Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

No. And neither are coal producers. They are highly moral. Just because..

[pErvinalia]

More seriously, coal (and probably oil) have killed far more people than nuclear energy, and destroyed far more of the environment.

[Hermit]

So have guns. May the LARD have mercy on the inventor of the automatic assault rifle.

[pErvinalia]

Guns are moral because natural rights something something

[Brian Peacock]

So have guns. May the LARD have mercy on the inventor of the automatic assault rifle.

I blame them Chinese, and their mischievous penchant for fireworks.

[mistermack]

More seriously, coal (and probably oil) have killed far more people than nuclear energy, and destroyed far more of the environment.

Probably true.
But coal has also fed more people than it's killed. I think, over it's history, coal has made lives much better, and so has oil, when you add up the pluses and minuses.

But today, when we have alternatives, coal should either be burnt clean, or not at all.
By that I mean cleaned of pollutants. Not CO2.

Then people could compare the real costs, of clean burnt coal against wind, solar and nuclear.

[Seth]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

Well, we probably shouldn't be bombing in the rather chaotic fashion of the moment, with each nation choosing targets based on political expediency (particularly the Russians...)

But at least a fair proportion of allied strikes have been very specifically targeted, and destroyed ISIS vehicles, HQs etc.

Any missile or bomb which destroys those bastards, and only those bastards, is a win for humanity. But currently, this is not being done as surgically as one would wish, from media reports I have read...

There is probably no better way of converting moderates into extremists than by bombing them.

... which is what happened in New York on September 11, 2001.

It turned a whole lot of reasonable Merkins into bloodthirsty warmongers.

Which all the rest of y'all need to remember. Fuck with us and we'll bomb you back into the stone age.

[Seth]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

Well, we probably shouldn't be bombing in the rather chaotic fashion of the moment, with each nation choosing targets based on political expediency (particularly the Russians...)

But at least a fair proportion of allied strikes have been very specifically targeted, and destroyed ISIS vehicles, HQs etc.

Any missile or bomb which destroys those bastards, and only those bastards, is a win for humanity. But currently, this is not being done as surgically as one would wish, from media reports I have read...

It's simply generating the next generation of terrorists.

And the alternative is...?

We don't need to generate anything, Muslim extremism is self-generating, like cancer, and if you leave it alone it will grow and eventually kill you. The only way to keep that from happening is to keep on pounding them with things that kill them until we can beat them back enough to take a breath and then start over, as the civilized world has been doing to Islam for 1400 years. The Ottoman Empire did a pretty damned good job of cutting away the cancer and treating it to keep it small and relatively harmless, but once again it's metastasized and spread because the surgeons went golfing instead of shooting particle beams at them and now we have to take drastic measures to keep Islam from killing or enslaving all of us.

If that means we "generate" more "terrorists," so be it, we'll just kill them too, and keep on killing them until they are either all gone or decide to be satisfied to restrict their Caliphate to the barren wasteland that is their homeland: Saudi Arabia, and nowhere else. They can live in peace and practice their religion if they like, but only if they don't try to export it or impose it on others. If they can't act in a civilized manner, then they must be killed, because they most certainly want to kill us.

We just have to keep killing them until the mothers get tired of losing their children to Islamic insanity and megalomania and shut their twats to their men till they calm down, you know, like Lysistrata and her girls did. Of course, that's precisely why Islam represses women in the first place. The men know if they take their boots off the necks of the women even for a second the women will rise up and put an end to the martyring of their children.

But eventually, if we work hard enough, the jihadis will all be dead and their children as well, by the hands of their own fathers strapping bombs to them, and then Islam will once again sink into obscurity for another few generations, and then we do it all again.

[Seth]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

Well, we probably shouldn't be bombing in the rather chaotic fashion of the moment, with each nation choosing targets based on political expediency (particularly the Russians...)

But at least a fair proportion of allied strikes have been very specifically targeted, and destroyed ISIS vehicles, HQs etc.

Any missile or bomb which destroys those bastards, and only those bastards, is a win for humanity. But currently, this is not being done as surgically as one would wish, from media reports I have read...

It's simply generating the next generation of terrorists.

When it goes wrong, and knocks over a house full of civilians, sure.

But when a missile destroys an SUV full of ISIS soldiers, it does the world (and the poor civilians they terrorise) a favour...

Yup. War is hell, young men die, non-combatants are killed. All the more reason to commit to total war to utterly wipe out those who would wage war in pursuit of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

[Seth]

So if nuclear weapons are immoral, because of their indiscriminate effect and lasting environmental impact (although if the swift eradication of a city and its infrastructure is determined to be a legitimate military objective then what are we complaining about if nuclear weapons can do that job?), then what about the morality of nuclear power? It is morally justifiable to build and run facilities which have such an indiscriminate and deleterious effect and a lasting environmental impact when they go wrong, or are subjected to natural disasters, or perhaps are targeted by conventional, moral weaponry in a time of conflict? Were those who developed nuclear power, and those who continue to develop and maintain this resource, immoral agents?

Over to you Seth.

What is the purpose and intent of the research and development of nuclear power plants? One can indeed argue that the secondary effects of the widespread availability of cheap electrical energy, produce by coal, natural gas, nuclear power or people on treadmills could be deleterious to the planet through such indirect effects as fostering overpopulation and environmental impacts, but that's not an argument against attempting to improve people's lives, even if society ultimately fails to do so.

The purpose of nuclear power plants is to enhance and improve the lives of human beings, not destroy them indiscriminately, and is therefore moral and ethical. That there may be side effects, either known or unknown, or accidents that end up killing people or making their lives worse somehow does not change the intent of the research and development or the morality of permitting it. Bad things happen and that is simply a fact of life. We cannot refuse to take any action on the premise that it might someday harm someone in some way.

But we can refuse to use our knowledge to incinerate hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of people in an instant by refusing to create nuclear weapons capable of doing so, and it is utterly immoral for anyone to have done so or to do so in the future.

[Seth]

More seriously, coal (and probably oil) have killed far more people than nuclear energy, and destroyed far more of the environment.

Yes, but to what end? What is the visible result of those intended and understood consequences of mining and burning coal for power production? Have some people died prematurely as a result of pollution caused by coal power plants and coal mining? Yes, but was that the intention of the effort? No, it was not. The goal of doing so was to better the lives of as many people as possible and that goal has been overwhelmingly achieved, as should be obvious to anyone of rational mind.

Moreover, did the effort target those specific individuals for intentional killing? No, it did not. The risks inherent in mining and burning coal are borne by everyone just as the benefits that accrue from having abundant electrical power available benefits everyone. That some individuals have the bad luck to be more affected than others is nothing more or less than the luck of the draw. Yes, YOUR cancer is important to YOU, and it's unfortunate that you contracted cancer as a result of pollution from coal power plants, but you have also benefited immensely from those plants. That you contracted cancer is lamentable and unfortunate, but it is not an argument for removing or impairing all of the good that has been done and that will be done because cheap, abundant electrical energy is provided by burning coal.

Sometimes you die. Get over it and don't be selfish and demand that everyone else suffer just because of your own misfortune. Enjoy what the effort has given you and reflect on how long and fruitful your life would have been without electricity. It would have been short and brutish, just as it was before electricity was harnessed for our use and enjoyment. Be thankful for the life and benefits you have and quit trying to take them away from everyone else, including future generations, who don't deserve to be burdened with the expense of trying to fix what you think is wrong with the world. Let them deal with it on their own, if they choose to do so.

[Hermit]

Fuck with us and we'll bomb you back into the stone age.

Including millions of civilians? Children? Babies?

[Seth]

Fuck with us and we'll bomb you back into the stone age.

Including millions of civilians? Children? Babies?

Nah, just infrastructure and military targets. No electricity, no sewer plants, no water plants, no trains, no automobiles, no planes, no guns, no cannons, no tanks, just camels, desert and the occasional tribal well a la Omar Sharif as Sharif Ali in "Lawrence of Arabia." Pretty hard to blow up buildings or kill people in Europe if you first have to cross the Nefud on foot. The Arabs are, as Lawrence predicted, a "little people."

[Hermit]

Glad to hear no hospitals or schools have been harmed during the bombings so far, and the civilians in Gaza can feel safe.

[pErvinalia]

Good to hear no civilians will be harmed by the destruction of electricity and clean water and transport systems.