Or much much longer. It's not going anywhere. It can't escape its cask, and outside human intervention the casks won't be breached. It's just locked-up metal that gives off some radiation, fully contained within the cask. It isn't oozing green goo.
The casks waste is stored in would take bunker buster yields to breach.
All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site. Waste certainly isn't the main issue, though it's portrayed to be. Cost of deployment and staffing are more prohibitive issues, and both are surmountable. I don't think it's a bandaid for all power issues, but it's a powerful tool that should be used more often, not phased out.
"Doesn't believe in transgenders"
Genuinely funny.
I agree that killing should be the absolute last resort, though I disagree that killing humans for population control should ever be in consideration. There is a difference between taking the role of a natural process, the predators that have been depopulated, and killing humans for population control, which have no natural predators. We also never need to consider that as an option, because as you pointed out, we can't distribute pills and condoms to deer, but we can to humans. We shouldn't be thinking of things in terms of equality, but equity. Humans can be managed through effective legislation and education. Deer cannot, and need much more direct intervention. I look forward to the day that culling is no longer necessary, as it's a brutal and unfortunate necessary evil. And for the purposes of demonstrating that it's not specifically about species to me, yes, I believe that if the only way to save the global ecosystem was a rapid depopulation of human beings with no alternatives, it would be right to do so, regardless of how impossible that hypothetical situation is.
Without getting all Agent Smith about it, yes, humans are an ecological disaster. I'm not trying to throw charged what-ifs back and forth. We solve the problems we can. Can you clarify what you're saying? I agree that no animal should be killed by humans, but I also recognize that we must work with the solutions we have. Are you suggesting that we stop cullings and allow overpopulation to happen?
I strongly agree that hunting should not be a sport. I also believe that if we're going to kill an animal, we should at least use the corpse to feed back into the ecosystem, and I don't begrudge those that eat the things they hunt, if necessary. Many people subsist off hunting to survive, and while I disagree with the concept of hunting another animal for food, I won't suggest that they starve, especially when they're filling a vital ecosystem role. If we don't need the food though, we should not be hunting animals for food. I don't know if my opinion is well founded enough to defend the position that if an animal is killed, tragically necessarily, for culling, it should not be eaten. I believe that to be true, but I can't defend that position with anything but my personal feelings and beliefs. On some level, I understand the argument that if an animal must be killed, then it's wasteful to not use the meat. Regardless of either argument, I strongly disagree with trophy hunting, and find any hunting for sport abhorrent.
I hope you can see the nuanced nature of my position. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or be contrarian. I have a well-formed belief from my experiences, and I am trying to argue my position, and don't think you have to agree with me, nor do I expect you to. I do not see a large scale alternative to culling at the moment. I think those types of alternatives are being pursued by some in the industry, but the scale is small. I also do not believe it's an option to allow populations to grow uncontrollably. I believe allowing that to happen would be as morally reprehensible as hunting for sport, as it's neglecting a duty we have to sustain an ecosystem that we damaged. I am open and interested in any and all alternatives to culling, but I've heard none that haven't been tried or that haven't been able to succeed at scale.
I'm vegan with a somewhat differing view on culls, having worked for the EPA and with national parks. I agree that a better solution than culling would be ideal, and that no life wants to be killed or population managed. However, we cull because of our past failings. We wiped out natural predators in many areas that kept a balance, and now, if left unchecked, deer will eat themselves into starvation, and devastate their ecosystem. It would be death on a massive scale if unmanaged, and would even affect humans. I think it's a far smaller crime to kill a few deer and manage populations at safe levels, than to allow the mass starvation of entire ecosystems because of our past destruction of that balance.
Better solutions have been proposed. Ideally, where we can, we reintroduce native predators and protect their populations until they're stable. Is that different from killing for population control? We're introducing animals for the explicit purpose of hunting and killing deer in order to keep a balance. If that's wrong, then should we kill all predators? Of course not, but I digress. Those aren't arguments I think you'd make, and I'm not suggesting you'd agree whatsoever, but those are the perspectives we think about. Many many smart people have tackled this issue, and we have not found a better solution than culling. Sometimes, we've done some of what you suggested, and attempted to reduce fertility rates, though I see the same moral issue there as well. No sentient creature wants to be neutered or drugged to prevent reproduction. However, it's better than hunting in certain circumstances, and something has to be done. This isn't a problem that can be ignored to reduce environmental impacts in other areas. Overpopulation will happen, and it is devastating. I wish there was a simple solution, but we made mistakes when we destroyed the native ecosystem, and now it falls to us to keep it from totally collapsing.
I think your prejudice is blinding you to something that makes good sense in context. I don't expect to change your mind, or even that I could, but it seems odd to blanket denounce a behavior present throughout North and South America on such a weak premise as "we don't do it here." How can you be blind to the use in communicating shared histories in an increasingly multicultural society? I think you'll find that the same behavior is present in many primarily immigrant nations. The US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and others. It's just a shortcut we make because those categories, however arbitrary, mean something to us and allow quicker sharing of information. "America bad" is such a tired argument. Americans may have a generally high opinion of themselves, but I think you'll find similar behavior in the defensive nature of those that belittle them as well. Humans are humans wherever you go. Step down off your high horse and recognize that maybe a behavior that naturally develops among hundreds of millions of independent people from different backgrounds entirely might be due more to its intrinsic value than some bizarrely specific American thing. Because it isn't. Americans are just an obvious example of it since they have such an overwhelming presence online.
It's not about the overall age of the country, it's how long on average most people have been here. The majority of Americans haven't had family here for more than a few generations, and that number is skewing rapidly towards the shorter side as more and more people emigrate and mix with people already here. How can you expect a people where most come from a different country far more recently than the founding of the US to have a shared cultural heritage? It's the same type of talking points the American right espouses to denounce immigrants, as though they need to assimilate into a shared culture, when they're really just being racist.
There isn't some shared culture; America is a very rich blend of cultures. My first generation neighbors are no less American than I am, who have had family here for three generations, and I'm no less American than my friend who can trace their family back to the original 13 colonies. The cultural heritage of America isn't a shared one, unless you only care about the culture of the European settlers, a minority. Most countries just don't experience this level of blending of different people from around the entire world. It isn't the most diverse country, and doesn't have the most immigrants each year, but it's mostly populated by people that trace their heritage back to somewhere else. A lot of the Americas share a very similar tradition of distinguishing what parts of their past trace to different cultures, because the people that live on these continents now, unfortunately, are almost entirely not the original people that lived here.
America is a melting pot of ethnicities and cultural heritages, so it's useful to be able to identify when those of a common background. I'm German and Jewish, and saying so lets me find common ground or complimentary differences with those I meet that are of similar or different backgrounds. I might discover that someone I met has a shared culrural heritage including foods or traditions I share, or have experiences entirely different than mine. I'd rather know the difference if the person I meet celebrates one set of holidays or another, so I might be polite and not assume. I don't think it's strange at all, as though culture isn't entirely tied to ethnicity, they frequently overlap greatly. It often has nothing to do with ethnicity as well, as often someone will reference how they were raised as a cultural background and not as the arbitrary boundaries we place between people that look slightly different.
It has nothing to do with useless categorization and everything to do with a country filled almost entirely with immigrants from around the world. Other than indigenous peoples, everyone that lives here has only been here a few generations at most. The people around me during my day to day life have dozens of different backgrounds and languages, which is true in many places around the world but especially in a country of immigrants. We don't have a long shared cultural heritage like most countries do. We bring our histories with us from everywhere else. Race is an entirely social construct, so being able to distinguish oneself as German rather than French, or Turkish instead of Armenian, or Japanese rather than Korean can help the person you're speaking to have an idea of what cultures you've been exposed to, since such a blend of different ethnicities means it might not be apparent. I certainly don't have any of the common traits of anyone of my heritage except my skin tone, so when I meet someone with shared heritage we can connect by simply saying so.
I'm not religious, but I grew up in a religious home. It's worth noting that "everything happens for a reason" and "God has a plan for everything" are not in the Bible and are not doctrine, as far as I remember. These are platitudes people with a poor understanding of their religion say, but not actually part of the belief system. This pastor likely has a more nuanced, and possibly more painful, view of this event through the lens of their belief.
My fiancée, for one. My close friend as well. Not every trans person feels dysphoria the same, or even at all. Don't presume to know other people's journeys or preferences, we're all different.
It's a reference to Noah's Ark, where God supposedly flooded the whole world except two of each animal and Noah's family, then put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol that He'd never do it again. Young Earth Creationists and their like take the story as fact, despite the fact that such an event would have put humanity well below the number of people needed for a stable gene pool, and that two of an animal likely wouldn't repopulate an entire species. I digress.
Fascinating. I do have a lot of childhood trauma, though I wouldn't consider it "early" childhood. And I do misplace things often, though that might be more due to ADHD or my general scatterbrained forgetfulness.
Thank you for your genuine curiosity! I like talking about things like this, and it's nice to not be confronted by people telling me I'm wrong about my own mind. As far as my fiancée, we do collaborate using music as well! I'm a musician and play dozens of instruments, all of which I hang around our house among her drawings and paintings. We like to mix her animation and my music.
Jesus Christ. Take it down a notch, if you want anyone to take you seriously. Perpetuating a cycle of violence leads to lasting resentment and hatred. Sometimes violence is necessary to make voices heard, but that's from the oppressed against the violence of their oppressors. Violence should never be used to control.
Surely this will not cause religious friction. I can see no flaws with this plan.
Solving a problem of violence with even greater violence seems to be shortsighted at best, and would probably cause more unforeseen future issues. I'm no expert, but surely there must be some nuanced position in between "cheer them on like a cage match" and "total authoritarian control over two peoples." It just seems so reactionary and extreme to say "oh just forcibly disarm them and make them be nice to each other. With force." It won't cure decades of cultural friction and religious tension, and seems a bad precedent to set. On whose authority would this coalition act? They have the absolute power to dissolve two states? Could they do this to anyone they dislike? Where is the line?
Obviously you weren't genuinely proposing this as a real solution, but reactionary takes like that just dilute the discussion and inflame emotions.
What others have found interesting in the past is how I conceptualize spaces around me, especially when imagining things like my DnD campaign that I run. I don't see things in my head visually, but more have a general special sense of them. I don't need to visualize my foot or my hand to know where it is. I don't need to visualize the wall of my room that I'm very familiar with; even with my eyes closed I know my relative position in the space and can find the light switch in the dark, or the fan. It's the same for my spacial reasoning. I can navigate the world perfectly fine, or conceptualize a fictional DnD battle, not visually, but more like through touch, though that's not exactly the sensation. I cannot rotate the proverbial cube in my mind, but I can conceive of what another face might feel like, and, if it's not too TMI, I have a very good mental map of my fiancée's body, and could draw her accurately, even if I can't see her.