No, you misunderstood me. I was only talking about financial debt, as I assumed you were. China is on the rise as an economic superpower, but my country's financial debt will not be the cause of any potential economic problems because of that. And if the Chinese government doesn't act, they will get environmental issues that could seriously hamper their economy as well.
But I agree with you completely that our debt to coming generations is building up beyond our ability to pay. We seem to be using up our planet and leaving nothing for them. It's a pity those cumulative future generations don't have representation in our "democracies", wouldn't you agree?
Bad news. We life in a world where we're literally fucking our children with government debt. They're going to have to become chinese sex slaves when the country finally runs out of money in a few decades.
I suppose you by that you mean the U.S.A. Sorry, I'm not from there, and my government's debt is well within EU regulations.
And I also don't agree with you that sustainability is impossible. In my view that notion would be too easy an excuse for not trying.
We could actually recycle and re-use the waste (as France is doing)
I would love to read about that. Can you point me to where you read that? I knew that it's possible to re-use nuclear waste, but only one time, and after that you end up with, yet again, nuclear waste. Are you saying they can re-use this over and over again? And would that make it as clean as solar or wind energy? That would be fantastic!
However, it would still be a temporary solution. It's a finite and therefore non-sustainable energy source, and no perfectly safe and clean reactor can change that.
I fear that by the time we decide to switch to a sustainable economy, we won't have the resources any more to make the change.
The main problem with nuclear energy is not the accidents, but the storage of the waste material, which remains extremely poisonous for a very long time. Maybe you didn't know that.
You strike me as the person who doesn't want to move away from oil because of environmental issues but because it's running out. Rather than spend more money on something that is sustainable, you would save your money for other things and go with cheap temporary solutions that will slowly destroy our environment. This I find very selfish. Nuclear energy is just as dangerous and finite as oil, if not more.
Instead of choosing between cheap or expensive solutions, you should just use less energy.
Meant to be? What the hell does that mean? By whom? And yes, the world is not a petri dish and we should not fool around with it, because scary stuff may happen. So what do you think pumping the atmosphere full of CO2 is exactly?
There we go again. Star Trek's notion of holograms is idiotic. Holograms are projections of light, there's nothing in there. Really. You want to communicate with a hologram? Find the computer that controls the projectors. There is no more reason to give holograms sentient rights than to an email message or a Word file.
As for the Maggelanic cloud, the stars are too young for life we can relate to.
Actually, someone in the UK did (don't ask me who, I don't remember). I remember reading a short newspaper article that said that the guy was sewed over copyright infringement: whoever sewed him had never heard of open source/GPL. I guess he was kind of disappointed that selling Firefox is perfectly legal.
Not only will every civilization you encounter have rougly your level of technology, their ships will also have their top side the facing the same direction as yours when you meet them.
Most European countries do nowaydays, though I'm not sure about the UK. The Netherlands is actually in danger of violating NATO treaty by mothballing frigates and subs.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you misunderstood me. I was only talking about financial debt, as I assumed you were. China is on the rise as an economic superpower, but my country's financial debt will not be the cause of any potential economic problems because of that. And if the Chinese government doesn't act, they will get environmental issues that could seriously hamper their economy as well.
But I agree with you completely that our debt to coming generations is building up beyond our ability to pay. We seem to be using up our planet and leaving nothing for them. It's a pity those cumulative future generations don't have representation in our "democracies", wouldn't you agree?
I suppose you by that you mean the U.S.A. Sorry, I'm not from there, and my government's debt is well within EU regulations.
And I also don't agree with you that sustainability is impossible. In my view that notion would be too easy an excuse for not trying.
I would love to read about that. Can you point me to where you read that? I knew that it's possible to re-use nuclear waste, but only one time, and after that you end up with, yet again, nuclear waste. Are you saying they can re-use this over and over again? And would that make it as clean as solar or wind energy? That would be fantastic!
However, it would still be a temporary solution. It's a finite and therefore non-sustainable energy source, and no perfectly safe and clean reactor can change that.
I fear that by the time we decide to switch to a sustainable economy, we won't have the resources any more to make the change.
The main problem with nuclear energy is not the accidents, but the storage of the waste material, which remains extremely poisonous for a very long time. Maybe you didn't know that.
You strike me as the person who doesn't want to move away from oil because of environmental issues but because it's running out. Rather than spend more money on something that is sustainable, you would save your money for other things and go with cheap temporary solutions that will slowly destroy our environment. This I find very selfish. Nuclear energy is just as dangerous and finite as oil, if not more.
Instead of choosing between cheap or expensive solutions, you should just use less energy.
Meant to be? What the hell does that mean? By whom? And yes, the world is not a petri dish and we should not fool around with it, because scary stuff may happen. So what do you think pumping the atmosphere full of CO2 is exactly?
There we go again. Star Trek's notion of holograms is idiotic. Holograms are projections of light, there's nothing in there. Really. You want to communicate with a hologram? Find the computer that controls the projectors. There is no more reason to give holograms sentient rights than to an email message or a Word file. As for the Maggelanic cloud, the stars are too young for life we can relate to.
I don't remember exactly what the newspaper article said.
Actually, someone in the UK did (don't ask me who, I don't remember). I remember reading a short newspaper article that said that the guy was sewed over copyright infringement: whoever sewed him had never heard of open source/GPL. I guess he was kind of disappointed that selling Firefox is perfectly legal.
Not only will every civilization you encounter have rougly your level of technology, their ships will also have their top side the facing the same direction as yours when you meet them.
Most European countries do nowaydays, though I'm not sure about the UK. The Netherlands is actually in danger of violating NATO treaty by mothballing frigates and subs.