What's your alignment on the political spectrum?
+1
I would say like in a point in between those too, yet I have much more of chaotic good than chaotic neutral, I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont know the meaning of neutral, lawful and chaotic :3
Comment has been collapsed.
These are alignments from D&D they are more or less meant as a joke.
you can look them up on a D&D Wiki
Comment has been collapsed.
you could be more descriptive in a comment , like i would describe my views as liberal progressive socialist.
Comment has been collapsed.
i understand. but you should be because it shapes the society and world you and maybe (someday) your children and grandchildren live in.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well a practical effect are taxes, at times 1 side wants to raise them while the other doesnt, direct effect on you ;)
And this is just a quick idea
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder why you get the idea that it doesn't have a "practical effect" on your personal life every single day. Have your education, your job opportunities, your job security, your health or if you are allowed to experience peace no impact on you?
Comment has been collapsed.
I must admit that it makes me sad when people don't participate. But I won't say that you are doing it wrong either.
More harm is caused by those who lack knowledge & understanding but replace it by ideology & doctrines (in both directions).
Comment has been collapsed.
this should prove helpful
Comment has been collapsed.
Altough i love politics, i believe this isn't a good place to discuss them.
Creating a group would be a better idea
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with talking in left/right terms on an international forum is that depending on where you live, left & right might mean radically different things. For an example, the political party in Sweden that traditionally has been the largest party in the "right" side would still be considered to be a leftist party in the US. So I'm going with Neutral Good, because we all can agree on what that one means.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh. Sadly, if you ever been to D&D forum, people can't agree what the alignments mean either. To some, you're lawful good if you randomly kill criminals, to others, such behaviour is chaotic evil. Even simpler concepts, say what 'lawful' means, still breed a lot of controversy, even in places where seemingly there should be none. Adherence to laws? To inner code of conduct? Behaving predictably and in regular manner? What if law is evil? Can you remain lawful good then? Etc, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know how confusing the good/evil lawful/chaotic system actually is once you start scratching the surface. We've had the debate in my gaming group a few times. Some people claim that good/evil and lawful/chaotic is codified into the D&D universe itself, where certain creatures are just inherently one or the other, and doing something for/against them is supporting your belief even if the actions themselves would go against them. An orc is always evil thus killing orcs is good. If you're a paladin you're supposed to do good, thus you should go to where the orcs live and kill them. Killing all orcs would mean killing defenseless orc babies and by raiding their homes you're doing something that will cause turmoil & chaos, but as orcs are chaotic and evil you're doing what's lawful good.
(I don't like that view at all. I'm actually not a fan of the system to begin with, it's at the same time too limiting and not limiting enough).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, yes, if you're talking about something like devil (evil alignment) or mechanus constructs (lawful), they are supposed to be pieces of single alignment demiplane and therefore this alignment exclusively. Sadly, D&D messed even this up, first by giving them free will (which should make exclusivity argument void) then by making exceptions. Paladin Succubus? Why not. The whole alignment concept really needs to be torn down and rebuilt from ground up by a good writer or philosopher.
As for claiming orks or drow are evil, that's what I meant. They are just other sentient species, and claiming this is for most players thinly veiled excuse for going to town with hack and slash gaming style. It even goes back to the Tolkien, who debated himself whole life if all orks in his books are evil and how to mend philosophical contradictions stemming from existence of always evil races. Of course, if that's how your gaming group wants to play, more power to you, but doing evil to evil is not really good in the end.
Incidentally, I saw amusing bit on that topic recently:
Comment has been collapsed.
chaotic/lawful and good/evil are both a sliding scale. the extremes of which are very clear. It's when you move away from the extremes that there's room for disagreement (at what point do you slide into "neutral" territory?).
Lawful - everything is done in terms of the law (or at least society's general rules)
Chaotic - don't give a shit about the law / mores of society
Good - performs good acts (beneficial to others)
Evil - performs evil acts (harmful to other)
Examples:
Lawful Good - Superman, Boy Scouts. This alignment really shouldn't require explanation
Chaotic Good - Robin Hood. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. Doesn't get more chaotic good than that
Lawful Neutral - Javert from Les Miserables. Insists on following the letter of the law, the law is holy. In his eyes, if you break the law, you're a criminal, no argument. Um, Judge Dredd for those who read a different kind of literature.
Chaotic Neutral - Captain Jack Sparrow. He's not a do-gooder, but he's not evil either. He just does his own thing without giving a shit about the laws/rules of society
Chaotic Evil - Freddy Kreuger, The Joker, Charles Manson. This alignment really shouldn't require explanation
Lawful Evil - Cersei Lannister. Use existing systems to her advantage. Darth Vader is another fine example (works within the constraints of the Federation's rules, establishing its dominance)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true. the poll above isnt meant seriously i want people to write and discuss their political views .
on a side note the terms left and right come from the first french parliament where the conservative government was seated at the right and the liberal opposition was seated on the left .
Comment has been collapsed.
Bringing conservative & liberal into it, well now you've just made it even worse!
Comment has been collapsed.
that's why i want people to write their views and discuss them.
an axis isn't enough to describe political views you could be a
right liberal like neo liberals or a left conservative like environmentalists.(just my opinion)
things that break the axis . but we still use it to describe views in our societies
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. For me, all life matters, so that would put me on the far right side.
Comment has been collapsed.
Say that to the fascists (a far right ideology).
The right cares about the individual, the left cares about the people. If all life matters, that would make you lean towards the left. Of course the far left has a tendency of dipping into evil (that seems to be the nature of extreme ideologies, they might outwardly say that they are good, but their actions, be it towards either extreme, are not. They might also just be stupid, be it lawful stupid or chaotic stupid. Both the fascists & Stalinist regimes were lawful stupid/evil).
Comment has been collapsed.
Caring more for the people means that the individual is entirely expendable. Life becomes cheap.
Comment has been collapsed.
The individual is still a part of the people, so that's not entirely true. It does mean that sacrifices can be made "for the greater good", and when you're out on an extreme.
A similar situation happens towards the other extreme, but here the people is sacrificed for the individual. In an attempt to protect the rights of the individual, you allow them to step on the people, which is where you end up in situations where you've got people who can't sustain themselves because there's nothing that stops the individual (who is in a position of power) from taking advantage of the people (who are not).
Comment has been collapsed.
Bernie Sanders would be about center in germany, you may want to think about your poll again.
Comment has been collapsed.
i would say he is center left.
i think the CDU would be considered center right in the US.
Comment has been collapsed.
in my opinion U.S libertarians are Chaotic neutral
Comment has been collapsed.
just an opinion. and even in D&D there are different society with different views on what is lawful and what is not.
Comment has been collapsed.
"One day a chaotic neutral person might massacre and rape a bunch of people. The next day they might be helping grannies cross the street and doing volunteering work"
im sure even stranger things happened are happening and will happen on this world.
Comment has been collapsed.
- I'm a libertarian so I voted Chaotic Good
- Real politics have nothing to do with true chaotic or neutral. It's all lawful.
Libertarian is politics. You said Libertarian is chaotic good, and you said real politics is all lawful
That's inconsistent
Comment has been collapsed.
i think it's interesting that people say there is a big difference in what is considered left and right in the U.S compared to europe .
The american democrats have not been left from the center in a long time . carter was the last president i would say was left from the center.
and nixon the last moderate right. after that everything shifted to the right.
Comment has been collapsed.
In what way? Nobody would have approved gay marriage 40 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
he's right, kind of.
But that's when you're talking along the socialist/fascist scale, as opposed to the Conservative/Progressive scale. And don't forget the Totalitarian/Libertarian scale.
The problem with U.S politics is that there's only two options. So you get things like the Blue Dog Democrats (conservative democrats; FKA Dixiecrats), Log Cabin Republicans, and more of those factions.
Republicans range from libertarian, to bible-bashers/evangelicals, to neo-conservative
Democrats range from social democrats, to progressives, to liberals.
Personally, I think a two-party system is only one step up from a one-party system, and we all know what those are like...
Comment has been collapsed.
i find it kind of sad that a country like the US with so much diversity in opinions and cultures limits itself politically in this kind of way.
you couldn't get elected president if you say you don't believe in god or you are a single female.
the two party system leaves only black and white . and a republican has to be like he is supposed to be and a democrat has to do the same. so there is only room for slight variations.
Comment has been collapsed.
As much as I dislike an actual two party system, take a look at many european countries that are without government, because there are too many parties that are not able/willing to form a coalition (e.g. Belgium some time ago or Spain right now).
The major problem is that many people (politicians and everyone else) are not willing to talk to others with different non extremist views. Most are too entrenched in a black and white view of the world to even consider a compromise - on national and international scale.
Comment has been collapsed.
the problem with that is that most people don't think moderate diplomats are very appealing leaders .
they are too calm and quiet and make too rational decisions that neither side is very happy with.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not talking about having them as leaders, but trying to change the political discussion, including media, to a more contructive tone.
Comment has been collapsed.
but the discussion is driven by the people who have it.
if everyone in the discussion is diplomatic the people who see it will think they have basically the same opinion
if some are diplomatic and others are not the diplomats will seem weak .
and the media always loves a fight private or public they want people to tune in and they tend to make it more exciting than it really is
i think that it's the view and knowledge of the population about their political system that has to change.
not a fight but a community project to make things better for the majority of people. (and now i'm a globalist communist)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, a two party system is a big step up from a one party system. Or rather, as you say, the two parties include a variety of opinions. Not every elected republican and not every elected democrat think the same, so there are still a lot of opinions represented, even if not exactly as they appear in the population.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes but they still have to stay in line.
which is more often than not , not their real personal opinion.
that's even the case in 4 or more partie systems .
Comment has been collapsed.
Except they pretty much do on the fundamental issues. Reaganomics has basically been dogma on both sides for 40 years. No one wants to tackle the insanity of the health/big pharma so instead argue about giving a few more people insurance and how much we should persecute immigrants to make up for it. And despite deciding they care about the environment, they're pretty united on just not quite caring enough.
The decision between center-right and right isn't a big one nor really one worth bothering with. Clinton and Trump, despite all the drama, will basically turn out much the same just like Obama did. Congress will still go insane in a couple of years. Individual states will still persecute random groups because Bible. And we'll be back in four years waiting to see what colour the map changes. Happy days.
Comment has been collapsed.
Individual states is another of the strengths of the US. Some states may be behind but some states are in front of the general US legislation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Obama had to bypass Congress with Executive fiat to get all these Progressive laws, even when your party was in charge.
Comment has been collapsed.
I voted for left, although, in my country, there aren't any good left political parties (or any good political parties in general). So, I would vote for anything reasonable, as long as it isn't a right political party. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Greece is still difficult at the moment isn't it?
left parties are not considered very economy friendly at the same time the big conservative parties in the EU are the ones who brought us this mess. and the refugee crisis isn't helping the greek people either either .
Comment has been collapsed.
The current political party in the government, called SYRIZA (ΣΥ.ΡΙΖ.Α.), is NOT a left political party. They were lying to us, to make us think that they will help us, but their ideals are mostly towards the right direction, not the left. -_- So, don't say that left political parties are not economy friendly. It's just that we don't have a good left political party in Greece, at least as I know of. And yeah, we're in a difficult situation. They keep lowering the wages like every half a month or so, raising taxes, selling everything to the Germans, Chinese, etc., but they think that the economy will stand on its feet afterwards? >:( How? Nobody can buy anything and most businesses are not in public hands or even in Greek hands, so HOW exactly will the economy stand on its feet? Even a 5 year old kid would understand that, but our government is too stupid or too busy eating our money. :@ It's not the refugees fault for our economy. It's all the former and the current government's fault. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
i wrote not considered economy friendly not that they can't be or even are.
financially the problem lies on the fact that the greek state's credit rating is triple C atm which means you cant get cheap credit and the interest rates on your outstanding loans skyrocket . cutbacks are needed but they always tend to cut on the social benefits and not on the bureaucracy. higher income taxes are a really bad idea like you said because the economy starts to stagnate .taxing the rich, foreign powers and more restrictions on the financial markets
is something no government dares to speak of but its probably the only and the best and fairest way out of the european financial crisis.
Comment has been collapsed.
The most important things are the gross national product and the purchasing power. The stupid politicians either can't understand this or they just want to eat our money. They sell everything for cheap to Greek and foreign private citizens (I hope I chose the correct word) and Greece ends up owning nothing. They still won't cut the military expenses, although the Germans are supplying us with faulty military equipment. The churches won't pay taxes and a lot of priests are rich. The rich people always evade paying their debts, especially the people that own the media, the businessmen, and the political parties. Eventually, the simple citizens end up paying for everything, but nooooo, Greeks are still widely considered as lazy and spoiled people. -_- We'll eventually become a protectorate of the great power countries and there's nothing we can do about it. But we can just all leave the country and let the government and the rich people deal with the consequences. >:( And the worst thing is that, with the Greek debt and the refugees problem, the far-right wing votes are skyrocketing (already happened in many countries). I fear the day that we'll become a fascist nation. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
We bought some boats that move diagonally only. xD And not only that. Most of the equipment that we buy from foreign powers, is faulty. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
that is also a Traditional EU thing tricking and cheating each other .
the ones we try to fuck the most are the ones we have a union with.
but when the U.S.A says jump we all jump synchronized still pushing each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even behind USA, there are some rich people controlling it. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
yes they are called
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Alexander Hamilton.
Andrew Jackson
Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin Franklin
William McKinley
Grover Cleveland
James Madison
Salmon P. Chase
Woodrow Wilson
Comment has been collapsed.
I would love to see Greece saying "fuck you" to the german government and just get it straight for the people in Greece again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meeehh, we Greeks are only able to say about the achievements of our ancestors, not to achieve something ourselves. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
I really like to stay in the middle because no fundamentalism is ever healthy, but this new wave of fascism called PC is just so repulsive to me it makes me tend the other way a teeny wee bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
IMO extremes (in any direction) are evil, because they generally want to enforce their opinion on everyone else. I consider myself a moderate, because, even where I disagree on what's right/wrong, I think it's better to compromise a bit so we can reach some form of agreement.
The right outcome isn't one where one party is happy and the other is miserable, it's where both sides are moderately happy or equally unhappy. a good negotiation is one where both sides think they got a good deal, or at least both sides think they gave in a little too much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having a hands off approach is a far right direction. Does not forcing your views on others count as evil as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think a hands-off approach is a far right direction, I think it's one that belongs equally to both sides, and to neither, depending on what, exactly, you're hands-off about.
Forcing your views on others is wrong, in my opinion. The problem is, again, in how it's interpreted, because, sometimes it is impossible for two parties to interact without one forcing their view on another. The easy example is asking a catholic priest to perform a homosexual marriage. Either the priest refuses, forcing their view against homosexual marriage onto the couple, or the couple insists, forcing their view in support of homosexual marriage onto the priest. note that I specifically chose to mention a priest, as opposed to, say, a baker, because a priest officiating a marriage is an active participant. A baker baking a cake is not actively participating, they are merely baking a cake, which they do every day for everyone. The marriage does not require a cake, and the only difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a straight wedding are the figures of the bride and/or groom
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because there are two sides to something, doesn't mean that the truth is always in the middle. I think claiming the truth is in the middle when it is not captures the essence of PC. It's going out of your way not to step on any toes.
Comment has been collapsed.
We could argue about this all day, and truly, I wont, because we all know where internet arguement lead.
And the truth is indeed not always in the middle, but it's generally the closest to what everybody can agree to more or less. As to say; not the best, rather the least bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, so what is your definition of PC? I'm not interested in going into semantics either. It could mean that you mean something different than I do with PC.
Comment has been collapsed.
The italian politics are too polluted to represent anyone. I consider my self left-winged but I feel like I'd vote even right-wing if they were led by honest people. They throw sh*t at the only honest party of the country because it's formed by common people, a country led by normal citizens would seem a joke to them.
One of our politicians said "reducing our wages to 5000 euro a month from 12000 is like asking us to go outside naked, we wouldn't have money to dress ourselves". Another one said "3000 euro per month as a retirement benefit is outrageus, I can't understand how people can live with so few money". Someone need to explain her that normal people gets between 400 and 900 euro as retirement bevefit, 3000 euro would be a dream.
I feel my country's politics so far from common people. They seem to have no idea of people's struggles
Comment has been collapsed.
i think italian politics is considered funny in the whole world.
after the big earthquake berlusconi said to the people that they should think of it like camping.
if the chancellor of austria would say something like that he would get impeached.
italy's macho mentality (generalisation i know) makes it easy for people like berlusconi to get and stay in power.
in austria corruption and nepotism of government officials is seen as normal and almost nobody really cares.
its the(is jo eh wurscht) who gives a fuck mentality.
Comment has been collapsed.
Berlusconi was a sad chapter of italian politics. He brought our debt up to the stars in 20 years, and made us a joke for all the world. The only good thing he was good at was foreign policies, he always encouraged good relations with Russia and the middle-east ignoring the american diktat to avoid Russia.
Since Donald Trump came up in America, we're less a joke to the world. He's winning all attentions
Comment has been collapsed.
Berlusconi is the latest in a series of such chapters in italian politics. Not only Mussolini, but also e.g. Andreotti,
Comment has been collapsed.
getting hired through a connection is much better than to go through countless interviews. I'd choose that in a heartbeat, if it was an option.
To some extent, it's bad for the employer, but good for the employee.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe politics & religion should be kept separate.
Comment has been collapsed.
True, true. Here, in Greece, the churches pay no taxes and a lot of priests are rich. -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
That is acceptable. Churches are buildings and priests are legally required to pay for stuff they buy.
Comment has been collapsed.
i believe that too. in great britain church and state are deeply connected . bishops get even a fixed number of seats in parliament
though no one voted for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Apart from their extreme views on immigration, I've been agreeing with Right-wing populism for the last few years.
The left-wing parties over here are spineless, and just bend over to the EU just so they are 'good boys' and stay off the radar so they don't draw attention and can keep collecting their salary while they're just watching 9gag pictures on their phones during debates about fixing the absolutely soulcrushing immigrant living conditions.
"Well we don't have the room or money to really help them so let's not focus on that, but just keep them coming though, because otherwise the EU might get disappointed at us! Also check out this catpicture, lol!" ~Leftwing parties, probably.
Comment has been collapsed.
many austrians now a days have the same views .
but the truth is ouer RW populists just wants what you think your spineless left wants.
they want to come to power and then take as much as they can for themselves and their friends.
they already did it once in early 2000 but a lot of people still trust them and buy their we are strong and fight the EU crap.
i think every RW populist party in Europe plays on this anti EU thing but they have no real plan on how to do it .
Comment has been collapsed.
Not meant as offensive but 'right wing just wants power' is typical left-wing speak,
And it's very ironic, because Left has been in power for over 100 years and are extremely afraid to lose it.
(Because then they have to actually participate in debates with their opinions, instead of shrugging it off cause they're always 5 against 1 and will win any motion anyway.)
But as long as people fear change, fear the EU, and keep pushing 'Nazi' and 'Powerhungry' on rightwing-parties nothing will change.
Luckely in the last 5 years people (over here) are realising change might not be so bad, because of all epic mistakes the leftwing is making.
Unfortunately there's also Trump putting shame onto being Rightwing again.
Now i'm not super Rightwing at all, I completely disagree with several of their common views.
(they can be super racist for example, Trump sucks ***)
But I do ask to at least keep an open mind to them, and not 'look at your phone' when they give their opinions.
It's really not that bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha it's funny that EU already is ruled by right wing parties and you're saying we need change. So what change do you want? Neonazi parties to be elected?
Comment has been collapsed.
I was talking about my own country being ruled by left for 100s of years.
Which, i agree, creates massive conflict when they're spineless and a more powerful party (such as a rightwing EU) wants something to change. Which is exactly why I believe the EU should either;
-Have less power over individual countries
(which the largest Rightwing party here wants, which is why i vote them)
-Or my country should get more rightwing seats in our politics to stand up to the EU's demands.
(also a good reason to vote Rightwing)
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't feel offended by that.
but i haven't heard any RW populists politician in europe ever say something constructive .
they always say we have to get rid of the Euro and the EU but never say anything concrete on how this would be done or what the situation would be after the eu has dissolved they just say everything would be much better.
with power hungry and stealing i only meant the austrian RWIngers. but the anti eu train is something they all have jumped on
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with the EU is that it's good in concept and bad in execution. An easy example is the Euro. Forget about the fact that they idealistically tried to bring in too many countries at the same time (people forget that the EU started with 6 countries, and slowly expanded to include more and more; the Euro should have been likewise). They created target rules that everyone should adhere to, but no way to enforce it - or even check to see whether the rules were being adhered to.
The EU turned into the perfect example of idealism: they're so focused on the end goal, they skipped over a lot of the steps required to get there.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true. but just getting rid of it without a plan is basically the worst thing we could do especialy now .
a few EU countries would profit and others will go up in flames.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh, I agree. The EU is good, in theory, and the ideal of the EU should be the ideal to work towards. It just needs a lot of work to fix all the mistakes that were made in the past, and to tweak it to be better than it is now.
Getting rid of the EU would be a disaster, and I don't think any member country would actually benefit from it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can tell you I've taken the political compass test 3 times that I remember over the course of a few years. Ignoring that the test has it's critics I can say that each time I ended up as a slightly libertarian centrist. Was just to the left of the middle line the first 2 times I remember and just to the right of it the 3rd time. Attached an image , the red circle shows where I tended to be.
I also did this alternative one once - http://www.quiz2d.com/ and it pegged me as a smaller government centrist.
Not sure how these tests work. If you were to take an extreme authoritarian stance on one question and then an extreme libertarian stance on the next, do they balance each other out and peg you as a centrist alongside those who had middle-of-the-road views on both questions? The same for left and right?
What would I describe myself as? Not sure, apathetic? :p
Comment has been collapsed.
as i said in comments before this alignment on an political axis isn't that useful in reality.
and tests like that neither . here is my result
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-6.63&soc=-7.23
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I can see that. From their analysis of the 2016 US election they put me closest to Sanders on the compass. I'm not American, but from the outside looking in I think I'd be most likely to vote Trump if I were to vote who is actually the furthest away from where they score me. It's likely I wouldn't vote mind, I mean I've ever only voted once in 5 general elections I've been able to vote in in my country, and that was the very first one when I was 18.
Comment has been collapsed.
A fellow Austrian who's also interested in politics eh - you're not by chance going to study arts, are you? j.k.
Had a created a similar thread for that myself recently, just to see how the mixed community reacts. Surprised it went down rather civil, since the terms aren't clear cut, contained in a single aspect/statistic, nor do they apply universally/internationally... closed it after 30 hours, to restore peace and save my personal attention.
Astounded how the well some of the thematic got addressed humorously in the latest South Park Season 19. :-D
Comment has been collapsed.
It depends on which country is asking. In my country I'm center right, but in the US they'd see me as the lovechild between Lenin and Marx and sleeping under the flag of the USSR.
So yeah, who's asking?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it's funny how some Americans think Obama is a socialist lol
Comment has been collapsed.
Politics are only in one thing are good.
Doing nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can prevent your country from doing"
- NOT JF Kennedy
Comment has been collapsed.
i have opinions and idea's but i disagree with the placement of politics in a certain group..
Comment has been collapsed.
I am Lawful Confused but for the lack of this option had to vote for Chaotic Good.
Comment has been collapsed.
6h and only one person blacklisted me .
and i don't even know if it's for one of my post or something else entirely.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right Wing, Science Liberal,
I support the development of an artificial womb, as a solution to decreasing population of EU nations, and for space colonization.
I support the development of nuclear energy based on the element Thor * Liquid fluoride thorium reactor.
Comment has been collapsed.
you'll maybe be surprised but i like your opinions .
except the Right Wing and the artificial womb.
Comment has been collapsed.
Colonizing another solar system without of artificial wombs will need around 100-500 times more cargo compare to send Colonists.
Simply you can colonize around 100 more solar system with this same resources or colonize one with live crew :)
Propulsion technology to reach other solars system in below 100 years exist from around 1960 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
Comment has been collapsed.
I would rather we avoid all the hassle of colonizing space and build many large orbiting structures that house tens of thousands, around the solar system. Humanity ends up surviving Earth blowing up and still be near enough to move people and resources in fast order when needed. No worry about gravity or atmospheres in foreign areas with the heavy cost of moving resources on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with this anyway first wee need orbit industry, to build habitats.
Mine planetoids ect.
Anyway wee need wait for for more advance nanotechnology for industry to be small enough to transport with curent rockets or use Nuclear impulse propulsion Orion class or Super Orion 8mln metric tons mass space ship *(technology to build available since 1960) you can check wiki about them ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I have not heard of liquid fluoride thorium reactors before. I just read up a little and it seems while they reduce the risk of a Chernobyl type accident, the problem of nuclear waste with long half life time is still present.
If I may ask, why spend money on fission? Sure fusion is still some decades away, but would it not be much better to increase funding for fusion research? There is nuclear waste too, much much less, due to higher engery yield of fusion.
Edit: If you want to read up on fusion: ITER, Wendelstein
Comment has been collapsed.
fluoride thorium reactors produce less waste compare to curent gen Nuclear Power plants , and half life time wastes are smaller also :)
Fusion Power plants is song of distant future few decades * I read a lot about it ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
From my quick read up before, I am not convinced about those shorter half life times. There are a couple of assumptions about the neutron capture rates to get to this smaller overall half life times, with acceptable activity of the nuclei. I have to read the papers to be convinced on a higher level.
Edit: I am talking from a physicist point of view, but without any deeper knowledge of fusion/fission plants. Just what I learned in my time at university.
Comment has been collapsed.
This assumption are most liekly close to truth, in MSR fuel is liquid and waste and fission product are separate (filtering) from fuel before they change to dangerous long live waste disadvantage solid fuel rods ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
There should be a 'Chaotic left' option for people who are clumsy and forgetful like me. badum-ts
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm interested in the political views of the SG community
feel free to discuss them in the comments below.
I hope for some serious debates. (and a few good jokes)
Keep it classy. No dick metaphors.
Edit: forgot to add one of my favorite games.
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/Hry3A/broken-sword-directors-cut
Comment has been collapsed.