@ininewcrow I wanna steal this idea.
> I prefer the easy way of living.
There is no such thing as "easy way of living".
Renewables suck at energy density, predictability and control.
Nuclear gives you all three.
Also, look into the solar panel manufacturing costs to the environment.
Of course, renewables are a must. But by dismantling nuclear you kneecapped yourselves, guys, big time.
@Shelbyeileen I have a pet theory, that religion is basically a hardware vulnerability exploitation. Vulnerability being "we can't comprehend death, physically". Because trying to reconstruct non-existence in our world model causes division by zero, and everything breaks because you can't divide by zero and have meaningful results. So in order to avoid it, your brain bends its model of reality, starts telling itself fairy tales about the supernatural world, redefines death as "transformation", and basically bullshits itself into avoiding facing the inevitable.
> Even if we found out complete proof for what actually happens when you die and after death
We have. Your consciousness just shuts down forever. You're a mortician, you would know. We just can't grapple with it.
@Violett_Queen I don't think it's already the case and we already generally do just do whatever we want, but are afraid to admit it to ourselves.
Also, are you talking about *gamy or *amory?
There's distinction.
Polygamy is about just sex pretty much. Polyamory is about romantic relationships.
If the former, then, a lot of married people have sex outside marriage. It's debatable how honest this is, most of it just cheating - but that already counts as polygamy.
If the latter... Unfortunately, we're ways off universally recognizing this type of relationship. For shame.
There's also the factor of polyamorous relationships being harder to maintain, requiring a lot more work to do properly. Despite what conservatives might say, this type of relationship demands MORE responsibility from all involved, not less. So, it's not everyone's cup of tea, and probably monoamory will be the default in most of the cases. But if you are willing and able pull it off, there's nothing quite like it.
drq
joined 5 years ago
@DrunkenPirate I'd accept this argument if it were still 1950s.
The year is 2024. Now we know better what to do with nuclear waste.
First, it's actually crazy recyclable. You can separate plutonium and unreacted uranium from fission products and use it again, making your fuel cycle way more efficient.
Second, you don't actually need to store the leftover fission products in an on-ground dump, that's actually mighty dumb. Instead, the borehole disposal can be used. Basically, drill a hole several kilometers deep - that's easy enough when you take the drilling equipment from all those oil barons - put your fission products in there (they're quite compact by volume, if you separate it out) and then seal the hole with concrete. Nobody's going to dig this up ever again. It's a solved problem.
Cleaning up sites like Sellafield is just dealing with the wartime legacy, when nuclear research was less about energy production, and more about bombs. It doesn't have to be this way.