Quote:
Originally Posted by auroraglacialis
That is oversimplified, wrong and totally hobbesian.
a) 100.000 ways to day? Big impressive numer! But unsubstantiated.
b) cancer a mildly nasty way? Ask someone who has it and tell him that and he will throw something at you. Also add to that all kinds of accidents, diseases and the increased rate of suicide that are caused by industrial civilization.
c) It is not so much how many ways you can die but you also need to take into account what are the chances. I might die jumping out of the plane, my parachute malfunctioning, landing by chance in a tree that saves my life and then starve to death there. Nasty, but what are the chances.
|
And you called my explanation oversimplified?
Disentary, gangrene, Tuberculosis, those are just three nasty ways people used to die. Please compare one of those to cancer. Also, in before you twist that into me belittling cancer again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auroraglacialis
you have such a distorted, racist and arrogant view of aboriginal people that it is intolerable! As I said - asteroid impact - boom - we are toas as much as the dinos or "primitive" humans. Hostile aliens with superior technology? We're toast as much as the Dodo when they faced a superior predator. If you throw little metal bullets or round projectiles with bombs in it at their spaceship does not itch them as much as a bow and arrow. Climate change - nomadic tribes are much better suited to adapt to that than people whi insist building 100 level buildings right at the coast of the ocean, who construct nuclear power plants in the zone that is under water if the sea rises by just half a meter.
|
*cough*
I, didn't say aboriginal people, I said primitive. You're the one who drew the line between primitives and aboriginals.
Also, if nuclear weapons don't kill an agressor species, it will at least render our world uninhabitable. A nice final "**** you" to invaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auroraglacialis
No need to be sarcastic. A wise management of power - run energy intensive machines on high production times and run critical equipment on stable supplies - makes a lot of difference.
If you have some hydropower, some geothermal, some wave and wind energy, some solar and some tidal energy, you have in that mix quite a few elements that are able to supply a constant output. The peak production by the variable sources are used by a variety of machines that are dynamically switched on or off like dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, chargers for the electric car, heat storage, ... the essential equipment (hospitals, communication) has priority on the use of the basic supply and so forth. This would not be a net anymore that just provides energy and everyone takes whenever he wants it, but a managed system that regards energy as a precious good that has to be distributed in a wise manner.
In any case, I think it is much wiser to adapt to the energy availability if it is not constant, than to force full evaiability of energy at any times by building way more power plants than one would need just in case all people in teh country decide to turn on the lights at once...
But that is the basic conflict - do we as humans take care of the places around us, adapt our life to the world, or do we force our way onto others. I am in the first, you are for the second - control, dominate, oppress, occupy. That is not my way and it is not the way that will have success...
|
And to maintain the holes/irregularities in those other systems, what could we use? Hmmm... How about nuclear? Nuclear or coal. Take your pick.
02-18-2011, 06:07 PM
Hybrid Mode
