3 ms·

Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any li

by geff82 10y ago

Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?

masklinn 10y ago
> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. Now what are you talking about? > you don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right? You know you don't have to make stuff up right? I haven't given any opinion on the Costa Rican situation, I have only replied to your inane comments on nuclear energy.
MaulingMonkey 10y ago
> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. One doesn't need to hate humanity to recognize humans as the apex predator and being really really really really high on the list of causes for habitat destruction and stock depletion for a number of species, and the value of nature preserves and other low/no human zones for helping reduce the harm of such things. > and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it You could read it that way, but I think that's likely an inaccurate reading and can't recommend it. Renewables and nukes both have their drawbacks. Ignoring them isn't productive. Overstating them is also not productive. Trying to correct such perceived mistakes doesn't mean anyone likes or dislikes either. In-context, hydro isn't available everywhere, and I'd rather see some of the safer nuke tech than coal - but Fukushima seems to be heading towards more coal instead. Perhaps you think that's better? If you do, you either think the harms of nuclear tech much greater than I do, or the harms of coal much fewer. If you don't think that's better, perhaps you can see why others would wish to encourage the fair treatment of nuclear power.
vetinari 10y ago
It's not hatred for humanity; it's objectively looking at the data. For example, with comparative similar power output, wind power plants will kill way more birds, than Chernobyl did. And that's just at the power generation/operation stage. It's impossible to argue that it will reduce harm to any living being; some "green" power generation techniques increase the harm to them.

by geff82 10y ago

masklinn 10y ago

> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. Now what are you talking about? > you don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right? You know you don't have to make stuff up right? I haven't given any opinion on the Costa Rican situation, I have only replied to your inane comments on nuclear energy.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago

> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. One doesn't need to hate humanity to recognize humans as the apex predator and being really really really really high on the list of causes for habitat destruction and stock depletion for a number of species, and the value of nature preserves and other low/no human zones for helping reduce the harm of such things. > and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it You could read it that way, but I think that's likely an inaccurate reading and can't recommend it. Renewables and nukes both have their drawbacks. Ignoring them isn't productive. Overstating them is also not productive. Trying to correct such perceived mistakes doesn't mean anyone likes or dislikes either. In-context, hydro isn't available everywhere, and I'd rather see some of the safer nuke tech than coal - but Fukushima seems to be heading towards more coal instead. Perhaps you think that's better? If you do, you either think the harms of nuclear tech much greater than I do, or the harms of coal much fewer. If you don't think that's better, perhaps you can see why others would wish to encourage the fair treatment of nuclear power.

vetinari 10y ago

It's not hatred for humanity; it's objectively looking at the data. For example, with comparative similar power output, wind power plants will kill way more birds, than Chernobyl did. And that's just at the power generation/operation stage. It's impossible to argue that it will reduce harm to any living being; some "green" power generation techniques increase the harm to them.