Posts by dlr 6 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Apr 2012
'...Without immigration, we would have to do all the dirty jobs ourselves.... "
Wrong. Without immigration the company would have to offer high enough wages to attract native born workers.
Companies that say 'you can't get people to do that job anymore' really mean 'we can't get people to do that job anymore at the salary we are offering'.
Who can possibly be in favor of more funding for NASA when they waste it on pushing things like manned expeditions to Mars? The only time actual human beings should set foot on Mars is after the terraforming is complete. Until then, robots are the cost effective way to go, there and everywhere else in space, from asteroid mining to exploration of Jupiter's moons, or a telescope at the sun's gravity lens. The tiny additional gains of having a human on the scene are not worth the billions in extra features required to support them and bring them back.
Fortunately, private enterprise (in the shape of first generation billionaires with money to burn) is taking over from the losers at NASA, so soon that bureaucratic money sink will become even more irrelevant to space exploration than it currently is.
NASA is so lame, they chose to send (yet another) mission to Mars (this one to investigate marsquakes) rather than send the first ever mission to explore the oceans of Titan for extraterrestrial life. FAIL.
Yes, remember the reactions of famous activists/enviromentalists to the idea of the cheap and limitless energy from cold fusion: Paul Ehrlich's said it would be "Like giving an Idiot Child a Machine Gun." And Jeremy Rifkin said "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet." (apparently because availability of cheap energy would be a signal to simply breed more humans). And as far as I can see, fewer humans is the real goal, everywhere and always for the hard core greens.
I think their motto is, "Any humans is too many". Presumably they are planning on offing themselves as soon as they have reduced humanity to single digits.
Oh they're serious about climate change all right, but only if the solution involves fewer people or people using less resources. Any solution that allows people to use more resources is automatically not acceptable --- because their real goal is fewer people or people using fewer resources. And it has been since the 1970's and the Club of Rome. Any hobby horse they can ride, from the 'population explosion' to 'peak oil' to 'climate change' will get their full enthusiastic, blind 'uncritical' support, cause it fits their agenda.
Whenever anyone destroys their current myth, they go and find another one. It's all just a club to beat people with to get to their real objective. Spraying particulates into the upper atmosphere or dumping iron into the ocean would eliminate their favorite current method of trying to achieve their objective.
Yes, where are the calls from environmentalists to eliminate the mosquito, the leech, the tick, etc. I really think if someone came up with a sure fire way to exterminate any of them, the environmentalists would be manning the barricades yelling "endangered species", "endangered species", "loss of diversity", "loss of diversity".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
