aniro

English does not lack this distinction.

"Hard Sciences" refers to scientific inquiry that is empirical in nature and has results that can be reproduced and confirmed independently. eg: most physics and chemistry

"Soft Science" refers to the rest. eg: psychology

Ah, yes. It appears the banks that collected monies on mortgages and the landlords collecting rents just paid employees! How stupid of me. That must be why home values and the stock market are testing new highs! All those subsistence employees getting paid.

I made no comment as to whether it was a good or bad thing. I stated a fact.

But the fact that “the Market” has exploded in value while the Federal and State government is making direct payments in order to help a significant portion of the population just survive should be a little concerning, no?

The money sent to households was largely used to prop up rents mortgages or food/transportation/insurance and other consumer goods.

All that money ended up in business coffers.

Curious.. operating cost per annum on the f35 is presumably > $0.

So you don't think those riots, looting, civl unrest etc had anything to do with the militarization of police and the lack of accountability of law enforcement and public officials in general? Not a response to the George Floyd incident or the countless other incidents that are shockingly similar? Just a random media driven mob out there protesting things that don't actually reflect reality?

Because that is what a "whipped up mob" is. Not angry citizens demanding responsible and accountable law enforcement and action toward that end from their elected officials and unelected police forces.

There are a whole host of issues that stem from industrialization that are complex and require organized and disciplined action in order to contain. Cohesive action by the entire community of industrial nations is just not on the table at this point without some absolutely massive dislocation of economics or political power. Force is going to be required for change or desperation is going to force compliance. I can only assume based on history that this will all come to force of arms before any other rational solution (systemic enough that it will a difference) is pursued.

I just don't see any road forward without a horrifying body count. It is not impossible to avert that future, it just seems vanishingly improbable.

I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that "lack of rice" (and lack of clean water) is going to be a major issue whether we build out nuclear or not. I think humanity is in for a dark couple hundred years. The window hasn't closed, but we are hard pressed dealing with all the wrong fights and time is losing.

The less "1000 year tail of disaster" opportunities we can have available when things start to unravel the better. I am less afraid of us killing each other over rice and water than I am of us forcing those that come in the aftermath to deal with our effluence for 50+ generations.

Actually, what you wrote was "..activist groups will quite often ignore viable solutions. This is usually because they wish to keep on being activists and keep on continuing the fight."

You surmise in the text that the rejection of nuclear is just out of hand because solving the problem would end the fight. This is what you stated.

Nuclear may be a viable solution to the energy problem. Whether it is a viable solution to the humans altering the planet irrevocably so they can't inhabit it safely anymore problem is open to a bit more conjecture.

There is plenty of energy readily available on the planet without the necessity of continuing to burn off a billion years of carbon capture or splitting atoms, imho.

I am not sure I understand your point.

The atmosphere does a reasonably good job protecting us from the ravages of open space. One of the positive (for us) results of the particular make-up of that atmosphere is to foster life. Absent that protection (or if we were to act to circumvent it) life struggles to find a foothold. Can't think of anywhere life flourishes other than here.

Places that lack this protection tend to get burnt to a crisp or freeze. Lack of energy is a problem. Too much energy is a problem. The wrong KIND of energy is a problem.

What we call "radioactive material" that is the effluent by-product of nuclear fission is all the wrong kind of energy. I won't recount all the reasons why, but the fact that it is the least likely source of scrambling heritable traits in DNA is actually kind of low on the list (especially given the speed with which it scrambles DNA in living entities).

I am suggesting we shouldn't act to circumvent the protection we have been graciously afforded by the atmosphere. Fucking about with fissile material inside the atmosphere and on the surface is stupid and short sighted.

There is nothing mystical about any of this, it is pure science.

The web of deceit surrounding the Republican Party at this point is undeniable unless you have chosen to abandon reality entirely at the point it chafes your opinion.

I don't generally think we should be splitting atoms on the surface of the planet. It has lots of dirty side effects that far outlast our capacity to grapple with the consequences. Humans on the whole are not prepared at this point to think in terms of decades, let alone plan for events that have consequences counted in Milennia.

Well done.. missing the point entirely. Quite an art.

Exactly. They whipped the mob into a frenzy with lies and bullshit so they could use its power to get what they wanted. Then they lost control of it.

It is the loss of control they regret, not whipping it up in the first place.