Describe your "aversion" to death any way you want to, if in the end it results in something that very much looks like fear, I think you're making a distinction without a difference.
I'm not talking about anyone being justified; I am talking about realpolitik and the fact that in international relations it's often the case that what ought to be is often in direct conflict with what actually is.
It would be awesome if we could live in a world of absolutes wherein national interests never conflicted with moral ambiguity, but that's just not reality at all, sorry to inform.
Doubt it. The smart money says that he did it because he does a ton of business with the Chinese and is very nervous about being seen to actively take sides in a way that would cause them to see him as a potential security threat.
All languages are internally inconsistent and tend to fracture syntax and meaning over time and across space. This is not unique to English and in fact is an inherent concomitant with grammatical and linguistic recursion.
Were this not the case, we'd all be speaking some kind of universal "proto-language" that arose out of our origins as a species in east Africa.
It's not rational. Evolution has hardwired us and every other organism that has the necessary neural architecture to fear death and seek to avoid it. A species that didn't have an instinctive and heritable aversion to death would not last very long.
I think this is right. I always thought of him (when I thought of him at all) as a mostly apolitical self-help guy, then I noticed that he'd become a kind of villain for the left so I looked into it and he really does seem to have gone off the rails at some point.
There's some kind of radicalizing feedback cycle at work with guys like Peterson --to name only one prominent example-- and I'm not sure that it's simply that they were always assholes to begin with. You see a similar dynamic with Elon Musk; it's almost like they take personal offense at any criticism and instead of thinking about it, they just double down.
Fair play. That said, please do look up Hanford. It's way bigger than Westlake and is potentially a much bigger problem, though granted, Westlake is problematic as well.
Scarcely. This is the tyranny of small differences. Portland and Seattle have way more in common with one another than they do with any other big cities in the US. Sure, there are differences, but to the rest of the world they seem trivial.
It's notable, for example, that even something so organic as Seattle's "grunge" music scene actually had its roots in Portland with all of the proto-grunge bands, like Napalm Beach and Dead Moon that came out of Portland's Satyricon in the 1980s.
Right, but that's why people are talking about nuclear as a bridge technology, not as a permanent solution. Whether or not we can make it pencil out before smashing through all of the critical tipping points in global temperature averages is not something I'm qualified to have an opinion on, but I'm credibly informed that we might at least want to give it a serious look.
Were they stupid or deliberately misled, propagandized and manipulated by the fossil fuel industry? Sure some of them were stupid, but I don't think that's the whole story.
The problem isn't fire, it's that the waste at Hanford has leached into the soil and a plume of it is headed towards the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River. There's a mitigation plan in place and it looks like it's ultimately going to work, but it's very expensive and not something that anyone wants to see happen again.
Describe your "aversion" to death any way you want to, if in the end it results in something that very much looks like fear, I think you're making a distinction without a difference.