You missed the part where weapons energy increased to the point where aggression may hurt survival. It's even right in the summary!

Where is he incorrect? Do you think aggression won't make nuclear war more likely or do you just think nuclear war is not bad enough that it's worth the risk?

That depends on the war, doesn't it? You may be right, but if we're going to rest on our evolutionary laurels in the nuclear age, we're in for plenty of trouble.

Which eschews aggression.

What a load of horseshit. That would mean the maximum velocity imparted towards the sun would be 250 miles per hour.

From reading the actual paper, I think it describes reality pretty well. For people that want to just get by with out thinking too hard about it and just naively optimize their own gains, they'll find a cooperative strategy is better. For those who want something a bit more, they'll think about it and realize that exploitation of the cooperators is the fast track to success.

Don't mess with Federal Judges.

You're living in the land of don't fuck with Federal Judges.

You wound't be wrong if the big bang were true.

When I was a kid I got a lot of vaccines. My income was zero. Now I get almost no vaccines and my income has skyrocketed.

I'm not willing to compromise, because you left out another victim: vaccinated kids. The vaccines aren't 100% effective. They rely upon near universal application to work.

I'm well aware. If generators get destroyed, do whatever it takes to bring in new generators.

They should have got new generators in by any means necessary.

First thing to do is to get some new generators in. Get the power back on.

They need to find a way to keep stupid people from running the plants. Fukushima's problems were severe, but the meltdowns were all preventable. That's the dirty little secret that Japan doesn't talk about. Any competent nuclear plant operator could have shut down Fukushima safely.