I wouldn't say inevitable, but there seems to be a whole aspect of capitalism where doing that which is not done is the norm. So all those baby steps inevitably lead to a degree of rapaciousness that is hard to envision 20 or 40 years ago.
GreyEyedGhost
joined 2 years ago
"How did we get here from there?" One step at a time.
Not all consequences are immediate.
Lol this is the typical takeaway. A better result would be to not engage in illegal practices and then it doesn't matter if you put it in writing, but that's not how you become a billionaire.
Yes, but if you increase the funding, they will say "Why is science so expensive?"
Why can't we spend $20 billion on a full-scale reactor that may very well not work? Why is science so slow?
Thos is a false trail. We certainly may be missing signs of life that don't follow patterns we aren't looking for, but that has no bearing on this case. The argument in this case would be if there were paths we knew of that could produce these chemicals that don't involve life, or paths that involve life on earth but could develop without life being present to produce these chemicals elsewhere. If we can't rule these options, and possibly others I haven't thought of, out, then we may only be left with alien life being the source of these chemicals.
Kind of my thought. China (or any single country as your supplier) isn't great for national security, but damn Trump for making that option look so palatable.
I wonder if this is an indoctrination issue. Kind of like how many people were against Obama care, but the loved the ACA. This could be, "You don't vote for the abortion-legalizing Dems!" but you give them a ballot measure they have to read and assess and they give a reasonable response.
There is good evidence that natural gas infrastructure is so leaky that it could well be worse than coal on the GHG front. Now, coal is still the leader in a lot of other areas, and we're better off moving away from both of them, but the argument that coal is better than natural gas isn't completely without merit.
Well then, I guess it was perfect and stable prior to 2001, no need to investigate further!
This statement is only relevant if your knowledge of history started in 1980.
view more: next ›
Why on earth would she have any interest in helping the company retain knowledge when the country that company is in has treated her so poorly? Move on and it's their loss.