose of eating is to gain energy from food. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as food fights, diets, giving up chocolate for Lent, and pictures made from pasta shapes.
Ah, but I forget, religious logic only applies to those things they decide it should apply to, right?
This is actually quite interesting, for this argument is brought up in regards to natural law frequently.
What is the purpose of eating? Is it to gain energy? Or is it to maintain the body? I would argue the second is closer (without saying that it is correct). The second includes gaining calories needed to survive, but also gaining nutrients to grow needed organs, and in general to provide the appropriate grist to run a body.
Going with this, diets are quite natural, as they are an attempt to provide the body with a better intake. Overeating (gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins) is rather harmful to the body, and proponents of natural law argue that it is evil on that basis alone, regardless of all the other possible reasons.
Giving up chocolate is less interesting, as that is a tool to remind oneself of God and to increase reflection and to center oneself blah blah blah (I do not want to get into this). However, the opposite, the eating of sweets, is more interesting. Some argue that it is wrong, as sweets are not nutritional. Here, you have the consumption of food that does not further the purpose of eating, but rather occurs for pleasure only. This leads some to argue that sweets are evil. Others say that sweets are nutritional (they add calories) in moderation, and that therefore it is okay.
Pasta shapes also goes along with sweets. Here, with or without the shape, the food provides sustenance. Adding the shape does not change the primary reason for eating, but instead just makes it more pleasant. The shape does not cause the food to be unused by the body.
Finally, food fights. Here, we are using food for something not for providing for the body. All of the above does not interfere with the purpose of eating, but this arguably could. However, the possible sin is the wasting of food, rather than interfering with the purpose of eating, as no eating is happening here, and so the purpose of eating is not thwarted (as opposed to the eating itself, see "wasting of food").
Perhaps you will allow me to take something like orlistat. This is a substance, taken in a pill, where a large portion of the fat in eaten food is not absorbed into the body. In this case, you actually have eating occurring, but the food is not being used for its purpose (in its entirety), but instead the food is being used to make the person feel full, which is not the purpose of eating, but merely a side effect. According to this argument, orlistat is "unnatural". A counter to this is that it is simply another medical intervention, which for some reason is considered natural, outside of the Christian Scientists.
Another example is where people eat and then (deliberately) throw up. This is a very direct parallel to non-procreative sex. One eats for the feelings of eating, and then throws up so no sustenance is gains, which is a very direct thwarting of nature. This has been argued as evil, since it is unnatural.
I believe that you fail to see the depth behind the natural law argument. Many people do, even ones that have deep understandings of similar ideas. However, just because you do not agree or believe does not mean you should ridicule.
"Arguable both ways."
How? Average lifetime of a caveman (you can't get more 'natural' than that) was about 30 years. With horrible child mortality.
That's NATURAL.
Is it? What is the natural habitat for a modern human (not a caveman)? A couple of times, children have been found that have grown up without contact with any humans or human society, and those children are far from what I would call normal. As a result, it can be strongly argued that for modern humans, a natural setting is one in which they grow up in a human society, and so having access to everything that society provides is "natural". This post does not give justice to the argument; I suggest "A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality" for a well thought out, though very dense, exposition.
"It is not simple. I suggest you go out and read up on the Catholic church's position, the history of various denomination's stances, and natural law. You will find some pretty interesting ideas and arguments out there, even if wrong. They are not to be dismissed so lightly."
I've read tons of literature on history (including Christian history). Frankly, the more I read - the more I despise all religions.
And controlling sex desires is one of the ultimate control methods.
I don't think you have read what I am talking about. For natural law, I mean people that have written on it (like the aforementioned book). For history, I mean not what the Church* has done (like the crusades), but what the Church debated about (like natural law, birth control, women leadership, and homosexuality)**, and the reasons for stances and how those stances were changed. When looking at religions from the point of view of the most egregious (and most visible) offenses, religion does look pretty bad, but when looking at it from the point of view of the intellectual debate and social development, religion is not so bad. Do you know why we have public hospitals?
* The Church, capitalized, indicates the entire Christian community, across denominations, including those that may not even "attend church". It does not only indicate Roman Catholics. Originally, people spoke of the "catholic church" (lowercase "c") to mean this, as catholic means universal, but now that is usually misunderstood to mean the Roman Catholic church. How that for interesting?
** If you think that there is not a variety of thoughtful, well-argued positions, spread across denominations and within them, you are sorely mistaken. Just because a very visible minority is stupid, does not mean the quieter majority is stupid too.
"Is it? What is the natural habitat for a modern human (not a caveman)? A couple of times, children have been found that have grown up without contact with any humans or human society, and those children are far from what I would call normal. As a result, it can be strongly argued that for modern humans, a natural setting is one in which they grow up in a human society, and so having access to everything that society provides is "natural"."
Cavemen also had a society. As did Ancient Greeks, Mayans, Romans, African tribes. Which society should we consider 'natural' since they are quite different?
That's why the argument "because it's [not] natural" is worthless. It can be used to justify just about anything.
"When looking at religions from the point of view of the most egregious (and most visible) offenses, religion does look pretty bad, but when looking at it from the point of view of the intellectual debate and social development, religion is not so bad."
Nope. From the point of social development Church is even worse. Christianity (or Christian Church to be precise) is the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity. (hint: Medieval Europe)
"Do you know why we have public hospitals?"
Because church has not managed to kill medicine? Or maybe because humans are compassionate? Or maybe because it's advantageous for the society as a whole to help poor people?
Religions are run by people and become institutions. Of course institutions will make mythologies that say "Give your money to us, for we shall take you to heaven!"
Nothing to see here, please move along!
You sound like a rather die-hard cynic, and not terribly willing to be see the grey in situations. As such, I don't have too much to say. Except, first I note that western hospitals grew out of the Christian care doctrine in the Roman Empire, and second, you would be very surprised at the number of things you take for granted which came about from religious sources.
Good day.
Actually, no.
Public hospitals were first 'invented' in Greece and Rome (before the Christianity). Nothing unusual here, capability for compassion is a trait of human psychology. Though Christianity later did advance healthcare.
And then Christian Church had halted almost all advances in medicine for a thousand years.
"And second, you would be very surprised at the number of things you take for granted which came about from religious sources."
So what? Food I'm eating was grown in a manure-fertilized field.
I'll even argue that creationism and religion were quite good hypotheses three hundred years ago. Now we don't need them.
A 500W panel produces 500W continuously when in full sunlight. It thus produces 500 Watt-hours every hour. A 100 MW plant produces 100MWh / hour. If you think of a watt-hour as just being multiplication of two units, it all makes sense---the "hour" part cancels out when you look at it "per hour", so 100 MW*hour/hour = 100 MW.
So a 100MW plant might, for example produce maybe 400-500 MWh of power per day assuming the equivalent of 4-5 full sun hours at that location, or 146-182.5 GWh per year.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Bwwwaaaahahahahah. Ahem. I mean [Citation needed]. What makes you think that the majority of the revenue the Catholic church receives goes on humanitarian projects? Do you think a solid gold altar buys itself?