Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 22:24:12
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » alexandra_k, posted by James K on February 1, 2006, at 17:23:50
> Maybe the us should have patented nuclear weapons, then we could go after violaters in World Trade Court or something.
hmm. so only the us is allowed to destroy the world? i really don't think the americans gave other countries the information to build them. i would guess that scientists in other countries figured it out for themselves. i mean... the german scientists who were working on developing the atom bomb... were offered top jobs in the us developing weapons over there after the war...
no charges of war crimes for them...
> I think Pakistan, Isreal, India, China, and whatever is left of USSR already have them.
yeah. i'm not too sure on the details but a few countries have them, yes.
> I remember years ago some college kid wrote how to build one for a paper or something and caused a big stir.
knowing how to build one isn't so hard. you could probably get that information off the internet. the hardest part would be getting the ingredients to build them. that is where nuclear power comes in handy because one of the waste products is plutonium which comes in handy for building nuclear weapons and it is one of the hardest ingredients to get...
> Stopping nuclear arms proliferation is an admirable goal, but USA always seems to have an everyone else first attitude.
i don't think 'proliferation' should be stopped. i think nobody should be allowed to have them. period. not 'everyone else' and not the us either.
but there is another ideal and it goes like this... if the us has enough nukes to destroy the world then nobody will piss the us off. and everyone else will have to do as we say. and the only way to achieve world peace is for everyone to have nuclear weapons so everyone will be too terrified to use them.
mmm hmm
anybody ever hear of human error?
malfunction?
paranoia?
> Energy and how to get it and who gets it is going to be one of the biggest problems in coming years.yeah. and conservation of energy (and rising prices to assist with that) doesn't seem to be on the agenda so very much... think of all the office buildings with lights on 24 / 7 when people are only in the offices 9-5 as just one eg.
> Nuclear power creates waste. Sometimes we go to a lot of trouble to try and store that waste on top of fault lines.
yes. waste that stays radioactive for hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of years.
> Wind power decimates migratory birds...
depends on where you put them.
solar power is interesting. i think there should be building restrictions on adequate insulation and solar power and stuff like that... we can do a lot regarding reducing our energy consumption too.
> The solution, if we find one will be about money. Convincing governments, businessmen, and individuals that life can be more prosperous with greener power usage, safer production techniques, living citizens etc.
ah yes. the mighty dollar. that is of course the only rational consideration at the end of the day... i mean who cares how many starving people there are in the world so long as i have my holiday home and my two motor vehicles and so on and so forth...
never mind that our decendents... in two generations... in four generations... in six generations... will be forced to live in our sh*t.
sigh.
renewable resources... thats what we need.
in nz... we have worked out that with strategic placement of wind power we could provide enough to power wellington (the capital) and canterbury (a south island region with a fairly big (by nz standards) city) if we conserved a little more on consumption.
that is impressive. costs a bit to set it up, of course... but once it is set up...
they are also talking about hydro dams. new technology and you can spend NZ$1,500 on a hydro dam on your property if you have a stream half a meter (i think) deep. with that... you can provide power to keep your household going... and you can sell excess back to the main grid. they reckon it would pay for itself in one year.
there are alternatives. same with cars. the biggest cause of car crashes is excess speed. did you know you could reduce accidents by 80% or something like that if we reduced the speed limit to 50k's per hour? that is quite a number of lives saved every single year. of course... the people would never have that. it would take too long to get anywhere... but my point is that there are alternatives to fossil fuels with respect to running cars. the technology is already there. it doesn't need to be developed IT IS ALREADY THERE. but yeah, it probably means we will have to put up with less powerful cars.
but really... the people will never have it. i mean who cares about two generation, four generations, six generations when i want my grunty car RIGHT NOW!
sigh.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:605246
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/605346.html