In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.
Actually, this has been a well established practice for years in high energy density (HED) physics. On all of the big lasers like NIF, OMEGA, and NIKE government projects doing largely classified research get first dibs on operations time. There are many groups doing peaceful energy and astrophysics research as well, but they tend to be less priority and have to do a lot of work proving their experiments before getting shot time. NIF, for example, is only just going to be accepting proposals from outside groups this December.
NO!
If we keep treating people like they're too stupid to understand the science behind things, then it's going to just get harder and harder to get any real change in the technology our society uses. Not to mention the young people we scare away from science and technology. Rebranding a technology works only in the short term until the public catches on or some uses the exact same tactic against you. No, what we need to do is work to slowly win the culture war and continue to make the work of scientists again treated with appreciated with appreciation instead of suspicion.
Of course he's being over the top about it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be on
Soda? Who would like to consume NaCO3 in any form?
Jokes aside, the whole area of luxury consumption - like junk food and sugar-drinks - is highly inflamed and mired down in huge, economic interests. Whole sectors of industry all across the world would collapse if people suddenly started to eat and drink only healthily; yet there is no doubt that this same consumer life-style is the biggest cause of preventable, early death, disability and general bad health.
People often say "nobody is forcing you to buy junk food", when you criticize the junk-food industry; but that is a superficial argument that is not justified. As all modern research into the causes of obesity shows very clearly, it is not simply a matter of personal choice, whether you eat too much junk; and anybody who has tried to fight a serious weight problem will know from experience that it takes more than mere will-power to stay away from the calories. Our bodies and instincts are programmed to make us fatten up when we are surrounded by abundance. When you turn on the tv you are constantly indoctrinated to go and consume junk food, and when you go to the supermarket the displays are brimming with it; you will be hard put to find a quick and easy, healthy option. So is it really a matter of personal choice? I don't think so.
What one should remember is that these things are neither human fundamental rights nor basic food-stuffs; they are luxuries. And while luxury can be nice from time to time, it simply get trivial and not actually enjoyable when you have it all the time.
I don't know what is the best way forward, but the present situation is simply not sustainable. Personally, I would like to see a situation where basic, healthy necessities were abundant and easy to find everywhere, but luxury items were something you would have to go out of your way to find; not the other way around.
I'm not implying it is. Probably should have said "All the rest of the world is not like this" to make that explicit. I used America as an example because it's most likely that the GGP is American, considering the readership of
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
