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

Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

24 Dec 2011, 3:30 am

androbot2084 wrote:
Environmentalists will never accept nuclear power.


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.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,497

24 Dec 2011, 12:14 pm

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



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

24 Dec 2011, 12:19 pm

blauSamstag wrote:

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.


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



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,497

24 Dec 2011, 12:23 pm

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.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

24 Dec 2011, 1:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:

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.


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


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



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

24 Dec 2011, 3:50 pm

blauSamstag wrote:

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


My very thought.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,497

24 Dec 2011, 3:53 pm

Greenpeace is against thorium.



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

26 Dec 2011, 10:46 pm

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



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,327
Location: Montreal

26 Dec 2011, 10:48 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:

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.


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


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


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


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

26 Dec 2011, 11:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
snapcap wrote:
What is the gospel of Sagan?

Item #0 We are the Cosmos looking at itself
Item #1 We are all made of stuhr stuff
Item #2 The Cosmos is all there is, was and ever will be
Item #3 There are bullyuns and billyuns of galaxies in the Cosmos
Item #4 The are billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs in each galaxy
Item #5 Our Earth is a Pale Blue Dot in the Heavens.

Main Question: Who speaks for Earth?

Principal Hymn: Whale Song. Whoop, Whoop, Whoop (sung by Carl himself).

ruveyn

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



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

27 Dec 2011, 12:45 am

Vigilans wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:

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.


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


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


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


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



scubasteve
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,001
Location: San Francisco

29 Dec 2011, 5:57 am

This is how scientology got started.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

29 Dec 2011, 5:12 pm

scubasteve wrote:
This is how scientology got started.
IIrc LRon was still alive when Scientology got started, and deliberately set it up as a profit source.



Rewind
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

02 Jan 2012, 2:14 am

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



so_subtly_strange
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 295

02 Jan 2012, 5:41 am

MCalavera wrote:
stgiordanobruno wrote:
What will be next Hawkingism? Dawkinism? I think at the end of the day I am the master of my own belief system. I don't need other external gurus to dictate to me what to think and believe.


Anything but Dawkinism. I hate that guy.


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.