I'll address Neela first:

My point is not that humans today live with community in mind, but that greed is not a fundamental part of human nature, and that in fact there are many who easily live without greed or motivation of self as opposed to the community. As we become disconnected from the consequences of our actions, we lose touch with communal ethics and do work more to favor ourselves, and that is natural, which is why I would favor modernism that did not make people lose touch with the impact of their actions.

Dantrag:

Iron Fist Socialism or these Pseudo-Communist states follow what you said, but that, to me, not equality, where when one is given the same no matter how hard they work.

Socialism only works in a society where people understand the impact of their actions on a community level, where their actions are taken for the survival of their particular community. The only way people would be able to see worth in their occupation is if it was one centered around individual communities. I strongly favor Socialism because I believe in equal oppurtunity, I think Capitalism favors those born to rich parents, and I think Capitalism does not go in sinc with benefit. For instance, in this world when we run out of oil our entire industrial age will crumble and we will see billions of people starve to death. A capitalist society can do absolutely nothing about that, a Socialist one can.

I would agree with you here that Capitalism does help keep the rich well off for generations.. though a sudden change in stocks or buyouts can change that quickly as well. I do think, however, that Capitalism is a system that does allow an individual to help choose their own status. With ambition and hard work one can work to improve their situation. This is not possible in a socialist one. I don't believe that someone wanting to work hard and improve themselves and their own personal life is a bad thing. A person can become rich in legitimate ways without doing anything unethical.



Here though I have to completely disagree. While oil maybe a major part of our industrial economy at this point, it is only because it is cheap energy. Oil won't just simply run out suddenly one day like turning off a tap. As supplies start to dwindle cost will increase. A smart enterprising businessman will start to take advantage of the next energy source when its cost starts to become cheaper than oil. Capitalists will move on to the next energy source pretty rapidly once it is cheaper to do so. Look at hydrogen cars for instance. The technology is there already, so why don't all new cars have it? The answer is it will cost too much right now to upgrade all the gas stations in America to be able to carry the fuel.



Truth is all people are guilty of this because of (often incorrect) belief systems. Take DDT for instance. It is an Extremely effective mosquito repellent. When inhaled in large doses though it is known to cause harmful effects in humans. Environmentalist groups are working diligently to have its use banned in Africa. Even at its worst DDT causes harmful effects in like 1 out of 100,000 people. Malaria is claiming lives in Africa at nearly 1 in 100 people. Thousands if not millions of people could be saved through the use of DDT, but because some believe they are helping some cause by banning its use, many will die. No other substance that has been proven safer is anywhere near as effective. Now greed isn't really the issue here. Both sides believe their cause is right, but they impact thousands of lives. Impact of actions isn't always clearly visible from a distance.

Sorry for the long post

That's not the point of a socialist society. Socialism is not "equality... or else" you can succeed or fail by your own merits, socialism is just that the community means more than the individual, and that is an ideology humans evolved to be apart of, only later on down our social evolution did we lose touch with this, but it is still very much a part of us.

Why is it also, that I see that its social programs that are saving everybody from economic disaster? Because Capitalism is all about working toward oneself, and they tried to design a society where working toward oneself also benefited everybody else, but it didn't work. Sure, there's a market, and people have to sell to that market, but they're not selling anything of value, they're selling what humans who don't know the consequences of their actions are buying. They're selling for the bottom line. Do you think they'll all decide we need healthier fuels when we begin running out of oil? They'll go for the next cheapest, nuclear power plants and stuff like that, despite how horribly it destroys the environment, causes cancer and mutations which will bring about a whole string of new genetic diseases.

And about DDT, you couldn't have given me a better example, I've read quite a bit about DDT. The effects on humans were not taken accordingly. Yeah sure it effected a very rare individual in a large group... immediatly, but DDT is a DNA altering substance, meaning it could cause cancer and bear the people effected with mutated offspring. Cancer is not something you get every day, and people are still suddenly getting cancer from being exposed to DDT decades ago.

Not only that, but DDT is a poison. Humans are a part of the cycle of life, we are a part of the food chain, we are a part of the ecosystem even if we try to ignore it, we're a piece of the puzzle, even if we try to cover it up in cement, all we're doing is digging our own graves. When DDT is released it doesn't just kill mosquitos, it kills everything. Bird populations have plummeted wherever DDT was released because it makes them sick, so they bear weak, easily broken eggs, and generations were ended. Amphibias populations were steamrolled because amphibians are our canary when it comes to air pollution. That's a warning sign maybe we should stop poisoning living things, because life is a circle, so when we poison any living thing, in the end we are poisoning ourselves.

That is what I mean by community minded individuals, not disconnected from their actions, not disconnected from the consequences of their actions. If humans cannot learn to realize the consequences of their actions, as they only can through socialism or something like it, then we will drive ourselves to destruction.

As an aside, thanks for giving me my big, hearty laugh for the week.

I'll be back when you say that every nuclear reaction brings us just one step closer to igniting the atmosphere.

Since I work at a nuclear power plant.....I just want to say that nuclear power is the most environment-friendly energy you can use.....causes no green-house-effect, very low outlets (due to rigid control from authorities) and them ppl operating the plant actually know wht they´re doing...

The smart lady has a point.

Now, if we could just eject the gabage in space...

yeah, let's spread the pollution.

Hmm it´s not that simple. I think every generation must take care of their waste. That means both normal and nuclear waste. In Sweden we do have a program for final storage of spent nuclear fuel f ex.....it´s rather a good program, I believe in it, even though it´s possible that the waste will be stored just in my neighbourhood. As it is today the whole amount of sweden´s high level nuclear waste is in an intermediate storage just at the plant where I work. That is also a reason why I think it as well could be stored here ..then there´s no need for transportation, it is here and it will remain here....and we could take care of it.....

In my community there is a positive approach to this thing.....as its spin-off effects are good for the society

Okay as soon as something goes wrong, which inevitably due to human nature it will their is big trouble and not only that but Nuclear power stations produce pollution that will not go away for 10,000 years or something like, merely by functioning.

Why don't we just cover the world in renewable energy generators, we've managed to cover the world in railways, roads, pylons, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

I view Nuclear power as a mixed bag. We have the pros that Minque mentioned, environmentally friendly etc, but it has it's cons as well.
For instance the half life on some of that stuff is several thousand years, and it remains highly radioactive the whole time. Then there's the horrible effects if something goes wrong, for instance Chernobyl. Who's to say something like that wont happen again? You can take as many precautions as you want, but you can never guarantee that something like that wont happen.

Just my semi-coherent 2 cents

There's a nuclear power plant around where I am. I think everything is pretty safe. You can't get within a mile of the place without having an m16 pointed at you.

Because we do not have enough of renewable energy generators!! We can´t cover the world in windmills.....or can we?


Sure, everything has pros and cons! If you read my earlier post I said that we f ex have a program for handling of those nuclides that have a very long half-life, we have a plan for final storage. it´s called "the swedish model" It´s well known..

And Chernobyl...well one of my friends (german)worked there some years ago, writing a safety-report for the facility as it is now. He lived there for 5 years, spending almost the entire time close to that wreck of a plant. He has some pictures I say! The plan now is to cover the whole area in concrete...they´ll build a mountain out of concrete on top of it!

But..of course...you can never guarantee anything.....now the probability of a nuclear melt-down like chernobyl..is well not very high....in fact it´s very low.....very low



Ahhh that´s neat! But seriously it´s like that here as well....sort of....safety is number one issue.....safety against outside threats as well as radiological safety

All in all.....I think it´s safe enough....btw Danny what´s the name of that plant near you?

It's called Sharon Harris. It's owned by progress energy.

Nuclear power plants emit radioactive energy that cause genetic problems, like cancer and mutations. At every nucealr power plant animals recorded to live near the plants have had recorded mutations, mostly cancer, but also spawning eggs two weak for the embryos to survive, or random, strange mutations.

It is NOT environmentally friendly.

First off, Chernobyl wasn't an accident. It was a deliberate simulation of wartime conditions, for which several layers of safeguards had to be disabled, and the uninformed personnel prodded into doing things that they would normally never let happen.

Secondly, Chernobyl is a wildlife sanctuary today.

Not the whole area. There are still huge numbrs of people living on heavily irradiated soil, and cancer and mutations are high

Yes, but mutations cover a very wide range of things, some of which are somewhat innocuous.

The point, however, is that even when operators make a conscious effort to make something go horribly wrong, and do so in a plant that was sub-par to begin with, the result still isn't necessarily the "vast streches of smoldering hell-like terrain dotted with streams of most potent poison, and thick with the stench of boiling plains of fat" that fills Doom's head whenever he hears the word "nuclear." Methinks he just had a little too much time with the warezed version of Stalker recently.

Unfortunately that was a violation of code, but I'd like to request nothing happen to this thread despite it.

Hoever, now that it has become personal, I can't respond, as I've been trained not to respond to fallacies in an argument.

Yes there is a risk of disaster with having nuclear power... but it is extremely low. In fact there is a much better chance of Vesuvius erupting again and laying waste to Pompeii once more than a Nuclear accident. The people in Pompeii don't seem to mind living next to a possible bomb and it really only provides them a scenic view.

I don´t know exactly how you control your plants in US. But I can assure you yhose emissions are very thorough recorded and documented here. The authorities do have stated limits for air- and water emissions of radioactivity. We are not allowed to exceed these and we do not! I can assure you. We also control the animal-life nearby and the only thing we noticed was that the fish living in the cooling-water outlet is a tad bigger than normal, but that´s due to the higher water temperature!

I still say that nuclear power is environment friendly....


Yes Chernobyl accident was a test performed that went wrong and the reactor went overcritical and so the core melted down. There were also a couple of explosions that lifted the reactor vessel cover and turned it aside before it fell dowen again.




The very site where the plant is is pretty clean today, but the city nearby is abandoned due to contamination. But a new city is built some distance away.

The cancer and mutations are higher in the area yes...and that is very sad indeed.