I keep getting told that if I don't like being poor I should just stop being poor. Gee, that'd be nice, but I don't see anyone lining up to give me capital....
Your employer is giving you capital for starters. Maybe you ought to look at what you're doing with that.
What are we going to do in 20 years when robots drive cars, make food, deliver packages and pick our fruit?
Other stuff obviously. Jobs change and maybe you should be changing with that. We're not all chipping flint and hunting rabbits any more. Somehow we adapted to greater changes than the ones that have you so concerned.
We do have the resources to feed, clothe and shelter everyone on this planet.
So what do you have to offer for that food, clothes, shelter, etc? Especially, if you're the sort that makes more problems that require food, clothes, shelter, etc. Labor for the stuff you want is a system that works. It gives the providers of stuff incentive to give you stuff.
Hoping that someone provides you with the resources you need depends on a morality or ethics system that might not always be there.
FUNDING is the reason to skip college and hit votech.
Or because you want to go into one of the fields supported by a vocational college.
Apparently, the HKEx regulators still cling to the quaint notion that small investors are important. I guess those HK guys have a thing or two left to learn about how real capitalism works.
Here, the Alibaba Group would be dirtying the pool for everyone. HKEx has better things to do than expedite one company's con.
When someone says something is impossible now, they mean impossible because of the established and settled laws of physics.
Even though extreme longevity is not notably restricted by physics? The human body is not a closed system thermodynamically. And the Sun provides more than enough energy to ensure everyone lives at least as long as the Sun is an energy source (which incidentally is long past when it'll go nova).
Seems to me people like children.
So your touchie feelie opinion beats shrinking populations throughout the developed world?
If the average woman is allowed to have only 0.0000000001 children per year you can't allow women them to make that choice for themselves, the birth rate will be far, far too high.
For when? Even if absolute no one dies ever, that would be a population doubling time of 7 billion years. The Sun will go nova first long before humans reach carrying capacity on Earth.
Oil subsidies are the largest welfare payout granted by the Federal government, dwarfing the amount paid out to ALL human recipients.
Given that you use the term welfare in two different senses. If we consider welfare to be generic entitlement spending as it is with corporate welfare, then Social Security would be the obvious counterexample to your assertion. It uses roughly 20% of the budget.
The problem is we don't actually know what is and isn't a waste.
The problem is you don't know what will or won't be useful ex-ante.
But we aren't operating from a position of complete ignorance. We have a fairly good idea what things have near future value. I'm tired of the people who push this myth that science has incredible future value conveniently off the horizon which we can't even begin to determine.
If that were true, then there would be no distinction between funding thousands of US colleges and funding me the same amount of money. It's all Science and my parties (I'd bring a whole new meaning to the term "state-wide party") would be better. So why fund all those people when you can just fund one source?
The argument is just a shifty dodge of responsibility and accountability.
However, perhaps some microbiologist who just wanted to see what he could grow if he tried culturing a geyser will discover something revolutionary.
It actually was a hot spring, Mushroom Spring in Yellowstone National Park, not a geyser - though it is close to a large geyser.
The idea is that *people* are more powerful and altruistic than individuals or institutions.
Even if "people" actually were more powerful and altruistic, which I disagree with, then there's still the matter that actual public funding doesn't have much to do with the "people" or their desires. There's millennia of history indicating that even in democracies a substantial deviation between the workings of a government and the people it supposedly represents.
If a government is contrary to its people's values, then they should fix the government, not discard it altogether in favor of private enterprise.
Discarding government for tasks for which private enterprise is superior is a fix. Instead, you're proposing the following destructive cycle:
1) Implement a costly, poorly thought out, terrible government intervention in some area.
2) It fails hard.
3) Blame "the people" for screwing up.
4) Go to step 1).
I think a simpler approach is to simply don't do that. It's worth noting that there are now more effective ways to collectively and privately fund "people" research, such as Kickstarter or starting a non profit.
Fungi might not though. If it is a radiation-induced impairment of soil organisms, I'd look first at the organisms that have the longest reproduction times.
But having said that, it still remains that the same factors which concentrate radioactive contaminants may also sufficiently often inhibit decay processes.
What I think is more likely here is that there is a common environmental condition that both inhibits decay and doesn't move radiation away as readily. For example, if the soil is dry, then that will inhibit decay and it might also result in less movement of radioactive chemicals out of the area.
But having said that, such things could be indirectly a product of radioactivity, if say, trees died off in high radiation areas and that in turn creates a more open, drier environment.
Trucks and trains don't run on sunlight.
They don't currently, but they can. This whole story fails because it ignores that we are bathed in plentiful energy. As petroleum grows more expensive, it becomes economical to use solar energy either directly or in production of petroleum substitutes, to keep things moving along.
Now we're in the start of the era of Moderate Oil, just past the era of Cheap Oil. It's not an opinion, dude... IT'S MATH.
With no real economic distinction between cheap and moderately cheap oil.
It wasn't anything to do with freedom that gave the Nazis their power. It was the economic devastation (and huge damage to the national pride) caused by the outcome of the first world war that gave Hitler his foothold.
So instead of banning unpopular speech we should just not screw up economically? That sound right?