Nuclear is the best option for providing energy to infrastructures. As for algae fuels, better come out of a hose at a gas station, because I ain't touching algae. Corn is not fuel, only morons turn food into "fuel".
Outside of the fact that nuclear security is a joke, and that it's not just those responsible for the nuclear power that will pay the price of security failures in these countries (point in case, Fukushima disaster caused problems/causes problems for countries that had nothing to do and never benefited from the power plant.) Currently there are failing powerplants in Europe (Belgium for ex.) that are at risk of reaching critical failure, which despite the fact that no other countries directly profit from this plant, will definitely harm countries in a large area around it if it is to occur.)
Besides the intrinsic failure possibilities of nuclear power plants, physical security is also a joke and it's relatively easy to obtain nuclear waste for, for example, dirty bombs. I say 'relatively' easy because a leek like you or me wouldn't want to do this and thus, won't be able to do it as easily, but terrorist cells will have the right connections and capabilities to 'easily' obtain radioactive waste.
If you can afford shelter you deserve shelter, if you can not afford shelter you deserve to be homeless. I will not provide shelter for those who are to pathetic to provide for themselves.
Tell this to all the homeless US veterans that decided to 'stop being leeches' and joined military service only to get fucked by a government that doesn't care about them.
I agree that those that cannot provide for themselves and make no effort to do so deserve nothing at all, but I also think that there are people that cannot provide by context and, if given the chance, are more than capable and more than effective at it.
Internet is a luxury, you do not deserve it. You do not need it. If you can afford it you can have it. Otherwise do without.
Food is also a luxury. If you cannot provide it for yourself you do not deserve it. If I can take your items by stealing them with force, I have earned them, no? When you take essentials from people and tell them to earn it, they will certainly earn it, but most people will not resort to 'working harder' like you think.
Anomie/strain theory. Look it up.
Education should be in the private sector it is not the government's responsibility to make sure the people are not morons.
This is an opinion. A stupid one, but an opinion. You shouldn't present it as fact. It makes you look as stupid as your opinion. The private sector has fucked over many many sectors of work, i.e. medical world, business sector, etc. The cases where a company is corrupt are no longer 'rotten apples' in a batch, they are part of a rotten tree or otherwise, the entire environment is toxic.
Science is the way forward, I assume your train of thought is (since you seem to be very supportive of AI) so I would ask you what the benefits are in privatizing knowledge and making it accessible and subject to selective publication and censorship? Sounds stupid.
Number one solution: elimination of the vast majority of the human race. There are to many and most are beyond useless.
I agree. If we go by right of the strongest, then I am sure many of those you consider 'useless' will survive. I wonder if you will.
It is not a peaceful world. As for AI & nanotech I welcome my robotic overlords, I'll serve them faithfully in every regards no matter what. If they ask me to blow up a bus full of people, I'll ask how big of an explosion.
I'll ignore the edge, can't take this part serious except for the 'it's not a peaceful world' because that's the only thing in your entire post that I think can be backed up with statistics and careful deliberation.
All that said I think OP's ideas are also relatively nonsensical but at least they're not ANCAP idiocy level nonsensical, more so 'I believe that people are good' nonsensical.
Societies tend to undergo the same changes which end with different outcomes (most societies have for instance undergone a golden age, a Renaissance type age, a medieval type age, a industrial revolution type age). I am curious as to how much of that we can influence directly. And how much of that is merely a continuation of what happened before. I don't really think I have an idea about the answer, and I know certainly that nobody has the answer in full. I hope you'll agree that, at best, we can try to do our best to make the world a better place, and that sometimes, making the world a better place means different things to different people.
For instance, OP, I do not care about the planet. By the time the world is destroyed and there's nothing left but a barren wasteland, I can quite assuredly state that I will be dead, my children will be dead, and my grandchildren will be dead. It's an issue for a future I have nothing to do with. And the question 'don't you want a good future for earth' doesn't do much to me. Yes, no, I do not really care for the world/earth. If it turns out to improve ecologically, then that's great. If it doesn't, well, shame, but it won't stop me from doing what I want to do. We have different priorities and different ideas of what a better world entails.
Sadly, I do not think your post aligns with things I care about.
Member
sweetestsins
Danyel
BunniesOfDoom
BlazingBark
Sky Blue
Soldat Elf
Kaithe Dame
Sillyman59
Foxy13
McNephelim
