It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Off_The_Street
Bah! You're trying to win the argument by comparasions, not by intrinsic value. "Nuclear power isn't great, but it's far better than 'xxx' choice". Help me out here fellow philosophers, can this not be considered a logical fallacy?
Why not take it terms of "It has this many cons and disadvantages attached and therefore should be disqualified as a valid choice", regardless of what people are presently using. Petroleum has it's own problems, and can be disqualified on it's own cons and disadvantages. Why do we say "at least it's better than 'xxx'" instead of saying "Solar and wave power are harmless, so let's use that".
Bah! You're trying to win the argument by comparasions, not by intrinsic value. "Nuclear power isn't great, but it's far better than 'xxx' choice". Help me out here fellow philosophers, can this not be considered a logical fallacy?
Why be this stupid when we have the potential for so, so many more pro-active solutions to our energy requirements?
Why not choose the best ten solutions and abandon the rest?
Don't call any soul a "luddite" when your technology is proving itself dangerous, extremely worrysome, capable of destroying the breadbaskets and food supplies of the world, and is resulting in many deaths, many mutated survivors, and so much suffering.
Because there is nothing that is harmless.
Ever seen the pollution that comes from making aluminium or steel to make that wave power machine?
"Harmless" only comes with pre-human evolution - everything after that has a downside.
Originally posted by TechUnique
This is something that has been long overdue! If we learn anything from the Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima incident then it should be this..
Originally posted by Northwarden
Are you suggesting that we need millions upon millions of megawatts to survive as a species, and could not adapt to a much more conservative lifestyle without the industry excesses, and the money-driven mania that makes for the ugly neon distraction we call cities?
Originally posted by Northwarden
It's not "one or the other" here.
Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Nosred
Are you missing my post-earlier-this thread about quantum power existing, being ready for production, and being turned down by the PM of my country for political reasons? That option meant free energy for everybody on the grid. Are you listening to the other side????
Am I saying I'm "against electricity"?
N o idiot, I'm not. (Forgive me there mods, it's a tough point on my patience).
Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Nosred
More Utter B.S.
We could fly across Canada, the US, and Mexico with Blueberry, Raspberry, And Strawberry seeds by aerial drops and seed every sqare acre with organic seeds, enough to feed everybody, and for free (painful for some reason)? We can grow a million pounds of food per year on three acres, proven. Use your head, and stop hiding behind what you think is delimiting.
Yes, yes you are. Wind and solar are not reliable or efficient sources of power.
Originally posted by Northwarden Bah! You're trying to win the argument by comparasions, not by intrinsic value. "Nuclear power isn't great, but it's far better than 'xxx' choice". Help me out here fellow philosophers, can this not be considered a logical fallacy?