the problem... with Evolution is that fanatics have tried to use it as evidence that there is no God
I always saw it the opposite way. Life was a big, obvious, important part of the world that athiests didn't have a good explanation for, and now almost every aspect has been explained as effects of a single natural process. When that happened, the last evidence of the divine in the material world vanished. That's why creationism is so important to some people, it's the last chance for some people's "god of the gaps" to get a fingerhold outside of the mind and the afterlife.
It's about whether or not there is a God.
True, it's about whether god provably created life miraculously or not. As long as you don't believe in god(s), or don't think god(s) created life, or think that god(s) created life through evolution, or something similar, you can be fine with evolution. If you want life to be proof that god(s) exist, you can't accept a materialistic explanation.
That's where the problem is, with people who want life to prove God, not with people who want evolution to disprove God.
Have you been to Colorado? In many areas, outside of towns, almost all of the roads have huge dropoffs, and many have occational rockslides. It's just not worth it to install rails and concrete rock barriers everywhere.
The tendency of people to hold such an arrogant opinion is a characteristic of human behavior that doesn't depend at all upon the topic being discussed.
This is true. But I should point out that you can be arrogant and still be right.
Your second error is to presume that there is no evidence of religious ideas.
If you mean real evidence, there isn't any. Period. Sorry to be rude, but there isn't.
There is indeed evidence to be had, though (by design) it's not the sort of evidence that can be objectively measured outside the confines of one's own skull. I can acquire, and have acquired, compelling evidence, but I cannot show that evidence to you.... You'll almost certainly prefer to believe that I'm... deluded but that, again, is by design.
You believe that there is a vast part of reality that many poeple are can't see, that you have special knowledge of that part, you can't share you reasoning with the rest of us, and there's no way to test things one way or the other. That's textbook delutional thinking. If you don't want to me to think that you're delutional, try not sounding like you are.
Also, you're accusing people of being arrogant while being arrogant yourself. You're literally saying "I know something you don't know, and God designed it that way.". If that isn't elitism, I don't know what is.
...there are and always have been brilliant and highly educated scientific and literary minds who you're claiming to be less knowledgeable than yourself.
You're claiming exactly the same thing the same thing. Only in your case, your knowledge is special, unsharable and absolute, while your more rationalistic opponents only claim be less willing to allow emotion to compromise their thinking. Huge difference.
The more we study, the less evidence there is to support evolution.
No, the more evidence we find, the more well-supported refined the theory becomes.
Evolution has been wrong before.
As far as I know, there has never been any evidence obtained or obsevation made that would suggest that the basic tenets of evolution are incorrect.
If we are evolving, why are we sicker than ever before? Why are people with disabilities surviving and reproducing? Why are there so many birth defects?
All of these have obvious explanations, none of which suggest that evolution does not occur. And from the other side, evolution doesn't suggest that we should get sick less often, that new technology and social change can't help the disabled, or that birth defects can't happen.
New species of animals are being discovered all the time. Just because we found a fossil of it, doesn't mean they aren't still around today.
True. When we make new discoveries like those they give us details about how evolution worked. Evolution even suggests that there will be creatures that are common and others that are rare, some that are around now and others that are extinct. Other ideas about which ones are which might be wrong, but that doesn't mean that evolution is bunk.
Evolutionary science cannot prove that a fossil is millions of years old. They, instead look it up on a chart to see where it fits in their theory and give it an arbitrary number.
The dates given by palentologist are in no way arbitrary, we knew roughly how old the earth was long before we developed the theory of evolution. To say what you did is just silly.
I know you're trying to be objective and "above the conflict", but you're trying so hard that you're discarding common sense. Evolution is complex, weird, hard to understand, and very solidly supported, just like quantum mechanics and cosmology. Treating those subjects as being equal to their more mystical alternatives is to discard rationality in favor of fantasy.
Your post is only semi-insightful, because it makes the same type of flawed argument that creationists and IDers do.
I thought that was the point. When one asks "What happened before the big bang?" one implys that there was a time before it when there wasn't, and since the other party can't answer the question in the framework provided, one can claim victory. The question "Where did God come from?" is a simlar question.
The grandparent post made that point without a long, tedious explanation, like the one I've written.
What about those of us in the middle? I prefer my kitten nuggets lightly breaded and fried in vegetable oil, but my doggie ribs grilled medium rare and smothered with A-1 sauce. I really don't know how I'd choose one over the other.
Things like "Playing with a toy isn't going to make your movies any better" and "it's fake so it doesn't matter" sound quite a bit different than "it might be a good addition to what directors already use".
research suggests that the exposure of children and others in the community to this sickening content can lead to aggression towards women and child abuse.
First off, it's only "sickening" to some people, otherwise it wouldn't have much of an audience. Second, there is no significant evidence that sexual or violent content causes abuse. People that have emotional problems are more likely to both abuse others and consume material the provolks strong emotions, and it may change the timing of such abuse, but the material is not the root cause their behavior.
Just like tobacco, alcohol, most television, soft drinks, and fast food are not good things.
Tobacco is great for certain genetic experiments. Alcohol is good as an antiseptic in first aid kits. Television helps us to relax. Soft drinks are a safer source of caffine than pills. Fast food is better than no food, and most places have salads now.
Things can't take blame, only people can. If someone has a problem with something, the problem is their own behavior with respect to that thing. The love of money is the root of all evil, not just money. Put it how you will, but almost anything can be used for good or bad purposes - quit thinking only of the most common use and assuming that's all it's good for.
porn in all likelihood is NOT a good thing
Why? There's only three reasons I can think of that someone would say that:
Personal experience: You don't like looking at women in swimsuits because you almost drowned as a kid. Fine - give me your Sports Illustrated.
Conditioned disgust: Just because you were raised that way doesn't make it right.
Natural shame: People seem to be wired to both want sex, and be ashamed of that desire at the same time. That doesn't make it bad, just strange part of the complex human psyche.
The fact is that CATO always stands up for big business against the public. Bush administration... is chock a block full of CATO types
So if I search their site for "Bush" I should get things that advocate corporate welfare and support the bush administration, right?
Cutting Corporate Welfare Could Fund a Bush Social Security Plan states that "Domestically, these handouts favor certain companies and industries over others. Internationally, corporate welfare weakens the free-trade credentials of the U.S. and invites retaliation from Europe and Asia.". It goes on to ask "Why not just transfer corporate welfare money into the current program? Why do we need personal accounts?".
Also, Bush's Call to Stay the Course Is Simply an Act of Folly speaks for itself.
I really don't get where you got the idea that the neoconservatives that are running the US are in any signifigant way related to libertarians. They complain about Bush almost as much as the Democrats do.
the Bush administration (largely viewed by actual economists as one of the worst fiscal administrations in the history of this country)
Yes, most economists are advocates of a mostly free market, like libertarians. They want Regan and Clinton, not "W" or Nixon.
Communism fails because it expects people to work without much incentive.
That's the general idea.
Libertarianism fails because it expects people not to do harm to each other.
Every libertarian rant I've read assumes that people will sometimes harm each other, or at least try to. That's why they say that the purpose of a legitimate government is the protection of natural rights. If they didn't think people would hurt each other, they'd be anarchists rather than libertarians.
There is no logical reason to believe this; it's merely how we think the world works.
And there's no logical reason to believe that you're reading a post on slashdot. You could be dreaming - I've actually dreamt about replying to a post before.
Science is predicated on the idea that if A is followed by B for every instance of A that's been observed, that A will continue to be followed by B forever.
True (except that "forever" should be ", most likely"), but so is everyday life. Without the idea that the past in some way predicts the future we can't make any predictions at all. You probably believe "I need food to eat", but have you actually starved yourself to death to make sure? Oh, wait, even that won't prove it, because it might be different next time!
Trusting empirical evidence and inductive reasoning requires plenty of faith.
But no more faith than believing that you are looking at a computer. Remember Decart's demon and the brain in a vat? Belief in anything require some tiny bit of faith, but we usually reserve the word for things that are a little less certain.
Of course, it's quite a leap to go from "science requires faith" to "you might as well accept metaphysical mumbo-jumbo with no evidence because it's just as good as accepting evidence."
And I would say: Of course, it's quite a leap to go from "science requires some common-sense assumptions" to "faith". Science requires faith only in the sense that auto maintainance requires faith. The idea that cars need oil changes might be backed only by a vast conspiracy, and any personal experiences might just be coincidences, but is that a reasonable, logical belief?
2nd amendment states a well regulated militia which I don't believe most current gun owners are a part of.
The militia and the people are two different things.
The 2nd: A well regulated Militia, being nessecary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Paraphrased: A regulated militia is needed to keep us safe, so the unregulated militia needs the right to keep arms.
That might not seem to follow logically, but keep in mind that the colonial unregulated militia (the people) had just won a war against the army (well-regulated militia?) of the British Empire. Because the founders were still worried about the British taking over again, they included stuff in the Constitution about "titles of nobility", required the president to be born in the US, and saw a regulated militia as a reason to be wary.
On the other hand, maybe he had a bad experience with the "International Talk Like a Pirate Day", and now fears one-eyed men with parrots.
On the third hand, if that's true, how is piracy not stealing?
Just to settle the matter, I could show up on his doorstep tomorrow with my three hands, my parakeet, an eye patch, and some o' me swarthy mates (you should see what my ex-girlfriends look like). We'll tell him to stop slandering our royally-sanctioned profession, or be keelhauled. Then he'll either run away in fear, or stop being a hypocrite - either way, we'll have our answer.
Time is not an excuse if it's the same regime. Last I checked, the US is still the US.
It's still called the US, and it's in the same place, but other than that it's completely different. Every slave and slavemaster is dead, much of the US's population is a result of immigration after the Civil War, massive changes have taken place in government (sufferage, the IRS, Republicans in the South) and all of the politicans are new. If that isn't a different regime, what is?
And don't try to claim that the "and" only outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. It says "punishments". Ie, "cruel punishments and unusual punishments".
That's just silly. In English, "cruel and unusual punishments" can mean "both cruel punishments and unusual punishments" or "punishments that are both cruel and unusual". It's plural for the same reason the word "fines" is plural. I might agree that your interpretation is the right one to go with, morally and from a "original intent" standpoint, but the actual statement is ambiguous.
One has to completely ignore the 4th amendment to not recognize a crime was commited.
That's not a crime, that's a constitutional violation!:)
Just as much as the rest of the world should have and still should keep the US in check for threatening to wipe most the world off the map if Russia ever attacked.
That's "wipe Russia off the map if Russia ever attacked", for one thing. And what are they supposed to do, say "if you invade us, we won't use nukes"?!?!?
Oh, and please feel free to try to rationalize how pointing hundreds of ICBMs at many other countries with nuclear warheads is somehow "better" than vague threats without the means to actually do what is threatened.
Mr America says "I have a gun and I know how to use it, so behave yourself", while Mr Iran says "I don't have a gun right now, but the moment I do you're a dead man". I can't comprehend thinking that the US's position isn't better.
Iran might, eventually, make some nukes. The US has thousands. I'd say at the moment the US is a much greater threat.
Yes, at the moment. Of course, in over half a century the US has only used nukes in a single conflict nad it tried fairly hard to avoid others that would involve nukes. Can you reasonably assure me that Iran will behave in a similar way, if and when it gets some?
Either you know different whackos than I do, or you don't know the difference between criticisism of an administration or certain actions and actual antinationalism.
Against the backdrop of a war where there are people who are admittedly trying to end our way of life
Such a scary way to talk about a few crazies. Heck, most of them don't even care about our way of life, they just want us out of their region's politics.
if everything was a peachy keen as the left would have us believe, and Bush were wiretapping people, then yes, it would be intolerable, and imho should have legal actions taken against it.
I have news for you - this is as peachy keen as it gets. There will always be terrorists and dictators, so if a terrorist attack or the invasion of a small country can negate the Constitution, it might as well not be there. Would you have supported a similar argument under Clinton after Oaklahoma City or during out Bosnian intervention?
Big difference between slaves who died 150-300 years ago, and protesters who died less than twenty years ago.
This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
You must be new here.
It's ok to kill people, just make sure nobody knows about it until 150-300 years go by.
That's not what he's saying. Every American who had anything to do with legal slavery is dead and the government that kept it legal now holds it to be unconstitutional, while China is still run by many of the same people and (as far as I know) hasn't changed nearly as much. Is Great Britan still guilty of its colonial human rights violations? Is Rome still guilty of salting fields?
After all its not like we could just brush that highly radioactive waste under the carpet (or nearest mountain) like some countries
Yes we can - just keep using coal plants and dumping radiation into the atmosphere.
we will only have 10,000 years until the waste we create today will be even approachable
That's "will be safe enough to ignore", not "approach". And the newest line of breeder reactors take in waste like that and give off less radioactive waste that only lasts 1/10th as long. Even if it didn't generate energy, just using these reactors to clean up the mess we already have makes a lot of sense.
CO2 waste compared to RadioActive waste isnt even in the same league
But this isn't a CO2 vs radioisotopes question. It's between CO2 and radiation in the air we breathe, and radiation sealed in glass, encased in lead, and entomed within the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
I always saw it the opposite way. Life was a big, obvious, important part of the world that athiests didn't have a good explanation for, and now almost every aspect has been explained as effects of a single natural process. When that happened, the last evidence of the divine in the material world vanished. That's why creationism is so important to some people, it's the last chance for some people's "god of the gaps" to get a fingerhold outside of the mind and the afterlife.
It's about whether or not there is a God.
True, it's about whether god provably created life miraculously or not. As long as you don't believe in god(s), or don't think god(s) created life, or think that god(s) created life through evolution, or something similar, you can be fine with evolution. If you want life to be proof that god(s) exist, you can't accept a materialistic explanation.
That's where the problem is, with people who want life to prove God, not with people who want evolution to disprove God.
Have you been to Colorado? In many areas, outside of towns, almost all of the roads have huge dropoffs, and many have occational rockslides. It's just not worth it to install rails and concrete rock barriers everywhere.
This is true. But I should point out that you can be arrogant and still be right.
Your second error is to presume that there is no evidence of religious ideas.
If you mean real evidence, there isn't any. Period. Sorry to be rude, but there isn't.
There is indeed evidence to be had, though (by design) it's not the sort of evidence that can be objectively measured outside the confines of one's own skull. I can acquire, and have acquired, compelling evidence, but I cannot show that evidence to you. ... You'll almost certainly prefer to believe that I'm ... deluded but that, again, is by design.
You believe that there is a vast part of reality that many poeple are can't see, that you have special knowledge of that part, you can't share you reasoning with the rest of us, and there's no way to test things one way or the other. That's textbook delutional thinking. If you don't want to me to think that you're delutional, try not sounding like you are.
Also, you're accusing people of being arrogant while being arrogant yourself. You're literally saying "I know something you don't know, and God designed it that way.". If that isn't elitism, I don't know what is.
You're claiming exactly the same thing the same thing. Only in your case, your knowledge is special, unsharable and absolute, while your more rationalistic opponents only claim be less willing to allow emotion to compromise their thinking. Huge difference.
No, the more evidence we find, the more well-supported refined the theory becomes.
Evolution has been wrong before.
As far as I know, there has never been any evidence obtained or obsevation made that would suggest that the basic tenets of evolution are incorrect.
If we are evolving, why are we sicker than ever before? Why are people with disabilities surviving and reproducing? Why are there so many birth defects?
All of these have obvious explanations, none of which suggest that evolution does not occur. And from the other side, evolution doesn't suggest that we should get sick less often, that new technology and social change can't help the disabled, or that birth defects can't happen.
New species of animals are being discovered all the time. Just because we found a fossil of it, doesn't mean they aren't still around today.
True. When we make new discoveries like those they give us details about how evolution worked. Evolution even suggests that there will be creatures that are common and others that are rare, some that are around now and others that are extinct. Other ideas about which ones are which might be wrong, but that doesn't mean that evolution is bunk.
Evolutionary science cannot prove that a fossil is millions of years old. They, instead look it up on a chart to see where it fits in their theory and give it an arbitrary number.
The dates given by palentologist are in no way arbitrary, we knew roughly how old the earth was long before we developed the theory of evolution. To say what you did is just silly.
I know you're trying to be objective and "above the conflict", but you're trying so hard that you're discarding common sense. Evolution is complex, weird, hard to understand, and very solidly supported, just like quantum mechanics and cosmology. Treating those subjects as being equal to their more mystical alternatives is to discard rationality in favor of fantasy.
So I should believe in Santa?
I thought that was the point. When one asks "What happened before the big bang?" one implys that there was a time before it when there wasn't, and since the other party can't answer the question in the framework provided, one can claim victory. The question "Where did God come from?" is a simlar question.
The grandparent post made that point without a long, tedious explanation, like the one I've written.
What about those of us in the middle? I prefer my kitten nuggets lightly breaded and fried in vegetable oil, but my doggie ribs grilled medium rare and smothered with A-1 sauce. I really don't know how I'd choose one over the other.
Things like "Playing with a toy isn't going to make your movies any better" and "it's fake so it doesn't matter" sound quite a bit different than "it might be a good addition to what directors already use".
Did you mean redundancy?
First off, it's only "sickening" to some people, otherwise it wouldn't have much of an audience. Second, there is no significant evidence that sexual or violent content causes abuse. People that have emotional problems are more likely to both abuse others and consume material the provolks strong emotions, and it may change the timing of such abuse, but the material is not the root cause their behavior.
Just like tobacco, alcohol, most television, soft drinks, and fast food are not good things.
Tobacco is great for certain genetic experiments. Alcohol is good as an antiseptic in first aid kits. Television helps us to relax. Soft drinks are a safer source of caffine than pills. Fast food is better than no food, and most places have salads now.
Things can't take blame, only people can. If someone has a problem with something, the problem is their own behavior with respect to that thing. The love of money is the root of all evil, not just money. Put it how you will, but almost anything can be used for good or bad purposes - quit thinking only of the most common use and assuming that's all it's good for.
porn in all likelihood is NOT a good thing
Why? There's only three reasons I can think of that someone would say that:
Personal experience: You don't like looking at women in swimsuits because you almost drowned as a kid. Fine - give me your Sports Illustrated.
Conditioned disgust: Just because you were raised that way doesn't make it right.
Natural shame: People seem to be wired to both want sex, and be ashamed of that desire at the same time. That doesn't make it bad, just strange part of the complex human psyche.
Bush administration
So if I search their site for "Bush" I should get things that advocate corporate welfare and support the bush administration, right?
Cutting Corporate Welfare Could Fund a Bush Social Security Plan states that "Domestically, these handouts favor certain companies and industries over others. Internationally, corporate welfare weakens the free-trade credentials of the U.S. and invites retaliation from Europe and Asia.". It goes on to ask "Why not just transfer corporate welfare money into the current program? Why do we need personal accounts?".
Also, Bush's Call to Stay the Course Is Simply an Act of Folly speaks for itself.
I really don't get where you got the idea that the neoconservatives that are running the US are in any signifigant way related to libertarians. They complain about Bush almost as much as the Democrats do.
the Bush administration (largely viewed by actual economists as one of the worst fiscal administrations in the history of this country)
Yes, most economists are advocates of a mostly free market, like libertarians. They want Regan and Clinton, not "W" or Nixon.
That's the general idea.
Libertarianism fails because it expects people not to do harm to each other.
Every libertarian rant I've read assumes that people will sometimes harm each other, or at least try to. That's why they say that the purpose of a legitimate government is the protection of natural rights. If they didn't think people would hurt each other, they'd be anarchists rather than libertarians.
And there's no logical reason to believe that you're reading a post on slashdot. You could be dreaming - I've actually dreamt about replying to a post before.
Science is predicated on the idea that if A is followed by B for every instance of A that's been observed, that A will continue to be followed by B forever.
True (except that "forever" should be ", most likely"), but so is everyday life. Without the idea that the past in some way predicts the future we can't make any predictions at all. You probably believe "I need food to eat", but have you actually starved yourself to death to make sure? Oh, wait, even that won't prove it, because it might be different next time!
Trusting empirical evidence and inductive reasoning requires plenty of faith.
But no more faith than believing that you are looking at a computer. Remember Decart's demon and the brain in a vat? Belief in anything require some tiny bit of faith, but we usually reserve the word for things that are a little less certain.
Of course, it's quite a leap to go from "science requires faith" to "you might as well accept metaphysical mumbo-jumbo with no evidence because it's just as good as accepting evidence."
And I would say: Of course, it's quite a leap to go from "science requires some common-sense assumptions" to "faith". Science requires faith only in the sense that auto maintainance requires faith. The idea that cars need oil changes might be backed only by a vast conspiracy, and any personal experiences might just be coincidences, but is that a reasonable, logical belief?
The militia and the people are two different things.
The 2nd: A well regulated Militia, being nessecary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Paraphrased: A regulated militia is needed to keep us safe, so the unregulated militia needs the right to keep arms.
That might not seem to follow logically, but keep in mind that the colonial unregulated militia (the people) had just won a war against the army (well-regulated militia?) of the British Empire. Because the founders were still worried about the British taking over again, they included stuff in the Constitution about "titles of nobility", required the president to be born in the US, and saw a regulated militia as a reason to be wary.
At least that's how I understand it.
Yes, when will those 18th century bastards start using proper 21st century 1337-speak?
On the other hand, maybe he had a bad experience with the "International Talk Like a Pirate Day", and now fears one-eyed men with parrots.
On the third hand, if that's true, how is piracy not stealing?
Just to settle the matter, I could show up on his doorstep tomorrow with my three hands, my parakeet, an eye patch, and some o' me swarthy mates (you should see what my ex-girlfriends look like). We'll tell him to stop slandering our royally-sanctioned profession, or be keelhauled. Then he'll either run away in fear, or stop being a hypocrite - either way, we'll have our answer.
Avast ye!
It's still called the US, and it's in the same place, but other than that it's completely different. Every slave and slavemaster is dead, much of the US's population is a result of immigration after the Civil War, massive changes have taken place in government (sufferage, the IRS, Republicans in the South) and all of the politicans are new. If that isn't a different regime, what is?
And don't try to claim that the "and" only outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. It says "punishments". Ie, "cruel punishments and unusual punishments".
That's just silly. In English, "cruel and unusual punishments" can mean "both cruel punishments and unusual punishments" or "punishments that are both cruel and unusual". It's plural for the same reason the word "fines" is plural. I might agree that your interpretation is the right one to go with, morally and from a "original intent" standpoint, but the actual statement is ambiguous.
One has to completely ignore the 4th amendment to not recognize a crime was commited.
That's not a crime, that's a constitutional violation! :)
Just as much as the rest of the world should have and still should keep the US in check for threatening to wipe most the world off the map if Russia ever attacked.
That's "wipe Russia off the map if Russia ever attacked", for one thing. And what are they supposed to do, say "if you invade us, we won't use nukes"?!?!?
Oh, and please feel free to try to rationalize how pointing hundreds of ICBMs at many other countries with nuclear warheads is somehow "better" than vague threats without the means to actually do what is threatened.
Mr America says "I have a gun and I know how to use it, so behave yourself", while Mr Iran says "I don't have a gun right now, but the moment I do you're a dead man". I can't comprehend thinking that the US's position isn't better.
Iran might, eventually, make some nukes. The US has thousands. I'd say at the moment the US is a much greater threat.
Yes, at the moment. Of course, in over half a century the US has only used nukes in a single conflict nad it tried fairly hard to avoid others that would involve nukes. Can you reasonably assure me that Iran will behave in a similar way, if and when it gets some?
Either you know different whackos than I do, or you don't know the difference between criticisism of an administration or certain actions and actual antinationalism.
Against the backdrop of a war where there are people who are admittedly trying to end our way of life
Such a scary way to talk about a few crazies. Heck, most of them don't even care about our way of life, they just want us out of their region's politics.
if everything was a peachy keen as the left would have us believe, and Bush were wiretapping people, then yes, it would be intolerable, and imho should have legal actions taken against it.
I have news for you - this is as peachy keen as it gets. There will always be terrorists and dictators, so if a terrorist attack or the invasion of a small country can negate the Constitution, it might as well not be there. Would you have supported a similar argument under Clinton after Oaklahoma City or during out Bosnian intervention?
This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
You must be new here.
It's ok to kill people, just make sure nobody knows about it until 150-300 years go by.
That's not what he's saying. Every American who had anything to do with legal slavery is dead and the government that kept it legal now holds it to be unconstitutional, while China is still run by many of the same people and (as far as I know) hasn't changed nearly as much. Is Great Britan still guilty of its colonial human rights violations? Is Rome still guilty of salting fields?
At least this one wasn't rated "Insightful" like several of my other mistakes have been. :)
Yes we can - just keep using coal plants and dumping radiation into the atmosphere.
we will only have 10,000 years until the waste we create today will be even approachable
That's "will be safe enough to ignore", not "approach". And the newest line of breeder reactors take in waste like that and give off less radioactive waste that only lasts 1/10th as long. Even if it didn't generate energy, just using these reactors to clean up the mess we already have makes a lot of sense.
CO2 waste compared to RadioActive waste isnt even in the same league
But this isn't a CO2 vs radioisotopes question. It's between CO2 and radiation in the air we breathe, and radiation sealed in glass, encased in lead, and entomed within the earth.
That has to be the most deluded statement I've ever read on slashdot.
they don't have social systems like we do so there's no stigmas attached to their disabilities so if they're OK with it as mice
So you wouldn't mind being disabled, in pain, or having your life cut short - as long as you weren't embarassed about it?!?!
"You can't take the sky from me."
You bastard! Give it back!
But his show tells us that since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy the sun, so isn't he shooting himself in the foot?
Sure, if you make up new definitions for those words.