Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by JulieW, Jul 19, 2014.
Had to google "conniptions".
It felt appropriate here, because it conveys a sense of their well-reasoned arguments that they put forth through techniques such as chaining themselves to heavy machinery, camping out in forests to make pests of themselves for months on end, breaking into and vandalising various facilities, etc.
If a coal plant goes awry its a matter of putting out the fire & rebuilding if a nuclear plant has a leak everything is screwed for a millenium ....no contest gooby .
Imo its not worth the risk to turn any part of the country to a nuclear wasteland for any amount of "green" power.
Im sure in the coming decades someone will get an overunity machine in production or wave power or thermal power all of which has no adverse affects if it has a failure.
We opted out of a pointless tax. We haven't opted out of innovation. What's stopping business and investment into new technologies just because we don't have a tax on the atmosphere?
If nuclear plants are built and run properly, they are extremely safe.
rule of law & propert right enforcement ? lol Most heavily polluted countries have neither of them .
What has property right enforcement got to do with pollution?
Rule of law in most developed countries prohibit polluting the environment.
So you are happy with the idea of an over-unity machine? This means that it has an energy-efficiency greater than 100% - ie you get more energy out than you put in initially.
In theory, with a 150% over-unity machine this means that you can take 50% of the energy produced out as useful work (including any waste thermal energy) and still have enough to power the next feedback.
- If you take out more than 50% it will power down unless you put more energy back into the machine. Hence, essentially unlimited energy can power the world for the cost of whatever it takes to build (and repair) the machine.
- If you take out less it will have a runaway feedback, which, without some form of limiter, produces more and more energy until it blows up and destroys the earth (or its surrounds).
As exponentials teach us, the tolerance between a runaway feedback explosion and unlimited useful energy is actually quite small. :/ (I'd probably take my chances with a nuclear reactor which is not designed to make and extract weapons grade material.)
Edit: for some shitty grammar.
Not to mention that the current laws of physics say that an over-unity machine is impossible. Of course, that doesn't mean it is impossible; any scientist who says something will always be impossible should be hanged, drawn and quartered.
That said, we already know how to make pretty awesome nuclear reactors.
See your previous comment.
Exactly. But don't confuse rule of law and property right enforcement with the legislature. It refers to the judicial and policing side of things particularly the willingness and ability for individuals to peacefully arbitrate disputes and to follow the decisions of the arbitrators. The legislature has a strong tendency to over rule these things for its own reasons and hence you end up with the situation JulieW has decrying in most of Asia.
I agree they are extremely safe ..
The key word is "IF" & even if they are Electronics fail regularly so does machinery even if they are built & run properly there will be failures from time to time . Theres is & never will be a foolproof piece of machinery or electronics.
Personally i think the consequences are far too great to take the chance .
What ? :lol: you speak in circles man .If its legislated it is rule of law or am i missing something ?
"If nuclear plants are built and run properly, they are extremely safe."
Read somewhere a year or two ago, that the coal mining industry kills 6000 men A YEAR!
Sorry. I'm working on the basis of assumed knowledge (and primarily in the context of English-speaking derived systems).
The "rule of law" is the concept that everybody is subject to the same rules of behaviour and it's ability to occur depends on the arbitration procedure being sufficiently accepted by the people, which itself is dependent on effective policing.
Originally the term rule of law was grouped with "natural law". "Natural law" does not need to be legislated by a monarch, parliament or dictator. It is the expression of individual rights and social norms and can evolve case by case, decision by decision, dispute by dispute like our Common Law does. It is nothing more than the collective expression of individual rights. When law is allowed to be discovered by the judiciary they naturally limit themselves to judgements that are universally applicable (ie poisoning someone's water is a liable offence no matter who poisoned it and who drank the poisoned water). At heart this boils down to determining who had valid property rights and who infringed on them (ie who did what to who).
The legislature (monarch, parliament, dictator) overrule this process and typically institute their own laws that are not based on natural law (eg the White Australia policy, the creation and granting of abnormal types of property, the theft and redistribution of existing property, the removal or limiting of people's: freedom of speech; freedom of association; freedom of movement; right to silence; habeas corpus, etc).
Pollution is a problem when somebody's actions interfere with another persons property (including the property of their person). There is therefore a dispute that, in a society with a functioning rule of law and property right enforcement, needs to be arbitrated against. Under a Common Law framework, this dispute can be resolved by the judiciary and the policing institutions (which indeed is their natural function). It does not require a monarch/parliament/dictator to create law. (Indeed, the notion that they have the power to create law goes against the very concept of rule of law.)
As I said, the problems of "excessive pollution" will inevitably boil down to a problem of rule of law and policing. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
Nuclear is the only viable foreseeable energy future. The industry has some baggage which has created some misconceptions. The green's no nuclear policy is narrow minded and short sighted to be frank.
I think that the future will mostly be a combination of nuclear fusion (as opposed to our current fission) and solar power. But I don't think either are ready for prime time yet. Nor do we need to pour any more money at them than currently is. For those who make big breakthroughs in these technologies will come a ton of reward and that is incentive enough.
And both are basically star power which is what powers the universe and is almost unlimited.
Freedom from aggression of person and property is the basis of liberty and law. (Well, at least it should be).
Pollution infringes upon both your person and your property this is what bord is referring to.
Before pollution laws:
After pollution laws:
(just a light moment on the final day of peace before the numerology wipes us out.
thanks ...clear as mud : ok i get where your coming from now & i agreed capitalism has nothing to do with pollution
you pair are in the anals of 17th ? century law & before you tell me i know the original constitution is still valid & trumps most law today .
Aside from that bord ^^^^ thats how to explain something quickly & succinctly .
I can't speak on behalf of bordie, but I'm not into anal.
Separate names with a comma.