Autistic Opinion - Greta Thunberg ~ Autistamatic

[Wolfnox]

Why? Look at the research. It’s there.

They still dont have a good understanding of how autism occurs. Or how the brain works. Them saying there is no free will. Is an act of free will. The ability to choose for yourself.

 

[Wolfnox]

Isn’t this like saying that a serial killer may as well keep killing, because he may very well be caught for past killings, so why should’t he keep doing what he likes?

No. He has a choice and a chance to change. But assuming that nature will do exactly what we predict is a little silly. What makes man think he has any say so if the climate shifts? Do we influence the environment? Sure. But we are not the only factors. Example if Yellowstone erupts tomorrow. What can man do to stop it? That eruption will change the world.

 

[Autistamatic]

Not against a cleaner environment. But just to ask. How truthful is the data on climate change? Given the amount of politics involved. Is there a truly unbiased source trustworthy enough to believe?

Have you ever watched one of those disaster movies? You know the ones. Scientists have discovered there’s an asteroid the size of Manhattan on a collision course with Earth. Extinction event on the scale of the dinosaurs imminent – action must be taken. We see the leaders of the world holding hurried summits and a desperate plan is hatched. A bunch of plucky astronauts, maybe a miner or demolition expert is called in and hurriedly trained, rockets get repurposed and we send a mission off into the black to destroy or divert the asteroid and save our future…

Climate change & pollution will do the same to our planet as that asteroid, only over a few decades, not in one giant, instant impact. Most of the old men who call the shots will be long gone by then. Their lives, the only ones that matter to them, are not at risk, so they prevaricate, they cast doubt, they preserve the status quo which keeps money they have no possibility of ever spending flowing into their grossly distended bank accounts. They are addicts – sucking on the money teat for dear life, and not even the extinction of all life on the planet, the destruction of their “legacies” is enough to wean them off it.

If the movie scenario were happening now – how many of us would be willing to accept ANYONE in power suggesting that the scientists might be wrong. How many would be asking “but what if the asteroid misses us – why are we wasting all this time, money & effort on a mere possibility? The scientists must be politically biased.” Who would stand up and say “99% of the world’s most renowned experts have predicted that we will be smashed to dust in a year by this gigantic chunk of space rock, but I choose not to believe them – I believe this one guy that I paid to do a study for me, and he says they’re wrong.”

We are not in a position to ask “what if they’re wrong?” The consequences of inaction are so great, so mind bogglingly terminal, we can’t afford to play politics and ask questions that delay action. We are at the point now where we can see that metaphorical asteroid with the naked eye, getting bigger every day, yet still we prevaricate with “what if” and listen to the ramblings of ignorant, selfish, lying old men rather than look up and see what’s staring us in the face.

The loudest political voices are those of the deniers. Science & knowledge itself is not political even when it's used as a pawn in political games. There is no bias to fact, only the interpretation of fact, the manipulation of opinions to ignore the evidence staring us in the face, the twisting of priorities to convince people that the money in billionaires bank accounts is more important than preserving our planet for future generations.

 

[Wolfnox]

Have you ever watched one of those disaster movies? You know the ones. Scientists have discovered there’s an asteroid the size of Manhattan on a collision course with Earth. Extinction event on the scale of the dinosaurs imminent – action must be taken. We see the leaders of the world holding hurried summits and a desperate plan is hatched. A bunch of plucky astronauts, maybe a miner or demolition expert is called in and hurriedly trained, rockets get repurposed and we send a mission off into the black to destroy or divert the asteroid and save our future…

Climate change & pollution will do the same to our planet as that asteroid, only over a few decades, not in one giant, instant impact. Most of the old men who call the shots will be long gone by then. Their lives, the only ones that matter to them, are not at risk, so they prevaricate, they cast doubt, they preserve the status quo which keeps money they have no possibility of ever spending flowing into their grossly distended bank accounts. They are addicts – sucking on the money teat for dear life, and not even the extinction of all life on the planet, the destruction of their “legacies” is enough to wean them off it.

If the movie scenario were happening now – how many of us would be willing to accept ANYONE in power suggesting that the scientists might be wrong. How many would be asking “but what if the asteroid misses us – why are we wasting all this time, money & effort on a mere possibility? The scientists must be politically biased.” Who would stand up and say “99% of the world’s most renowned experts have predicted that we will be smashed to dust in a year by this gigantic chunk of space rock, but I choose not to believe them – I believe this one guy that I paid to do a study for me, and he says they’re wrong.”

We are not in a position to ask “what if they’re wrong?” The consequences of inaction are so great, so mind bogglingly terminal, we can’t afford to play politics and ask questions that delay action. We are at the point now where we can see that metaphorical asteroid with the naked eye, getting bigger every day, yet still we prevaricate with “what if” and listen to the ramblings of ignorant, selfish, lying old men rather than look up and see what’s staring us in the face.

The loudest political voices are those of the deniers. Science & knowledge itself is not political even when it's used as a pawn in political games. There is no bias to fact, only the interpretation of fact, the manipulation of opinions to ignore the evidence staring us in the face, the twisting of priorities to convince people that the money in billionaires bank accounts is more important than preserving our planet for future generations.

Do you remember 2012? Everyone said the world will end that year. Its seven years later and were still here. Ive been hearing others say we have eleven years left to live because of climate change. I dont believe it. My concern isn't about climate change or global warming. Its about making sure any of this information is true. We've already seen numerous cases where they twisted or distorted details. All to serve their own interests. I dont trust the information because of politics involvement. Im convinced they merely use it as a way to garner support for their party. California is an example of what will happen. They say its a success story. That their helping the environment. Something we have seen to be lies. Same people are telling me its my fault their state is that way. Due to climate change. They dont see the people who struggle to survive their high taxes and dumb laws.That they passed trying to fight against an event which may not even be happening.
Ask yourself this. Is it worth all the suffering these policies are causing? Has it really changed anything for the better?

 

[Autistamatic]

I'm sorry but it honestly looked to me like you were describing the scientific conclusions of 1000s of learned climate scientists, geologists, palaeontologists, chemists, physicists and other relevant experts, and the superstitious, crackpot interpretation of an ancient calendar system that only went up to 2012, as if there were a credible comparison between the two.

All to serve their own interests? Explain please. How will they benefit?
We know exactly how the deniers benefit. They continue to profit from keeping things the way they are, ignoring even the fact that the resources they are exploiting will run out in time and they will be FORCED to use renewable energy cos there'll be no fossil fuels left. They'll continue to charge us for them until they run out though, and when supplies get really sparse they'll charge even more.

Renewable energy is free. It costs nothing but the infrastructure & the tech. There are no fuel costs whatsoever. Do you also dislike the idea of far cheaper energy bills? Would you prefer your energy money went to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to buy fuel or stayed in your pocket because the natural resources of your own home provided the energy you need?

There is no credible argument against renewable energy, whether you choose to believe in climate change or not. Cleaner, cheaper energy can be reality NOW.

 

[DuckRabbit]

My concern isn't about climate change or global warming. Its about making sure any of this information is true. We've already seen numerous cases where they twisted or distorted details. All to serve their own interests. I dont trust the information because of politics involvement. Im convinced they merely use it as a way to garner support for their party. California

Don't you consider that "politics involvement" works the other way too? Perhaps the ones saying "climate change is a hoax" are serving their own interests; THEY are the ones you should be sceptical about. Who has more to lose? --- (1) the fat cats with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because it's comfortable to them - sucking on the money teat as @Austistamatic put it, or (2) the climate-change believers (actually KNOWERS) who know that accepting the facts means facing some hard truths about our natures and submitting to pain and suffering in order to change our ways? The fat cats want the path of least resistance; the climate-change warriors are limbering up to climb a mountain - re-examining our assumptions; rethinking or values; finding new, more sustainable ways of doing things; putting in the hard work to change our ingrained behaviours and habitual ways of life - rebooting our lives in many ways. Who sounds like the more courageous, truthful type of person to you?

@Austistamatic has explained the issues and 'what's at stake' as lucidly and incisively as they're ever going to be explained; to not be the least bit receptive to any of @Austistamatic's reasoning suggests either wilful ignorance or such a *Fear of Change* that you're making yourself blind and deaf to reason, sensitivity etc (aka the defence mechanisms of repression and denial). Your currency seems to be so different, @Austistamatic may as well have written hieroglyphics. That's the sad thing about messages like @Austistamatic's and 'The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight' by Thom Hartmann: they preach to the converted; no one else listens.

The other possibility to consider is that a trolling element is involved - that people wilfully deaf and blind to cogent arguments enjoy the attention they garner for their views, the fact that people are motivated to lavish time on them, treating them as important enough to tried to dissuade them out of one set of views and persuade them of another. That's a whole other kind of sad.

I also appreciate however the some people's socio-economic level and life experiences to date might make the changes involved in responding to climate-change appear extremely threatening to them. I heard of some study which found that the annual income you need before you start caring about the environment is around $9,000 (I forget the exact figure); many people around the world are simply not in that league. Due to something as neurobiological as amygdala size etc, some people simply have a lower threshold for threats to the status quo than do others. It depends on what you view as threat though; the climate-change warriors view NOT CHANGING as a bigger threat than the discomfort and uncertainty brought about by change. I guess we all have "motivated cognitions": shaped by our own socio-economic or social-political positions in life.

 

[Wolfnox]

I'm sorry but it honestly looked to me like you were describing the scientific conclusions of 1000s of learned climate scientists, geologists, palaeontologists, chemists, physicists and other relevant experts, and the superstitious, crackpot interpretation of an ancient calendar system that only went up to 2012, as if there were a credible comparison between the two.

All to serve their own interests? Explain please. How will they benefit?
We know exactly how the deniers benefit. They continue to profit from keeping things the way they are, ignoring even the fact that the resources they are exploiting will run out in time and they will be FORCED to use renewable energy cos there'll be no fossil fuels left. They'll continue to charge us for them until they run out though, and when supplies get really sparse they'll charge even more.

Renewable energy is free. It costs nothing but the infrastructure & the tech. There are no fuel costs whatsoever. Do you also dislike the idea of far cheaper energy bills? Would you prefer your energy money went to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to buy fuel or stayed in your pocket because the natural resources of your own home provided the energy you need?

There is no credible argument against renewable energy, whether you choose to believe in climate change or not. Cleaner, cheaper energy can be reality NOW.

Within reason. Renewable energy still has some drawbacks. I fully believe both sides will profit from either source. But the renewable energy sources for common people still aren't cost effective. Nor is the vehicles they have created using it. Until that happens nothing will change.
Also the nuclear waste problem still has no solution for permanent disposal.

 

[Wolfnox]

Don't you consider that "politics involvement" works the other way too? Perhaps the ones saying "climate change is a hoax" are serving their own interests; THEY are the ones you should be sceptical about. Who has more to lose? --- (1) the fat cats with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because it's comfortable to them - sucking on the money teat as @Austistamatic put it, or (2) the climate-change believers (actually KNOWERS) who know that accepting the facts means facing some hard truths about our natures and submitting to pain and suffering in order to change our ways? The fat cats want the path of least resistance; the climate-change warriors are limbering up to climb a mountain - re-examining our assumptions; rethinking or values; finding new, more sustainable ways of doing things; putting in the hard work to change our ingrained behaviours and habitual ways of life - rebooting our lives in many ways. Who sounds like the more courageous, truthful type of person to you?

@Austistamatic has explained the issues and 'what's at stake' as lucidly and incisively as they're ever going to be explained; to not be the least bit receptive to any of @Austistamatic's reasoning suggests either wilful ignorance or such a *Fear of Change* that you're making yourself blind and deaf to reason, sensitivity etc (aka the defence mechanisms of repression and denial). Your currency seems to be so different, @Austistamatic may as well have written hieroglyphics. That's the sad thing about messages like @Austistamatic's and 'The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight' by Thom Hartmann: they preach to the converted; no one else listens.

The other possibility to consider is that a trolling element is involved - that people wilfully deaf and blind to cogent arguments enjoy the attention they garner for their views, the fact that people are motivated to lavish time on them, treating them as important enough to tried to dissuade them out of one set of views and persuade them of another. That's a whole other kind of sad.

I also appreciate however the some people's socio-economic level and life experiences to date might make the changes involved in responding to climate-change appear extremely threatening to them. I heard of some study which found that the annual income you need before you start caring about the environment is around $9,000 (I forget the exact figure); many people around the world are simply not in that league. Due to something as neurobiological as amygdala size etc, some people simply have a lower threshold for threats to the status quo than do others. It depends on what you view as threat though; the climate-change warriors view NOT CHANGING as a bigger threat than the discomfort and uncertainty brought about by change. I guess we all have "motivated cognitions": shaped by our own socio-economic or social-political positions in life.

Its the third paragraph. Barely enough money to make it month to month. Putting that aside for a moment.
Where are the scientists who disagrees with the climate change findings? Wouldn't you want to compare their findings with those that say climate change is occuring?

 

[Autistamatic]

Also the nuclear waste problem still has no solution for permanent disposal.

Why are you mentioning nuclear? We've been talking about renewable energy, clean energy. Nuclear is neither of those things.

Change will take time, decades in fact which is why we must start now. Battery tech has been improving year on year and will (with investment) improve further. Hydrogen fuel cells are already a viable vehicle tech, are renewable and clean. Wind, solar, wave and geothermal generation is already viable & cost effective. There is, again, no reasonable argument not to embrace it.

You ask where the opinions are from the scientists who disagree. They exist - they're not being suppressed or hidden. Look for them and you'll find them, but they are very few in number. Why? Because science is based on measurement, not opinion. Good scientists spend their careers trying to prove themselves wrong, and when they fail they know they are on the right track. There are very few climate denying scientists because the evidence points in ONE direction. For their denial to hold weight they require evidence which they aren't able to provide. The overwhelming weight of evidence points to climate change being a real threat and denying it against that evidence is not science, it's politics. The findings that you talk about have borne very little weight against the mountains of findings to the contrary.

If you look around you'll find plenty of scientific sounding arguments that the world is flat, but again, the evidence points to that being nonsense too.

 

[AloneNotLonely]

I'm sorry but it honestly looked to me like you were describing the scientific conclusions of 1000s of learned climate scientists, geologists, palaeontologists, chemists, physicists and other relevant experts, and the superstitious, crackpot interpretation of an ancient calendar system that only went up to 2012, as if there were a credible comparison between the two.

All to serve their own interests? Explain please. How will they benefit?
We know exactly how the deniers benefit. They continue to profit from keeping things the way they are, ignoring even the fact that the resources they are exploiting will run out in time and they will be FORCED to use renewable energy cos there'll be no fossil fuels left. They'll continue to charge us for them until they run out though, and when supplies get really sparse they'll charge even more.

Renewable energy is free. It costs nothing but the infrastructure & the tech. There are no fuel costs whatsoever. Do you also dislike the idea of far cheaper energy bills? Would you prefer your energy money went to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to buy fuel or stayed in your pocket because the natural resources of your own home provided the energy you need?

There is no credible argument against renewable energy, whether you choose to believe in climate change or not. Cleaner, cheaper energy can be reality NOW.

Your entire reasoning is flawed. Solar doesn't work. Wind doesn't work. Nuclear is the only realistic alternative because it's actually very cheap. Do you know that in order to build and maintain Solar and Wind power, you need oil? No you probably don't. In order to maintain Solar and Wind power, you need oil. You need oil even to maintain Nuclear power, but the cost efficiency is so great that it's actually a viable option. The cost per MW is also outrageously expensive and not capable of running modern civilization. Energy costs are going up and up and up all because the support is there for taxing energy, energy is only being taxed because it brings in more money for politicians, and fools that think cutting down on fossil fuel usage is the cure to our ailments are making it possible.

Civilizations are driven by energy. At first it's just plain hands and feet, then come the horses, oxes, etc. Then steam engines, all the way to the modern combustion engine. Each advancement brings cheaper energy and makes everything better. The next step is centralized power generated by Fusion, with electric vehicles and machines that store this energy in order to use it. We don't have Fusion yet, if it's possible at all, and electric vehicles don't have the storage and power generating capacity yet to be used in all applications. There is no "Windmills and Solar" in between (Although windmills were a minor convenience in the past, though not a major revolution in energy generation). Not even Nuclear if we know what's efficient and good for us. Nuclear + electric vehicles is a last ditch resort to be used should we be on our last drops of oil with no Fusion (In which case oil should be rationed strictly for getting everything into space). By maintaining lower cost of energy we can advance quicker, towards better times.

The problem is all of this nonsense with climate activism is putting a serious damper on our ability to advance towards Fusion. If the power plant they are building now works, fine. Everything's dandy. But if it doesn't... and the next one doesn't... and the one after that doesn't... we are going to be in quite a pickle. All because a bunch of self-important hippies decided they didn't want to quit their meat addiction and instead wanted Carbon to be taxed. You seem to hate money, but money advances the world. We would have no advancements in Computers and Smart Phones if they didn't bring in absolutely humongous amounts of money. Imagine if during the industrial revolution all the hippies decided to stop it and go back to pre-industrial times. No space exploration, no computers, no smart phones. What a waste of humanity that would have been. Humans are just evil, worthless and useless at nearly everything. The one good thing humanity can do is build spaceships, skyscrapers and fusion power plants. Remove that and we might as well collectively commit suicide by forced sterilization.

Human societies are already plagued with inefficiency, if we didn't listen to the fools in the past concerned with all sorts of unimportant matters we would probably have colonized another solar system by now. If only the Greeks valued the importance of the steam engine, instead of being concerned with nonsense such as "Why are we here?" (It's to build steam engines, obviously). Now we are doing it again, being concerned with nonsense over efficiently advancing civilization which is better for pretty much everyone.

At the moment if you want to do the most for preventing CO2 from being pumped into the air, veganism is the best you can do. Plant a few trees while you are at it, but don't spend tax dollars. Quitting animal products would actually increase efficiency because it would end subsidized animal torture, but politics is never about efficiency or what's best and always about greed. Greed isn't "I want to make as much money as possible". Greed is "I want to use other peoples' money on inefficient nonsense in order to live a better life or to feel good about myself.". One improves the world for everyone while the other makes life worse for everyone.

 

[Wolfnox]

Thanks for hearing me out DuckRabbit.

 

[Kalinychta]

Your entire reasoning is flawed. Solar doesn't work. Wind doesn't work. Nuclear is the only realistic alternative because it's actually very cheap. Do you know that in order to build and maintain Solar and Wind power, you need oil? No you probably don't. In order to maintain Solar and Wind power, you need oil. You need oil even to maintain Nuclear power, but the cost efficiency is so great that it's actually a viable option. The cost per MW is also outrageously expensive and not capable of running modern civilization. Energy costs are going up and up and up all because the support is there for taxing energy, energy is only being taxed because it brings in more money for politicians, and fools that think cutting down on fossil fuel usage is the cure to our ailments are making it possible.

Civilizations are driven by energy. At first it's just plain hands and feet, then come the horses, oxes, etc. Then steam engines, all the way to the modern combustion engine. Each advancement brings cheaper energy and makes everything better. The next step is centralized power generated by Fusion, with electric vehicles and machines that store this energy in order to use it. We don't have Fusion yet, if it's possible at all, and electric vehicles don't have the storage and power generating capacity yet to be used in all applications. There is no "Windmills and Solar" in between (Although windmills were a minor convenience in the past, though not a major revolution in energy generation). Not even Nuclear if we know what's efficient and good for us. Nuclear + electric vehicles is a last ditch resort to be used should we be on our last drops of oil with no Fusion (In which case oil should be rationed strictly for getting everything into space). By maintaining lower cost of energy we can advance quicker, towards better times.

The problem is all of this nonsense with climate activism is putting a serious damper on our ability to advance towards Fusion. If the power plant they are building now works, fine. Everything's dandy. But if it doesn't... and the next one doesn't... and the one after that doesn't... we are going to be in quite a pickle. All because a bunch of self-important hippies decided they didn't want to quit their meat addiction and instead wanted Carbon to be taxed. You seem to hate money, but money advances the world. We would have no advancements in Computers and Smart Phones if they didn't bring in absolutely humongous amounts of money. Imagine if during the industrial revolution all the hippies decided to stop it and go back to pre-industrial times. No space exploration, no computers, no smart phones. What a waste of humanity that would have been. Humans are just evil, worthless and useless at nearly everything. The one good thing humanity can do is build spaceships, skyscrapers and fusion power plants. Remove that and we might as well collectively commit suicide by forced sterilization.

Human societies are already plagued with inefficiency, if we didn't listen to the fools in the past concerned with all sorts of unimportant matters we would probably have colonized another solar system by now. If only the Greeks valued the importance of the steam engine, instead of being concerned with nonsense such as "Why are we here?" (It's to build steam engines, obviously). Now we are doing it again, being concerned with nonsense over efficiently advancing civilization which is better for pretty much everyone.

At the moment if you want to do the most for preventing CO2 from being pumped into the air, veganism is the best you can do. Plant a few trees while you are at it, but don't spend tax dollars. Quitting animal products would actually increase efficiency because it would end subsidized animal torture, but politics is never about efficiency or what's best and always about greed. Greed isn't "I want to make as much money as possible". Greed is "I want to use other peoples' money on inefficient nonsense in order to live a better life or to feel good about myself.". One improves the world for everyone while the other makes life worse for everyone.

You're right about veganism. That and not having children are the two most hard-hitting things you can do for the planet. By far. But why would we go for nuclear fusion rather than focus on simpler and far less dangerous methods of energy generation? Instead of developing nuclear fusion, why not focus on making solar and wind methods completely fossil fuel-free? It's like you're implying that nuclear fusion is a piece of cake, whereas solar and wind should be abandoned as too-complicated lost causes.

The Greeks had their priorities straight re: the "why are we here?" questions. "Who am I?" and "who are we?" and "who are we to each other?" are questions that need answering now more than ever. Perhaps we should hold off on space travel, hit the pause button on the technology juggernaut, and look around at our world: the violence and immaturity of our species is breathtaking. Building new computers, smarter smart phones, nuclear fusion, bigger, better, more, more, more: I don't call this "advancement"; I call it madness. It's the same old dominance and power mentality that's strangulated the planet for the last several thousand years. Perhaps we should stop, take a deep breath, and look inside of ourselves for a change?

But come on now, climate change aside... Is it really so radical to suggest that it may be a good idea to begin moving away from dinosaur goo, non-degradable garbage, deforestation, and viewing the entire world as an all-you-can-destroy buffet?

 

[AloneNotLonely]

Fusion is not easy. I even stated it might not even be possible. Maybe it's 40 years away. Maybe it's 100 years away. Maybe it's a 1000 years away. In my post I also stated that this is actually the reason to not go crazy over wind and solar. If we have fusion in 40 years, it's not a huge issue to start replacing everything with windmills. Wasteful, sure. But if fusion is a 100 years away, screwing over your planetary economy is a sure-fire way to never get there. The problem is not that solar and wind energy is complicated, or that the technology is lacking. The problem is that it's extremely inefficient and cannot maintain society or advancement of society as it is. Just like a bunch of men with horses and no machines cannot maintain a modern society with smartphones and spaceships, neither can a society powered by solar and wind. As it currently is wind and solar actually costs more oil than just burning the oil for energy directly, so this is actually burning through our limited oil reserves, which we desperately need to either get off this rock or develop fusion. Stuck on a rock with no fossil fuels and no fusion? You are done. You don't have the energy to develop fission based rocketry, you don't have the energy to even maintain your existing fission because humans are stupid and will burn through all the resources paying for social care and a military rather than keep everything functioning. That's what we are doing now, in fact.

So if you change everything to solar and wind, and replace all vehicles and machines with electric powered versions, no more oil. No more fossil fuels. Great. Now you have just regressed back to a less wealthy state of society, scientific advancement will slow to a crawl, people will start fighting. Look at how wealthy we are now, and people are still killing others because their benefits aren't enough and they grind with a gun for a dollar and twenty cents. What the heck do you think is going to happen when all of our purchasing power gets halved, or perhaps even worse? Don't get me wrong, western society is heading that way anyway (because of mistakes such as these), but it is important to point out this foolishness. It's also important to keep western insanity quarantined in the west, and by not pointing out how crazy it is we might end up in the usual scenario of forcing other countries to also destroy their civilization at gunpoint in the name of environmentalism.

You call scientific advancement madness, you lament the immaturity and violent tendencies of people... but think for a second...
In the history of mankind, has there ever been a better time than now? And I don't mean go back 50 years, I mean an entire era. Back to the Renaissance, back to the Early or Late Middle Ages or Classic Antiquity. You can even pick "the best" place to be in that era. It might sound totally romantic to go philosophize with Plato (Actually if you were smart you'd go be born in the Iranian Empire, seeing as how the Greeks were cruel savages compared to the Iranians in those days), but your life would be absolutely miserable compared to now, unless you were of particularly high status. And even then your purchasing power wouldn't compare to the person living on benefits in any wealthy western nation right now. What about animals? The sick? The poor? All have better lives, not just the wealthy and upper class. The more wealth there is, the more trees that can be planted, the more humane shelters there can be and the less we need to rely on primitive materials like animal skin or hair. In the past there wasn't even an option other than leather. Now we have plastics, thank you science. Yes they are totally non-degradable. These shoes last multiple lifetimes if you take care of them, it might sound bad for the planet, but I'd rather have plastic shoes that are around for billions of years than to have an animal tortured it's entire life and then killed. The lesser evil, if you will.

Wealth and scientific advancements are the only reason we can even worry about stuff like trees, panda bears and exotic squirrels. Back in the days we exterminated a particularly clumsy species of flightless bird simply because of a bunch of hungry sailors. That doesn't happen now, but it will happen again thanks to all the insanity being pushed that sounds all warm and cuddly, but will achieve nothing but regression. Cruelty through humanity seems a much bigger problem in humanity today than just plain cruelty. Subsidized environmentalism, social care, war on drugs, war on prostitution, war on everything that sounds evil. Sounds good on the surface, but the consequences of such policies lead to complete collapse. You might agree with some and disagree with others, but they all have the same effect. They destroy wealth.

 

[KRISTEN deanna AKLAND]

either supportive, supportive of Greta by turning on her parents, or making fun of Greta

This is true of any controversial figure. (disabilities are not a requirement.) Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a great example. She is a strong, smart and successful woman. Some look at her as a role model. Some people think she is too old and should retire. hundreds of satirical memes and videos came out when she fell and hurt her hip.. Didn't slow her down.
Point is, public opinion is not stable and varies widely.

 

[mw2530]

Solar doesn't work. Wind doesn't work. Nuclear is the only realistic alternative because it's actually very cheap. Do you know that in order to build and maintain Solar and Wind power, you need oil? No you probably don't. In order to maintain Solar and Wind power, you need oil. You need oil even to maintain Nuclear power, but the cost efficiency is so great that it's actually a viable option.

Yes, and Nuclear energy is safer than many renewable options despite the negative press it gets. More people have died due to falling off roofs installing solar panels than the number that have died as a result of nuclear power plants. I find it odd that nuclear energy never seems to be discussed in the energy conversation. It could very well be the cleanest form of energy. Windmills cause noise pollution and can cause harm to birds. Yet, these sorts of things never seem to be considered - its assumed that renewable energies are 100% positive and zero negative. The unintended consequence of decisions is often overlooked when considering major changes. For example, electric vehicles require the mining of metals needed to manufacture the batteries. This requires a lot of energy and the metals can be toxic for the environment. Just because something sounds good, doesn't necessarily mean it is good. I'm all for making smart changes that are well thought out. Too many do not investigate the true impacts from alternative forms of energy and acknowledge their shortcomings.

 

[AloneNotLonely]

To be honest, everything has an impact. All you can do is cut out all of the non-required things that have an impact or things that have an impact that is so great it completely destroys everything. But, we still use Teflon. People shouldn't argue about toxic metals in batteries or birds flying into windmills when we still allow Teflon to be produced. Fluoridated water, another one of those mindlessly insane things. Nuclear power is only useful once it's the only alternative. The problem, as always, is that humans are stupid. There are perfectly safe Nuclear power plants that can actually recycle their waste. But we don't build those because they are just a tiny bit more expensive, instead we prefer to build big radioactive waste producing bombs right near the borders of other countries (Seriously, it can't be a coincidence that the border between Netherlands-Belgium-France is littered with ancient model Nuclear power plants, how is this not an act of aggression?). Fukushima was another one of those ancient pieces of trash, they should've replaced it with a newer model 20 years ago but they didn't and now the whole sea there is rekt. Great going, people.

You could call it a form of natural selection, the problem is this actually affects those of us smart enough as well. So it's more like broad-scale extermination.

 

[tree]

The meaning of the word "rekt" was apparent from the context in Post #76,
but I wanted to ascertain the reason for the unique spelling.

"Rekt is defined as completely destroyed and ruined...It is an intentional misspelling of “wrecked”.
Rekt is an online gaming phrase which meant someone was severely beaten by an opponent."
What is Rekt? Get the definition here.

REKT Slang Meaning
Rekt | Know Your Meme

 

[Streetwise]

Yes, and Nuclear energy is safer than many renewable options despite the negative press it gets. More people have died due to falling off roofs installing solar panels than the number that have died as a result of nuclear power plants. I find it odd that nuclear energy never seems to be discussed in the energy conversation. It could very well be the cleanest form of energy. Windmills cause noise pollution and can cause harm to birds. Yet, these sorts of things never seem to be considered - its assumed that renewable energies are 100% positive and zero negative. The unintended consequence of decisions is often overlooked when considering major changes. For example, electric vehicles require the mining of metals needed to manufacture the batteries. This requires a lot of energy and the metals can be toxic for the environment. Just because something sounds good, doesn't necessarily mean it is good. I'm all for making smart changes that are well thought out. Too many do not investigate the true impacts from alternative forms of energy and acknowledge their shortcomings.

 

[mw2530]

@Autistamatic, I'm curious was your funny rating sarcastic?

Nuclear Energy Needs Truth, Not Truthiness

There's another article, but I can't seem to find at the moment.

 

[Autistamatic]

@Autistamatic, I'm curious was your funny rating sarcastic?

No. I thought it was a well thought out satirical comment. The idea of there being an index of people who specifically died from falling off roofs whilst fitting solar panels I thought was genius. I'm curious why you ask?