-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:30:11 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Japan
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Japan  (Read 11305 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2011, 08:30:11 PM »

BTW, Luther I am glad to see you on this board, your posts are always great...
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2011, 08:34:51 PM »

Thanks, noname. I'm struggling to care much about discussing BBs these days--even the Smile thing has me surprisingly unexcited--but other things pique my interest sometimes. And guess what ... I think we agree somewhat on energy policy (even though I tend to be more lefty and definitely am concerned about environmental damage). Society isn't going to reverse itself in a short time: we're not going to stop flying, driving, heating, lighting, etc. We, as a world, just aren't. And with China and India building wealth, we're actually going to do more of it. Drilling for more oil scares me because it is limited and it is a serious pollutant. But I regret to admit you're probably right, with the huge caveat that I'd also raise the gas tax (and cut subsidies to oil companies) to instead make a major push toward finding ways to make cleaner, renewable energy sources financially feasible.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2011, 08:37:50 PM »

Oh, and also (re the part about building new nuke plants) ... I really, really cautiously sort-of agree. The reason? Newer plants would presumably be safer than older ones. But they are hugely expensive. That is an issue. And obviously, I am not for cutting the regulatory hurdles, because we need to hold these plants to the highest levels of safety. Obvious reasons. In the end, though, there are risks. Just like when we step onto planes, drive 75 down the highway, or breathe air that may contain SARS (speaking of long-since forgotten, but in no way gone, threats...).
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2011, 08:49:10 PM »

I hear ya...I just learned of some Solar farms in NY and was amazed...I love the environment as much as anybody...which is one thing that conservatives need to convey better...if they wish to hold true to that label...for instance, I am not so much concerned about Global Warming. However talk of an oil spill, smog, air pollution and I'm all ears. IMO, anyone who AUTOMATICALLY dismisses wind and solar are ignorant.

I do not want anymore nuke plants, but the fact is that newer plants would be better than those broken down. I wonder how if all of the nuke and oil facilties were closed down how the job markets would be affected. Do these people succesfully lobby by conveying that too many jobs would be lost?

I wonder if all of the power lines in the country were buried that in the long run there would be less jobs because the lines wouldn't have to be serviced as often. Could green jobs make up for all the jobs that would be lost if there were only a tiny fraction of fossil fuel plants around?

Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2011, 08:50:19 PM »

Stay warm and see in the dark without building nuclear plants, sure. But without harming the environment? I wonder. I'd love to think so, but we certainly haven't stumbled across anything so far. (Granted, the "and is financially rewarding to provide" is part of the situation.) But even burning wood emits pollution--just less of it. And solar--transmitting it to those areas where it can't be gathered means environmental impact as well. (Impacts on wildlife makes large-scale solar projects an administrative hurdle in California, for example.) I guess I'm just not a very optimistic person, is all. And what I often see is, the latest disaster is the one that people get excited about, so this week was nuclear energy. Our attention spans are short, though. (BP? Gulf of Mexico? What?) Hell, we almost seem to have forgotten revolutions in the Middle East, except for the past day's Libya news pushing it back above the fold. Anyway ... just my pessimism/cynicism about it all, i guess.

You don't need fire to stay warm - just a good insulated home...perhaps buried underneath the ground. And attach solar panels to the "roof" to conduct electricity to run warm water around the walls of the house - giving you warm water for showers as well as heat for the house.

Just random a random idea. Many people have come up with these ideas, but have either been stifled by corporations or laughed at by investors. Anything that challenges the status quo of our large society is thrown out immediately. People don't like change (especially change that effects their ability to have whatever they want). Take Al Gore for instance, he preaches this sh*t, but he owns multiple houses and uses a tremendous amount of energy...even people who see the light don't change.

Large Scale Solar panel placement can be destructive to nature, but I think they would be less destructive than the radiation that plows into chromosomes from a nuclear disaster. Maybe not. Even wind energy is dangerous to nature (birds for instance). Nothing is perfect, but a huge nuclear accident is far more dangerous in the longterm than a few dead birds and misplaced squirrel nests, in my opinion.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2011, 08:54:05 PM »



You don't need fire to stay warm - just a good insulated home...perhaps buried underneath the ground.
I'm in Minnesota. It's cold. (Well, not at this moment, it is a balmy 35 F.) In winter, we regularly have multiple days, and even weeks, of temps below zero. Insulation alone doesnt cut it. And houses would have to be pretty far beneath ground, too, considering how deep it freezes. (Just like solar energy being a regional solution, so is this.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2011, 08:57:40 PM »



Just random a random idea. Many people have come up with these ideas, but have either been stifled by corporations or laughed at by investors. Anything that challenges the status quo of our large society is thrown out immediately. People don't like change (especially change that effects their ability to have whatever they want).
I think it is important to keep in mind that there is more to it than just "new" or "change," too. Remember, we have international systems set up a certain way. If everyone does everything according to their own particular whims--or, to make it sound less flip, even according to their own locally practical solutions--it makes those huge systems less efficient, maybe impossible. Now, that might be for the best. But it's not as easy as "oh, cool idea. let's do this here now." If you develop some great new automobile fuel, for example ... who cares? You need stations everywhere to fill it. Same concept goes for pretty much everything. You need a tremendous buy-in, and a tremendous investment, to get anything done on a big enough scale to matter.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2011, 09:01:46 PM »



You don't need fire to stay warm - just a good insulated home...perhaps buried underneath the ground.
I'm in Minnesota. It's cold. (Well, not at this moment, it is a balmy 35 F.) In winter, we regularly have multiple days, and even weeks, of temps below zero. Insulation alone doesnt cut it. And houses would have to be pretty far beneath ground, too, considering how deep it freezes. (Just like solar energy being a regional solution, so is this.)

Point being, there are many people a lot smarter than I that have the ability to figure these things out Grin
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 18, 2011, 09:04:09 PM »



You don't need fire to stay warm - just a good insulated home...perhaps buried underneath the ground.
I'm in Minnesota. It's cold. (Well, not at this moment, it is a balmy 35 F.) In winter, we regularly have multiple days, and even weeks, of temps below zero. Insulation alone doesnt cut it. And houses would have to be pretty far beneath ground, too, considering how deep it freezes. (Just like solar energy being a regional solution, so is this.)

Point being, there are many people a lot smarter than I that have the ability to figure these things out Grin
Yep. But them being human, they also tend to want to make a good living. Guess which pays better: working for some major oil company (or whatever major industrial power), or researcher at some university or nonprofit.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 18, 2011, 09:12:53 PM »



Just random a random idea. Many people have come up with these ideas, but have either been stifled by corporations or laughed at by investors. Anything that challenges the status quo of our large society is thrown out immediately. People don't like change (especially change that effects their ability to have whatever they want).
I think it is important to keep in mind that there is more to it than just "new" or "change," too. Remember, we have international systems set up a certain way. If everyone does everything according to their own particular whims--or, to make it sound less flip, even according to their own locally practical solutions--it makes those huge systems less efficient, maybe impossible. Now, that might be for the best. But it's not as easy as "oh, cool idea. let's do this here now." If you develop some great new automobile fuel, for example ... who cares? You need stations everywhere to fill it. Same concept goes for pretty much everything. You need a tremendous buy-in, and a tremendous investment, to get anything done on a big enough scale to matter.

I envy the Amish for being incredibly self-sufficient. They could care less about ipods and cars. Thus they are not directly effected by international markets and new technological advancements.

Unfortunately, in this society, humans can't really act on their own whims - lest they be branded outcasts by the group (Amish are somewhat labelled outcasts, yet they are admired by most). Humans are so enamored with short-term survival that we will follow the group just to ensure our own safety...without thinking long-term (100s of years ahead). It really isn't our fault, as we are wired this way, but it will probably lead to our downfall...or our society's downfall.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 18, 2011, 09:19:25 PM »

Part of a community's self reliance is also its isolationism and exclusivity, though. What this means is, you take care of your own ... but you make sure "your own" is a small enough unit to take care of in the manner which you all more or less agree to be taken care of. And outsiders are on their own. We've established society with larger boundaries--approaching worldwide, albeit with hit-and-miss enforcement--which means you can't really do it that way. You can't just take care of your own and f*** the rest once you've taken that position. So if the USA, for example, is to be 300+ million people across 50 states, then it's not acceptable for Washington DC to allow Connecticut to do well for itself while Mississippi goes to hell. You can say "everyone take care of yourselves," but you have to be ready to let them fail at it.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 18, 2011, 09:33:24 PM »

You can say "everyone take care of yourselves," but you have to be ready to let them fail at it.

I agree with that statement...I say in a society with limited gov't then it is eaier to be successful in these endeavors. I imagine we differ on these sentiments, and that the thread has tangented beyond intent. IMO I don't need to be paying for anybody's problems but my own...
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 18, 2011, 09:37:49 PM »

Yeah, we disagree. Though I'm not sure how far I go on it. Obviously, it's easier not to be responsible for other communities but your own. But there is a certain sense of shared humanity, a larger community, compassion, empathy, that makes most societies throughout history believe in some sort of sharing one's excess with the needy. How to dole it out, to whom, when ... these are the big questions.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2011, 12:51:01 AM »

All these proposed ideas are just ways of trying to bend to what is the root of the real problem here, overpopulation. The planet is ridiculously overcrowed and just can't sustain this many people. What governments really need to act upon, is measures to curb the population increase. Two children per family max and only if the parents can completely support them fiscally - no State handouts. Make it Law! The system China has in place needs to be made mandatory woldwide. 7 billion people is just too much. We cannot feed them without plundering our oceans and tearing down our forrests to make room for grazing. We are running out of ways to hide all the waste this amount of humanity produces. We pollute our water,air and endanger our wildlife (plus risk blowing ourselves to Hell) to fuel and power such a number. And as the populace expands it's only going to get worse.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.933 seconds with 22 queries.