You don't have to ban antibiotics entirely. You should definitely avoid using them recklessly or incorrectly. Perhaps you recall that once you start taking antibiotics, you are supposed to take them all. If you take a few and then stop, you risk worsening your infection -- i.e., just make the infection mad.
Your point about weeds evolving also ignores one problem: Is it a good thing that the weed becomes extinct? Suppose that has a ripple effect on some other species? No species lives in a vacuum. Extinction does happen, you know.
Investing in genetic research does sound like a very good idea, but letting hack scientists tinker with DNA, modify plants, and introduce them into the food chain does not sound like a very good idea. There's a difference between a first-class, ethical scientist and a profit-motivated hack engineer working for Big Aggro. The problem is complex and deserves serious thought.
To constrain the discussion to the direct effect of GMO on human health is myopic. One must also consider the other ecosystems that might be affected. Ever heard of the food chain? When the pests can't eat, the pest-eaters can't eat, and the pest-eater-eaters can't eat, etc. There's also the influence that GMO patents have on small aggro. You can ignore all the human health issues and still find reasons to worry about the impact of GMO.
I think that analogous concept you might be looking for is DDT. It was originally a godsend -- it kills pests! The problem is that it also collapsed entire ecosystem (animals that ate pests, animals that ate those animals, etc.). The analogy works IMHO because it was developed by the Chemical industry (analagous to big aggro) and it provided relief from pests and the harm it caused was not immediately clear. NOTE: I am not suggesting that GMO is inherently bad. I merely mean to point out that new tech and new toys can have unintended consequences that are not immediately evident. Perhaps more importantly, the unintended consquences might not have any immediate relation to nourishment, allergies, digestibility, or human health.
In the GMO discussion, people love to bicker over bullshit like allergies, tumors, "noble" causes, etc. People do not talk as much about the insidious influence of profit motive over one's ethics. Or sensitive nonlinear dependencies between crops and adjacent ecosystems. What happens when the pests can't eat? Will our bird population leave or die out? I have heard some talk about how big aggro funds a lot of the GMO research which influences opinions. In my reckoning, this is even more direct and troublesome than big oil funding environmental studies.
Additionally, policymakers -- like those in Hawaii amply illustrated by this article -- have no knowledge of what is going on. Regulators (does a GMO seed need FDA approval to be planted? How do we insure crop isolation?) don't know anything either and can hardly make effective regulations. People also ignore that disaster scenarios, which might be EXTREMELY unlikely, must nevertheless be contemplated because when you have a disaster HELLO IT'S A FUCKING DISASTER DUMMIES.
I for one don't buy the argument that the world needs more food to support a growing population. There are more than enough people in the world. I for one would rather see fewer suburbs, shack villages, and shanty towns, and more wilderness in the world. While I question the wisdom of Hawaii's move, I treasure the idea that Hawaii might remain pure, pristine, and full of naive hippies.
I agree. I also wouldn't equate opposition to GMO with opposition to science. It is precisely that kind of oversimplification that impedes helpful discourse on the topic.
Yes it's definitely a good idea to cover one's ass, but curing a problem is a lot harder than preventing one. If it were me, I would go get the access logs (like SSH logs and apache logs) and point out all of the bruce hack attempts that are likely to be in there. E.g., brute forced ssh login attempts, SQL injection attempts, etc. I would then say to boss-man: "THESE ARE HACK ATTEMPTS and they will ultimately succeed and I want to fix them. If you don't let me fix them, you will have to take the blame."
I do think that it is reasonable to draw attention to security problems even if it does step on some toes. Putting marketing folks in charge of code development is particularly infuriating to me as a developer. Rat those hacks out.
As for your boss, I'd give her/him a few chances to fix and then go around. I believe it was Gen. George S. Patton that claimed he would always shift his loyalties to whoever was highest up the food chain once he made contact with them. It's a bit cutthroat, but sometimes called for if someone is doing the wrong thing.
I'd be willing to bet that GE or Westinghouse or some of the many companies that are in the nuclear sector might be willing to chip in the cost for such a video. How hard could it be? An artist to draw some cute drawings on a whiteboard. A friendly-sounding narrator. Some time-lapse photography. A few ads to encourage viral popularity. All you'd have to do is write a five-minute script and get maybe $10k for a high-quality production.
Your case is extremely well-put and I appreciate you taking time to re-state your case to me, especially given that you've already spent a good amount of time stating it elsewhere. Consider me (mostly) converted to your point of view. I expect that energy diversity is a good thing and I'll always prefer solar/wind/tidal and energy efficiency in some philosophical way. I can also see the frustration that would come from seeing such substantial investment (and waste) in competing technologies if you are convinced that there is a better way that is not getting a fair shake.
Seems to me LFTR needs a proper PR campaign. The thorium remix vid is certainly a good start, but it's over two hours long and jumps right in with both feet and quickly surpasses the intellectual capacity of 99.9999% of the world's population. Might I suggest one of those whiteboard-and-voiceover videos like the ones produced by RSA Animate? If you can cram a synopsis of your views into a video under five minutes long, I'd be willing to bet you could achieve a much bigger change in public opinion.
I'm not going to deny that nuclear has a tremendous ability to scale up. I know it can! That's a moot point which totally overlooks the fact that our energy consumption presents a problem. It's an exponential graph which portends certain disaster if the pattern continues much longer.
So what happens when we scale up nuclear power generation to chase this exponential growth? You've conveniently omitted the problem of disposing with nuclear waste. Your typical traditional nuclear power plant generates 20 metric tons of used fuel each year. In 40 years, we've generated about 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste which is going to remain hazardous for thousands of years. Should we send it to Mongolia or let the Mafia dump it in the ocean? I am glad that you will volunteer to let us put it in your region, wherever that may be. I don't want it.
Oh, are you talking about thorium reactors? I think a lot of your arguments against renewables (too expensive, too much research required, not feasible, blah blah blah) would also apply to this technology. Doubt my opinion? Perhaps you'd like to refer to the report from the Union of Atomic Scientists entitled "Thorium: Not a near-term commercial nuclear fuel." You have to admit that at this point commercially viable thorium-generated power is vapor ware. Furthermore, it also generates nasty waste, although less nasty than traditional nuclear. Personally, I'd like to see such research money spent on advanced energy storage and efficiency technology instead.
There are a lot of aging, crappy nuclear plants because politicians chicken out the minute people like you embrace FUD
How do you figure? The way I see it is that there are a lot of crappy nuclear plants out there because our ancestors were short-sighted enough to build them. And now the task of cleaning up the mess, which was never factored into the cost of the electricity they generated, is left to us. I'm happy France is exporting something besides their delicious wine and cheese and noxious sentimentality, but I expect their waste will end up somewhere that is not France.
And, well, there is the usual FUD which "people like me" embrace. It's a self-evident fact that nuclear power has associated risks and that history has shown that these risks occasionally result in catastrophe. I'm no actuary so I can't put odds to it, but there are certain similarities between SoCal and Fukushima: old coastal powerplant with creaky design, on a fault line, etc. I'd rather pay a little extra for my energy so I don't have to die of radiation sickness or see my property rendered worthless by a disaster that could have been easily averted.
But the math on this one isn't even close...The sun just ain't hot enough for long enough.
You no doubt think I'm a knee-jerk partisan relying on wishful thinking and flimsy data. I certainly think you're a knee jerk partisan (and pessimist) relying on wishful thinking and flimsy data. I personally would support spending on research on thorium reactors. I'd much prefer fusion (not likely very soon and already pretty well funded) and would pref
I like your post, it does provide some clarity, I would point out that 'progressive' has a decidedly benign connotation whereas someone who is a staunch conservative might prefer to label his nemesis with the word 'radical' and its pejorative implications. Likewise, a benign word for anti-liberal social policy might be 'traditional' or perhaps 'careful.'
My interpretation of our German friend's statement is that the status quo in Germany is one of fairly liberal social policies (or claims to be) and that the rabble-rousing folks angling for change might be seeking technological advancement at the expense of the traditional franchises. I'm sort of imagining a version of the United States with more powerful unions profitably jacked into traditional industries like manufacturing and old-school energy production.
We import about twice as much as we export and consume about 22% of the world's petroleum: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6
Given that we constitute about 5% of the world's population, this obviously represents a problem
From where I stand (southern california, originally from mid-south), there is plenty of sun and nuclear SUCKS. The San Onofre power plant is really old and was recently shut down due to excessive wear on certain parts. This aging, crappy power plant is practically sitting on a fault line. It's Fukushima waiting to happen and over 8 million people live within 50 miles of it.
As a key component of energy policy for the United States, it is not and has never been practical compared to wind or nuclear power.
This statement would carry a lot more weight if you cited anything resembling a study, statistic or fact. As stated, it's nothing more than an unsupported opinion.
If you're concerned about global warming from burning fossil fuels, the only choice at the moment that satisfies all the requirements of most first world country's energy policy is nuclear. Nothing else comes close.
Here is another unsupported but ardently expressed opinion.
Totally. And then everyone will be trying to point the finger at whatever jackass caused our manufacturing industry to miss the wave of renewable energy manufacturing.
Armchair economist, much? Without *somebody* subsidizing new forms of energy development, we'd still be heating our homes and cooking with wood. Every new energy paradigm finds its footing because some entity invested money in developing the technology. Nuclear energy comes to mind. And you also fail to acknowledge that we pay enormous amounts of money to project our military might to protect shipping lanes to oil-producing regions and that we have played politics for 100 years to insure that oil flows. You can deny it until you are blue in the face, but this does amount to a subsidy.
I'd also argue that a direct government subsidy into advanced energy generation and storage will ultimately yield vast societal benefit that might otherwise never be realized if we rely on only markets. The fact is that pretty much all of our advanced technology and shared infrastructure (computers, space travel, aviation, telecommunications, interstate highway system) has its genesis in government spending. Sadly, this government spending is only ever triggered by the prospect or actuality of warfare. It would be nice if we could motivate ourselves with something other than conflict for a change.
Because every single traditional power source is also heavily subsidized. It's only fair. Plus, we should be encouraging solar over other sources for a host of reasons, namely environment impact and better grid resistance to failures.
People always forget to mention the geopolitical and economic reasons for using solar. Because it is domestically produced, it reduces our trade deficit, half of which is due to petroleum imports. We also don't end up putting money in the pockets of such lovely foreign countries as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc. Yes, yes, yes I know we get most of our petrol from Canada, but the fact that we consume about a quarter of the world's petrol keeps prices high on the international market.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to ban antibiotics entirely. You should definitely avoid using them recklessly or incorrectly. Perhaps you recall that once you start taking antibiotics, you are supposed to take them all. If you take a few and then stop, you risk worsening your infection -- i.e., just make the infection mad.
Your point about weeds evolving also ignores one problem: Is it a good thing that the weed becomes extinct? Suppose that has a ripple effect on some other species? No species lives in a vacuum. Extinction does happen, you know.
Investing in genetic research does sound like a very good idea, but letting hack scientists tinker with DNA, modify plants, and introduce them into the food chain does not sound like a very good idea. There's a difference between a first-class, ethical scientist and a profit-motivated hack engineer working for Big Aggro. The problem is complex and deserves serious thought.
To constrain the discussion to the direct effect of GMO on human health is myopic. One must also consider the other ecosystems that might be affected. Ever heard of the food chain? When the pests can't eat, the pest-eaters can't eat, and the pest-eater-eaters can't eat, etc. There's also the influence that GMO patents have on small aggro. You can ignore all the human health issues and still find reasons to worry about the impact of GMO.
I think that analogous concept you might be looking for is DDT. It was originally a godsend -- it kills pests! The problem is that it also collapsed entire ecosystem (animals that ate pests, animals that ate those animals, etc.). The analogy works IMHO because it was developed by the Chemical industry (analagous to big aggro) and it provided relief from pests and the harm it caused was not immediately clear. NOTE: I am not suggesting that GMO is inherently bad. I merely mean to point out that new tech and new toys can have unintended consequences that are not immediately evident. Perhaps more importantly, the unintended consquences might not have any immediate relation to nourishment, allergies, digestibility, or human health.
In the GMO discussion, people love to bicker over bullshit like allergies, tumors, "noble" causes, etc. People do not talk as much about the insidious influence of profit motive over one's ethics. Or sensitive nonlinear dependencies between crops and adjacent ecosystems. What happens when the pests can't eat? Will our bird population leave or die out? I have heard some talk about how big aggro funds a lot of the GMO research which influences opinions. In my reckoning, this is even more direct and troublesome than big oil funding environmental studies.
Additionally, policymakers -- like those in Hawaii amply illustrated by this article -- have no knowledge of what is going on. Regulators (does a GMO seed need FDA approval to be planted? How do we insure crop isolation?) don't know anything either and can hardly make effective regulations. People also ignore that disaster scenarios, which might be EXTREMELY unlikely, must nevertheless be contemplated because when you have a disaster HELLO IT'S A FUCKING DISASTER DUMMIES.
I for one don't buy the argument that the world needs more food to support a growing population. There are more than enough people in the world. I for one would rather see fewer suburbs, shack villages, and shanty towns, and more wilderness in the world. While I question the wisdom of Hawaii's move, I treasure the idea that Hawaii might remain pure, pristine, and full of naive hippies.
I agree. I also wouldn't equate opposition to GMO with opposition to science. It is precisely that kind of oversimplification that impedes helpful discourse on the topic.
I would imagine a good boss would appreciate a heads up. On the other hand, I'm self employed and have been for more than fifteen years.
Yes it's definitely a good idea to cover one's ass, but curing a problem is a lot harder than preventing one. If it were me, I would go get the access logs (like SSH logs and apache logs) and point out all of the bruce hack attempts that are likely to be in there. E.g., brute forced ssh login attempts, SQL injection attempts, etc. I would then say to boss-man: "THESE ARE HACK ATTEMPTS and they will ultimately succeed and I want to fix them. If you don't let me fix them, you will have to take the blame." I do think that it is reasonable to draw attention to security problems even if it does step on some toes. Putting marketing folks in charge of code development is particularly infuriating to me as a developer. Rat those hacks out. As for your boss, I'd give her/him a few chances to fix and then go around. I believe it was Gen. George S. Patton that claimed he would always shift his loyalties to whoever was highest up the food chain once he made contact with them. It's a bit cutthroat, but sometimes called for if someone is doing the wrong thing.
I'd be willing to bet that GE or Westinghouse or some of the many companies that are in the nuclear sector might be willing to chip in the cost for such a video. How hard could it be? An artist to draw some cute drawings on a whiteboard. A friendly-sounding narrator. Some time-lapse photography. A few ads to encourage viral popularity. All you'd have to do is write a five-minute script and get maybe $10k for a high-quality production.
Agreed with M. Mead quote. You might also find a few lessons in From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation. While the book is about fomenting a movement (e.g., a revolution), there are some powerful ideas about how to change minds.
All production subsidies are bad.
That would be truth by assertion, wouldn't it?
Truth by assertion and ad hominem responses are fallacies you should avoid in your arguments.
Attacking my argument style is certainly a bit ad hominem, isn't it?
Your case is extremely well-put and I appreciate you taking time to re-state your case to me, especially given that you've already spent a good amount of time stating it elsewhere. Consider me (mostly) converted to your point of view. I expect that energy diversity is a good thing and I'll always prefer solar/wind/tidal and energy efficiency in some philosophical way. I can also see the frustration that would come from seeing such substantial investment (and waste) in competing technologies if you are convinced that there is a better way that is not getting a fair shake.
Seems to me LFTR needs a proper PR campaign. The thorium remix vid is certainly a good start, but it's over two hours long and jumps right in with both feet and quickly surpasses the intellectual capacity of 99.9999% of the world's population. Might I suggest one of those whiteboard-and-voiceover videos like the ones produced by RSA Animate? If you can cram a synopsis of your views into a video under five minutes long, I'd be willing to bet you could achieve a much bigger change in public opinion.
So what happens when we scale up nuclear power generation to chase this exponential growth? You've conveniently omitted the problem of disposing with nuclear waste. Your typical traditional nuclear power plant generates 20 metric tons of used fuel each year. In 40 years, we've generated about 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste which is going to remain hazardous for thousands of years. Should we send it to Mongolia or let the Mafia dump it in the ocean? I am glad that you will volunteer to let us put it in your region, wherever that may be. I don't want it.
Oh, are you talking about thorium reactors? I think a lot of your arguments against renewables (too expensive, too much research required, not feasible, blah blah blah) would also apply to this technology. Doubt my opinion? Perhaps you'd like to refer to the report from the Union of Atomic Scientists entitled "Thorium: Not a near-term commercial nuclear fuel." You have to admit that at this point commercially viable thorium-generated power is vapor ware. Furthermore, it also generates nasty waste, although less nasty than traditional nuclear. Personally, I'd like to see such research money spent on advanced energy storage and efficiency technology instead.
There are a lot of aging, crappy nuclear plants because politicians chicken out the minute people like you embrace FUD
How do you figure? The way I see it is that there are a lot of crappy nuclear plants out there because our ancestors were short-sighted enough to build them. And now the task of cleaning up the mess, which was never factored into the cost of the electricity they generated, is left to us. I'm happy France is exporting something besides their delicious wine and cheese and noxious sentimentality, but I expect their waste will end up somewhere that is not France.
And, well, there is the usual FUD which "people like me" embrace. It's a self-evident fact that nuclear power has associated risks and that history has shown that these risks occasionally result in catastrophe. I'm no actuary so I can't put odds to it, but there are certain similarities between SoCal and Fukushima: old coastal powerplant with creaky design, on a fault line, etc. I'd rather pay a little extra for my energy so I don't have to die of radiation sickness or see my property rendered worthless by a disaster that could have been easily averted.
But the math on this one isn't even close...The sun just ain't hot enough for long enough.
What math are you referring to (your article is TL;DR)? Do you mean the math that shows a rapid decline in the cost of PV systems and a dramatic increase in installations of 60% globally? Or the The math Steve Chu used to predict that renewable energy will be cost-competitive within 10 years? As for the second statement, the current insolation of the earth at the ground is about 7 times total power consumption -- to say nothing of wind or tidal power.
You no doubt think I'm a knee-jerk partisan relying on wishful thinking and flimsy data. I certainly think you're a knee jerk partisan (and pessimist) relying on wishful thinking and flimsy data. I personally would support spending on research on thorium reactors. I'd much prefer fusion (not likely very soon and already pretty well funded) and would pref
I like your post, it does provide some clarity, I would point out that 'progressive' has a decidedly benign connotation whereas someone who is a staunch conservative might prefer to label his nemesis with the word 'radical' and its pejorative implications. Likewise, a benign word for anti-liberal social policy might be 'traditional' or perhaps 'careful.'
My interpretation of our German friend's statement is that the status quo in Germany is one of fairly liberal social policies (or claims to be) and that the rabble-rousing folks angling for change might be seeking technological advancement at the expense of the traditional franchises. I'm sort of imagining a version of the United States with more powerful unions profitably jacked into traditional industries like manufacturing and old-school energy production.
I'm confused by this also, but this chart suggests that We import mostly crude and export mostly refined products: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_nus-z00_mbblpd_w.htm
We import about twice as much as we export and consume about 22% of the world's petroleum: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6 Given that we constitute about 5% of the world's population, this obviously represents a problem
As a key component of energy policy for the United States, it is not and has never been practical compared to wind or nuclear power.
This statement would carry a lot more weight if you cited anything resembling a study, statistic or fact. As stated, it's nothing more than an unsupported opinion.
If you're concerned about global warming from burning fossil fuels, the only choice at the moment that satisfies all the requirements of most first world country's energy policy is nuclear. Nothing else comes close.
Here is another unsupported but ardently expressed opinion.
Totally. And then everyone will be trying to point the finger at whatever jackass caused our manufacturing industry to miss the wave of renewable energy manufacturing.
Nice reductionist argument that fails to cite any sources or acknowledge anything but the question you are begging.
Mod parent up.
YES. You, sir, should run for office. Or be a talking head or something. It's so nice to see someone with insight for a change.
A nice description! Bizarre that liberals are the conservatives. Having a hard time getting my head around that.
All production subsidies are bad
Armchair economist, much? Without *somebody* subsidizing new forms of energy development, we'd still be heating our homes and cooking with wood. Every new energy paradigm finds its footing because some entity invested money in developing the technology. Nuclear energy comes to mind. And you also fail to acknowledge that we pay enormous amounts of money to project our military might to protect shipping lanes to oil-producing regions and that we have played politics for 100 years to insure that oil flows. You can deny it until you are blue in the face, but this does amount to a subsidy.
I'd also argue that a direct government subsidy into advanced energy generation and storage will ultimately yield vast societal benefit that might otherwise never be realized if we rely on only markets. The fact is that pretty much all of our advanced technology and shared infrastructure (computers, space travel, aviation, telecommunications, interstate highway system) has its genesis in government spending. Sadly, this government spending is only ever triggered by the prospect or actuality of warfare. It would be nice if we could motivate ourselves with something other than conflict for a change.
lazy lazy lazy! http://www.nei.org/corporatesite/media/filefolder/60_Years_of_Energy_Incentives_-_Analysis_of_Federal_Expenditures_for_Energy_Development_-_1950-2010.pdf
STFI, lazy! http://www.nei.org/corporatesite/media/filefolder/60_Years_of_Energy_Incentives_-_Analysis_of_Federal_Expenditures_for_Energy_Development_-_1950-2010.pdf
Because every single traditional power source is also heavily subsidized. It's only fair. Plus, we should be encouraging solar over other sources for a host of reasons, namely environment impact and better grid resistance to failures.
People always forget to mention the geopolitical and economic reasons for using solar. Because it is domestically produced, it reduces our trade deficit, half of which is due to petroleum imports. We also don't end up putting money in the pockets of such lovely foreign countries as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc. Yes, yes, yes I know we get most of our petrol from Canada, but the fact that we consume about a quarter of the world's petrol keeps prices high on the international market.
THE OREOS ARE A LIE!!!
But think of all the children! Where will they get their Oreos now???
Yes it is a bit unusual when abbreviating a word to take out the middle, keeping the beginning and end. Don't you think?