Democracy is in trouble....

Hellbound said:
I don't think it's specifically right wing populism, just happens to be at this time. It's the same weakness democracy has always had, and that most systems have tried to put measures in to control: mob mentality.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that completely.

That would be like saying mob mentality fueled race supremacy is just as bad as a mob mentality fueled rock concert!

I understand that you are just pointing out that the basis is mob mentality, but that doesn't suddenly make all things driven by mob mentality equally bad.
 
This is The End said:
I don't buy that completely.

That would be like saying mob mentality fueled race supremacy is just as bad as a mob mentality fueled rock concert!

I understand that you are just pointing out that the basis is mob mentality, but that doesn't suddenly make all things driven by mob mentality equally bad.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I think you seriously mis-read what I was saying. I made no general statements on whether mob mentality was good or bad. Just pointed out that it's always been the way to exploit a democracy. The "weakness" in the system. Additionally, I was specifically speaking politically; democracy as a government system. That's...not really there at a rock concert. Mob mentality at a concert or sporting event can escalate minor conflicts into major problems, or just be part of the fun. But in a government? Even if doing it for the 'right reasons', it's damn dangerous.

The so-called 'tyranny of the majority', fear of the excesses of populism and mob mentality, was a large part of all the checks and balances in our system (which have turned out to be a bit like wielding sheet-metal over the weak spots in tank armor...works okay until someone tries really hard to push through).
 
dudalb said:
ANybody who frequents this website knows that I think in general about Conspiracy theories,but I am really wondering if Putin is not trying to engineer a world wide take down of democracy to ensure a Russian Hegemony .He has found democracy's weak spot....right wing populism .
Click to expand...

I think he is trying to weaken his perceived advisories, but it being dangerously short sighted. Democracies still drive most of the worlds prosperity so damaging them is ultimately going to harm Russia as well.


Worse he’s risking an unstable US and EU. Even an unstable UK could end up being dangerous. As stable entities western democracies are safe and predictable. If they are lashing out at random, sooner or later Russia will find itself in the crosshairs and the normal controls that would say “that’s not a good idea” gone we could and likely will see wars that would never occur when these countries were more stable.
 
lomiller said:
I think he is trying to weaken his perceived advisories, but it being dangerously short sighted. Democracies still drive most of the worlds prosperity so damaging them is ultimately going to harm Russia as well.
Click to expand...

But why would that matter? His goal like other dictators is to maintain power not the best economy of the nation. Because he sees what happens when they lose control, Gaddafi being a recent example where he has the video of the result. Putin has watched that and knows that his life depends on this, a crappy Russian economy isn't so much of a problem to him personally.
 
mgidm86 said:
No the right is nothing to be proud of either. I'm not happy with what I see from either side. The left worries me a lot more because I disagree with so much more of what they want to do.

I really have no team to cheer for. None of us do so we just pick on each other.
Click to expand...

You don’t even know what “The Left” wants to do or why. That information is censored in the bubble you live in.

The fact is mainstream Democrats (AKA “The Left”) pretty much follow the data and promote polices that reflect the best available scientific and economic understanding. The right wing media wavers their arms around and yells socialism, and people like you abandon all mainstream science and economics for wack-a-doodle right wing version without a thought in the world.

How can you disagree with “The Left” when you have no idea what they are promoting and where it fits in with mainstream scientific and economic knowledge?
 
ponderingturtle said:
But why would that matter? His goal like other dictators is to maintain power not the best economy of the nation.
Click to expand...

I disagree. IMO most modern dictators (certainly not all) start out from a sense of nationalism. The see democratic processes making decisions that in their minds weaken their country and set out to "fix the problem" by subverting the democratic process to get the decisions they want.

They are certainly happy for the personal profit they receive along the way, but probably view it as the reward for helping their country move in “the right direction”. I have no doubt that Putin is a Nationalist in this mode. He’s trying to “Make Russia Great Again”
 
lomiller said:
You don’t even know what “The Left” wants to do or why. That information is censored in the bubble you live in.

The fact is mainstream Democrats (AKA “The Left”) pretty much follow the data and promote polices that reflect the best available scientific and economic understanding. The right wing media wavers their arms around and yells socialism, and people like you abandon all mainstream science and economics for wack-a-doodle right wing version without a thought in the world.

How can you disagree with “The Left” when you have no idea what they are promoting and where it fits in with mainstream scientific and economic knowledge?
Click to expand...

You don’t even know what “The Right” wants to do or why. That information is censored in the bubble you live in.

The fact is mainstream Republicans (AKA “The Right”) pretty much follow time proven polices that reflect American traditions. The left wing media wavers their arms around and yells fascism, and people like you abandon the center ground for wack-a-doodle left wing version without a thought in the world.

How can you disagree with “The Right” when you have no idea what they are promoting and where it fits in with the mainstream
 
Giz said:
You don’t even know what “The Right” wants to do or why. That information is censored in the bubble you live in.

The fact is mainstream Republicans (AKA “The Right”) pretty much follow time proven polices that reflect American traditions. The left wing media wavers their arms around and yells fascism, and people like you abandon the center ground for wack-a-doodle left wing version without a thought in the world.

How can you disagree with “The Right” when you have no idea what they are promoting and where it fits in with the mainstream
Click to expand...

Yep.
The Right follow the proven policies of cutting taxes and then spending more money and then act surprised when they add trillions to the deficit.
 
Giz said:
You don’t even know what “The Right” wants to do or why. That information is censored in the bubble you live in.

The fact is mainstream Republicans (AKA “The Right”) pretty much follow time proven polices that reflect American traditions
Click to expand...

What ones would that be, I mean clearly not the crap we have seen lately but sure maybe from the 1850s or so. Certainly against all the stuff from the 1950's and that commie liberal era.
 
Giz said:
The fact is mainstream Republicans (AKA “The Right”) pretty much follow time proven polices
Click to expand...

By proven do you mean proven failures?

Giz said:
that reflect American traditions.
Click to expand...

Tradition for traditions sake never used to be the American tradition…
Giz said:
The left wing media wavers their arms around
Click to expand...

What left wing media?
Giz said:
How can you disagree with “The Right” when you have no idea what they are promoting and where it fits in with the mainstream
Click to expand...


Easy. I follow mainstream science and economics then observe how Right wing policy ideas usually run completely counter to what I see there.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
You don’t even know what “The Left” wants to do or why. That information is censored in the bubble you live in.

The fact is mainstream Democrats (AKA “The Left”) pretty much follow the data and promote polices that reflect the best available scientific and economic understanding. The right wing media wavers their arms around and yells socialism, and people like you abandon all mainstream science and economics for wack-a-doodle right wing version without a thought in the world.

How can you disagree with “The Left” when you have no idea what they are promoting and where it fits in with mainstream scientific and economic knowledge?
Click to expand...


The fact is I see zero facts in your post.

I do see insults. What a shock. "People like me...". Such animosity! Insults and uncontrolled anger, brought to you by the left.

Yes the left are all skeptical n' stuff and do the right thing based on solid evidence. Talk about living in a bubble.
 
isissxn said:
This is why the country is dying.
Click to expand...


Democracy certainly is, and when it goes, so will civil rights.

North Carolina is no longer classified as a democracy

Between gerrymandering and voter suppression laws and outright fraud, there is precious little democracy left in that state.

When I Said North Carolina Wasn’t a Democracy, People Called Me Crazy. They’re not saying that anymore.

And it just keeps getting worse.

Other red states are working their way down that road as quickly as they can, but North Carolina is currently out in front of that trend, and a clear example of where most of the rest of the country is headed. Especially after this happened:

Supreme Court Rules Partisan Gerrymandering Is Beyond The Reach Of Federal Courts

According to that ruling, split strictly along liberal/conservative lines, the federal government has no business deciding the constitutionality of political gerrymandering by the states. States are free to draw up boundaries as they please, and exclude voters from the democratic process as a result.

Worse, the justices are fully aware of the results of their ruling, and either welcome it or just don't care.

Roberts noted that excessive partisanship in the drawing of districts does lead to results that "reasonably seem unjust," but he said that does not mean it is the court's responsibility to find a solution.
Click to expand...


So, welcome to four more years of Trump and the end of American democracy, unless there is a very large and very effective backlash, which is unlikely to happen so long as the Supreme Court is dominated by arch-conservatives and crypto-fascists.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
No, they wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Q.E.D. :P

But seriously: Nuclear fuel has a high energy density. Its byproducts can be contained and sequestered without polluting the environment, and especially without contributing greenhouse gases. And there are vast reserves of the stuff. If the goal is to put a massive brake on greenhouse gas emissions, without also putting a massive brake on economic activity and degrading the quality of life of billions of people around the world (including millions who are right now working to develop an industrialized economy so that they can improve their quality of life), then nuclear is the way to go. Assuming you care about people and follow the best available scientific and economic understanding.
 
theprestige said:
If this were true, Democrats would be pushing nuclear power as the here-and-now solution to global warming.
Click to expand...


Have to agree with theprestige here. While the Democrats have a generally stronger support for science in most areas, in a few cases they have an unfortunate aversion to science which approaches that of the GOP. They have a long history of opposing nuclear power based on fearmongering over a couple of atypical and effectively irreproducible historical incidents, and an unfortunately strong support for "alternative" medicine and similar woo.

Nuclear energy is the only viable long-term solution to climate change and fossil fuel depletion which does not also require strict austerity measures or abandon the developing world. Unfortunately, neither side has the political will to push for the development of nuclear power stations -- Republicans because they are too invested in fossil fuels, and in maintaining power imbalances in the rest of the world; and Democrats because they are too invested in pandering to their fluff-bunny "New Age" anti-science lunatic fringe, or are still too mired in the mistakes of the past to acknowledge the technological advancements that have been made since then.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
If this were true, Democrats would be pushing nuclear power as the here-and-now solution to global warming.
Click to expand...

Need I remind you that in the run up to the 2008 election that it was the Republican debate where de-funding the Department of Energy was suggested.

Mainstream Democratic policy is pretty reasonable wrt Nuclear Power. Nuclear is not ready to produce energy on the scale required to replace fossil fuels. Even if some of the problems are solved 20 years from now that's to late and it still doesn't make building reactors in developing countries a good idea. It can't and won't be more than a relativity small part of dealing with climate change and Democratic policy reflects that.

Republican policy on the other hand is an incoherent muddled up mess. I'm pretty sure the only reason any Republicans support Nuclear power is that they incorrectly believe Democrats are opposed to it. They want "small government" except for generating electricity where they like the biggest government solution imaginable, but they don't like spending money on the research required to actually do it. It doesn't make ane sense.
 
theprestige said:
And there are vast reserves of the stuff.
Click to expand...

False. Using existing technologies, designs and reactors the energy content of the proved fossil fuel reserves is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude larger than nuclear. Maybe future designs will change this but maybe they won't quite work out as well as they do on paper, time will tell.
 
lomiller said:
Nuclear is not ready to produce energy on the scale required to replace fossil fuels.
Click to expand...


It certainly is using modern designs. We've had the technology for decades now.

lomiller said:
False. Using existing technologies, designs and reactors the energy content of the proved fossil fuel reserves is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude larger than nuclear. Maybe future designs will change this but maybe they won't quite work out as well as they do on paper, time will tell.
Click to expand...


Oh that is so wrong I don't even know where to start. Given current breeder designs and the most pessimistic estimates of fissile uranium availability and energy demand, there is enough fuel available from known sources for well over a century of operation. That does not include seawater extraction or thorium process.

Even with those pessimistic estimates, that's more than enough time to develop viable hydrogen fusion reactors, an energy source that is practically unlimited.

Even if fusion never manifests, that's also more than enough time to develop far more efficient renewable energy sources, and greatly improve energy efficiency without crippling austerity measures.

Again, assuming the political will is there to finance the construction and research.

More rational estimates put nuclear fission fuel availability at several centuries. Either way, there is no reason that we cannot greatly curb fossil fuel use within the next 20-30 years. Unfortunately, it's very likely we may not even have that long before the trend is irreversible and we hit the tipping point.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
More rational estimates put nuclear fission fuel availability at several centuries. Either way, there is no reason that we cannot greatly curb fossil fuel use within the next 20-30 years. Unfortunately, it's very likely we may not even have that long before the trend is irreversible and we hit the tipping point.
Click to expand...
We really should have doubled tripled quadrupled down on nuclear 20-30 years ago, to keep us warm during the coming Ice Age. Then we'd be able to use them now to fight global warming.
 
theprestige said:
We really should have doubled tripled quadrupled down on nuclear 20-30 years ago, to keep us warm during the coming Ice Age. Then we'd be able to use them now to fight global warming.
Click to expand...


One would have thought that the "peak oil" scare of the '90s would have been enough to push the fence-walking naysayers and NIMBYs over the edge into nuclear, but some peoples' aversion to reality is just too strong, even when it's setting their houses on fire.
 
luchog said:
One would have thought that the "peak oil" scare of the '90s would have been enough to push the fence-walking naysayers and NIMBYs over the edge into nuclear, but some peoples' aversion to reality is just too strong, even when it's setting their houses on fire.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it. I'm still okay with Trump ;)
 
We have at least one more-or-less active thread concerning nuclear power.

And the general consensus among economists and energy producers is that current nuclear power technology can't compete.

I'm all for pumping money into new nuclear reactor types and designs, but currently, nuclear power just isn't an option.
 
luchog said:
It certainly is using modern designs. We've had the technology for decades now.
Click to expand...

Nope. If you tried to replace fossil fuels with current designs, you would burn though all the available fuel is about a decade. Replacing fossil fuels with existing reactor designs is not going tom work.
luchog said:
Given current breeder designs and the most pessimistic estimates of fissile uranium availability
Click to expand...
There are no suitable commercial fast reactor designs and the chances of developing viable commercial designs go away if Republicans cut the funding for basic research and even if we get some viable commercial designs they are still only a partial solution because no one is going to want to see them built in unstable developing countries.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I'm all for pumping money into new nuclear reactor types and designs, but currently, nuclear power just isn't an option.
Click to expand...

The future of nuclear power is going to be contingent on funding basic research, something Democrats generally support and Republicans generally oppose, and implementing carbon pricing something Democrats support but Republicans vehemently oppose.

While many Republicans claim to be pro Nuclear power they oppose the things that are needed to actually make it viable. Democrats have a wider range of views but the mainstream position includes it as an option and part of the solution. More importantly they are willing to do the things required to make it a more viable option down the road, Republican support is at best lip service.

As I suggested above if Democrats were to be perceived as strongly supported Nuclear Power it seems likely Republicans would begin doing everything they could to oppose it, instead of just undercutting it like they do now.
 
lomiller said:
Nope. If you tried to replace fossil fuels with current designs, you would burn though all the available fuel is about a decade. Replacing fossil fuels with existing reactor designs is not going tom work.
Click to expand...


Funny how all the experts disagree with you on that. Current estimates runabout 135 years for known exploitable reserves.

There are no suitable commercial fast reactor designs and the chances of developing viable commercial designs go away if Republicans cut the funding for basic research and even if we get some viable commercial designs
Click to expand...


:rolleyes: You really need to bring your knowledge up to this millennium. In fact, Russia, India, and Japan currently have commercial breeders operating. The most recent operating reactor was built in Russia and went live in 2015, currently producing 789 MWe. India is in the process of commissioning a new reactor, thorium process, with a planned capacity of 500MWe. Wonder what they know that American's don't?

The only reason that there hasn't been more investment is lack of political will, the fact that operating costs of light-water reactors are still lower than breeders, and the huge investments in fossil fuels

they are still only a partial solution because no one is going to want to see them built in unstable developing countries.
Click to expand...


And why are those countries unstable? Colonialsim. Generally, lack of cheap energy is a huge factor, as is the fact that they're essentially kept poor and unstable by colonialist megacorps and their corrupt lackeys in local government, to make it easier to exploit their energy resources -- eg. Nigeria. Imagine if the fossil fuel industry lost a great deal of their power.
 
luchog said:
Funny how all the experts disagree with you on that. Current estimates runabout 135 years for known exploitable reserves.
Click to expand...

Expand generating capacity 20X amd that 135 years becomes ~7 years.


luchog said:
The most recent operating reactor was built in Russia and went live in 2015, currently producing 789 MWe. India is in the process of commissioning a new reactor, thorium process, with a planned capacity of 500MWe. Wonder what they know that American's don't?
Click to expand...


Experimental reactors are not the same thing as commercially viable designs.

luchog said:
And why are those countries unstable? Colonialsim. Generally, lack of cheap energy is a huge factor,
Click to expand...

No and no.
 
lomiller said:
Expand generating capacity 20X amd that 135 years becomes ~7 years.
Click to expand...


Funny how you seem to be making all these claims without the slightest bit of evidence to support them. Makes me wonder why you want it to be that way. Oh, and you might want to look up "thorium process". Just sayin'

Experimental reactors are not the same thing as commercially viable designs.
Click to expand...


Conveniently ignoring the reactors currently producing close to a collective million MWe.

But keep on with the denialism, the rest of us will get on with trying to convince those who aren't so desperately anti-nuclear to get on with it.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
current reserves of U are about 5.3 million tons. Theoretically 4.5 billion tons of uranium are available from sea water at about 10 times the current price of uranium.
Click to expand...

That's billion with a B.

Also, worth noting:

At the start of 2015, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 5.7 million tons.[9] At the rate of consumption in 2014, these reserves are sufficient for 135 years of supply.[9] The identified reserves as of 2015 recoverable at US$260/kg are 7.6 million tons
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think the increase in price from $130/kg to $260/kg will prevent us from harvesting that extra 2 million tons of uranium. The price of uranium is tiny portion of the price of nuclear energy, and not a limiting factor.
 
luchog said:
Funny how you seem to be making all these claims without the slightest bit of evidence to support them. Makes me wonder why you want it to be that way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he needs to demonstrate math. The question is whether the 135 years is at current consumption or not.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure he needs to demonstrate math. The question is whether the 135 years is at current consumption or not.
Click to expand...

It is, but it's also only including currently known reserves that can be extracted at current prices. It seems like the same logic that led to Paul Ehrlich's failure in the Simon-Ehrlich wager:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager
The Simon-Ehrlich Wager describes a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, "to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run."

Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990 as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.[1]
Click to expand...
 
Roboramma said:
Somehow I don't think the increase in price from $130/kg to $260/kg will prevent us from harvesting that extra 2 million tons of uranium. The price of uranium is tiny portion of the price of nuclear energy, and not a limiting factor.
Click to expand...
Belz... said:
I'm not sure he needs to demonstrate math. The question is whether the 135 years is at current consumption or not.
Click to expand...
Roboramma said:
It is, but it's also only including currently known reserves that can be extracted at current prices. It seems like the same logic that led to Paul Ehrlich's failure in the Simon-Ehrlich wager:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager
Click to expand...


As well as ignoring the admittedly-difficult-to-extract uranium in seawater, it also artificially limits the supply and consumption to extracted-from-ore uranium in light-water reactors; and ignores not only the two (and soon to be three) commercial breeder reactors, but thorium-process reactors as well.

Thorium can be used in some current designs, is over three times more abundant than uranium, and is far less prone to producing bomb-grade fissile material. It's also an effective breeder fuel, extending availability of nuclear fuel by orders of magnitude beyond current known uranium reserves.

India and China are already developing these types of reactors.

Using a combination of the two technologies and seawater extraction, energy costs could go up a bit; but availability would be effectively unlimited for centuries. More than enough time to develop even better alternatives.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
given that they are out of power, they aren't actually doing anything.
I think it is irrational to be less worried about the actual drift to right-wing extremism in day-to-day politics than the potential drift to the left in a possible future administration.
Click to expand...

Read quote again. I said I don't like what they want to do. Your snide response noted. Is that all anybody wants to do here now?

I worry about both left and right. I see no options in the middle and I am less concerned about social issues and more about how people spend our tax dollars. Being from California I have every reason to fear liberal policies.
 
mgidm86 said:
Read quote again. I said I don't like what they want to do. Your snide response noted. Is that all anybody wants to do here now?

I worry about both left and right. I see no options in the middle and I am less concerned about social issues and more about how people spend our tax dollars. Being from California I have every reason to fear liberal policies.
Click to expand...

So which party is more fiscally responsible?
 
luchog said:
As well as ignoring the admittedly-difficult-to-extract uranium in seawater, it also artificially limits the supply and consumption to extracted-from-ore uranium in light-water reactors; and ignores not only the two (and soon to be three) commercial breeder reactors, but thorium-process reactors as well.

Thorium can be used in some current designs, is over three times more abundant than uranium, and is far less prone to producing bomb-grade fissile material. It's also an effective breeder fuel, extending availability of nuclear fuel by orders of magnitude beyond current known uranium reserves.

India and China are already developing these types of reactors.

Using a combination of the two technologies and seawater extraction, energy costs could go up a bit; but availability would be effectively unlimited for centuries. More than enough time to develop even better alternatives.
Click to expand...

At some point, it's clear that nuclear is going to be the way to go. Molten salt sounds like a great idea, if we can develop the technology and make it affordable. I fear that people's hysteria over nuclear is going to cost us dearly, however. Perhaps it already has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom