Harrison [He/Him] @ Harrison @ttrpg.network

Posts

0

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

Eco-fascist outcomes come from Eco-fascist methods. How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world's population to genocide and privation?

Human nature is to strive, to fight for a better life for themselves and their communities. The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and "harmony with the planet" a bunch of backwards romantics push is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it.

If people need to live in dense cities, then they will live in dense cities.

Build one then

Jets and ships can be nuclear powered. It's just not a very good idea for jets at least.

The nuclear power plant decades older than Chernobyl that got hit by an earthquake and a tsunami and resulted in a only single death and some expensive clean up?

Big hole in the side of mountain in a desert, stick the waste in, full it with rubble and concrete, job done. If some primatives in a hundred thousand years stumble across it and dig it out, fuck em, who cares.

Nationalise energy production.

We'd run of our uranium that's economical to extract using current technology and at current prices. All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.

Per megawatt of generated energy, coal releases significantly more radioative waste into the environment than nuclear does.

The biggest enemy of the left is the right, it's just that everyone on the left can agree that they're terrible so it doesn't come up in discourse too much, whereas the people who are on your side but want to do things a different way will take up much more of your attention.

It's not weird that it specifies a computer program, the use of the term to mean the standard option comes from computing. It's the value chosen when the computer defaults, as in fails to pay it's debt (in this case debt being the value it was looking for).

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that people prefer meat because it's the default option and not the other way around.

Old Zealand is in Denmark

The ol' head in the sand approach

You could, but the only reason to do so would be to accommodate a small minority's ethical dietary decisions, which is the opposite of a default.

No one's going to chose the slop so there's no point in having it.

As for subway, their menu is largely determined by sales. They do trial other options occasionally, and the ones that are popular stay.

If what one person does with their own property, causing physical harm to no-one, incites others to civil unrest, the problem lies with the others.

Just a slope argument at this point. Laws are influenced by precedent, and the introduction of one blasphemy law is precedent to introduce others.

Blasphemy laws for the modern day.

The atheist ones presumably

I find the idea of the government using violence to force me to show respect to ideas I abhor disgusting.

I respect every person's right to not be persecuted for characteristics that are outside their control.

People absolutely should be persectued, at least socially, for holding certain beliefs and advocating for certain ideas.

Humans don't need anything but nutrient slop to survive, but the prisons aim for something better largely because it keeps riots down.