Me and my dad worship Saganism (the worship of carl sagan)

Post Reply New Topic

No matter which way you do it, breaking hydrocarbon chains to get your energy is not sustainable over aeons.

Giving up on technology and going back to an agrarian society living in mud huts is a poor choice as well.

Solar, wind, hydroelectric, and tidal generation combined aren't enough.

I'm gonna go on record as being dead set against building any more nuclear reactors with 40 year old technology.

We're aware of what pretty much all of the problems with old reactor designs are. I say we solve the problems and build new reactors.

because in 50 years we're going to need every energy source we've got.

Carl Sagan realized that chemical power will never take us to the stars and for that the environmentalists call him Dark Nuclear Lord Vader.

The New Designs already exist but the politicians will not permit them to be built.

In a society without shortages of what earthly use are politicians? The only thing they are good for is parceling out misery and scarcity.

ruveyn

When global warming gets really bad, desperate politicians will permit explosions of hydrogen bombs to generate electricity but by then it will be too late to save the planet.

Indeed. Why don't we just build a lot of thorium cycle reactors? To heck with uranium.

My very thought.

ruveyn

Greenpeace is against thorium.

rebuild the grid and save 10-15% of your energy loss.

Vested interests by industry in this branch of peaceful nuclear technology may have something to do with it

First post of Ruveyn's where I've LOL'd.

You mean the fact that nuclear energy in the USA was conceived of as a way of providing fissile material for the arms race?

This is how scientology got started.

IIrc LRon was still alive when Scientology got started, and deliberately set it up as a profit source.

I would post link but WP wont let me yet.
There is a FB page called First Church of Carl Sagan

Hate? Why?
There is something about Sagan that he seems a much better candidate for 'worship'. Both illuminate the majesty of science, however Sagan leaves it to you to see where god does or doesnt fit into that picture, whereas Dawkins militantly and resolutely deconstructs and ridicules religious paradigms.
I agree with him on most points, its just that I dont think he realizes that that approach is purely preaching to the choir. No faithful follower who knows who Dawkins is would ever sit down, read one of his books, and be of changed mind.
I say 'who knows' because if you could get them to unknowingly explore certain of his works, it could be a different story as it was for me. To make a long story short I checked from the libray River Out of Eden (by Richard Dawkins, whose name i had never heard, i just new i was interested in biology) and it changed my life in a way would not have expected.

I recommend Dawkins works which are more focused on the exploration of evolutionary biology, rather than attacking the unnacceptors of those ideas. (History-Deniers as Dawkins would put it). Not that I dont think it is sad that these people will never give science a chance, i just know what a lost cause it is to try to point this out to most of them, because i was one.

The Hawkingites will wear little wheel chairs around their necks. And they will speak in a strange voice.

ruveyn