/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>478028
>child labor is not just "little kids working in coal mines/sweatshops."
<Not all the children have to be sacrificed.
How merciful.

>We also had preteens working in grocery stores, cleaning swimming pools, baking pizzas, etc.
I can see the benefit of having children visit all the different work-places, where they can get a little bit hands-on experience (a few hours at most, depending on practicality considerations). But in general children have bodies to grow and minds to develop, that requires a lot of energy, you can't steal that.

I know the story about the family restaurant business exploiting their own children to get up and running. But you could just tax big capitalists and use that to subsidize the process of starting a family business. You don't have to put the burden on the children.

>If you think kids having jobs is exploitation within itself, then we should put schooling in the same vein.
I mean you're not wrong with this.

Socialist thinkers have considered paying students a wage, because they were producing skilled labor. This hasn't been very popular tho, because the flip-side of getting a wage during education also meant that skilled labor wasn't going to get more than unskilled labor later when working in production. Basically the opposite scheme of student-loan-debts, where the higher income of skilled labor is used to pay back debt. The socialist reasoning was that it would prevent labor aristocracy formation and prevent barriers to entry for education/skill training. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind.

>>478077
>But in general children have bodies to grow and minds to develop, that requires a lot of energy, you can't steal that.


Kids arent defective. The only way for kids to boost good development is to help out in real world affairs.
Having kids doing any form of labor isnt gonna kill them.
Especially if you take the time to train them.


>I know the story about the family restaurant business exploiting their own children to get up and running.

Yes. But thats because of the patriarchal objectification of children as alter egos.

>But you could just tax big capitalists and use that to subsidize the process of starting a family business. You don't have to put the burden on the children.


Kids helping out isnt putting the burden on them.
Also, how are you gonna tax capitalists to fund small businesses?
Sounds idealist if you ask me.

Again, kids are not show-and-tell charity cases to be used semi-monthly.

If we wish kids to become functional adults, you need to train them to be. You cannot expect time/aging to make them better.

Our modern society today has a very shallow cowardly view of maturation as just age numbers/brain development.
People assume kids exist in a cartoon world where economic and aesthetic laws dont affect them.
Or rather, that kids should only exist in an hugbox.

>I mean you're not wrong with this.
Socialist thinkers have considered paying students a wage, because they were producing skilled labor. This hasn't been very popular tho, because the flip-side of getting a wage during education also meant that skilled labor wasn't going to get more than unskilled labor later when working in production. Basically the opposite scheme of student-loan-debts, where the higher income of skilled labor is used to pay back debt. The socialist reasoning was that it would prevent labor aristocracy formation and prevent barriers to entry for education/skill training. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind.


Sounds nice but alot of people are gonna assume this is gonna encourage entitlement. Especially when it comes to education or religion, any request for compensation for consumption is gonna rub people the wrong way.

No matter how much people may criticise institutions and brainwashing, theyre all still lead by indocrinated beliefs.

Conspiracy theorists tend to be ironically the most easily ndoctrinated.

>>478024
You overestimate the ability of people to self reflect on their maturation relative their age.

Most people look down on those younger than them for having flaws.

They even arrogantly suggest banning ther juniors from autonomous activities like voting, sex, driving, high-prospect jobs, just because of isolated incidents.

Soon, people will suggest that brain development finishes at forty, not twenty five and will further the age-span of adolescence.

>>478080
>Kids arent defective
when nobody said that
>Having kids doing any form of labor isnt gonna kill them.
grown-ups sometime die in fatal work-accidents or from side effects of bad labor conditions, if you bring back child-labor, that will happen to children as well. So yes it definitely will kill some children.
But the main point was that it'll probably have negative effects on development. Treating children like miniature adults lead to bad results.
>the patriarchal objectification of children as alter egos
huh ?
>Kids helping out isnt putting the burden on them.
You want to make them do wage labor, that's a bit more than "helping out"
>Also, how are you gonna tax capitalists to fund small businesses?
Small businesses are a capital interest group, they should be able to get the state to do that for them if they organize effectively.

>If we wish kids to become functional adults, you need to train them
I'm not opposed to training children, but you want to use them as a source of labor power, that's not training.

>Our modern society today has a very shallow cowardly view of maturation
Yes but all societies are full of shit that way. Pretty much all the coming of age rituals and stories are just manipulation.
If you live in a hunter gatherer tribe you'll be considered a grown-up warrior once you stabbed a big animal with a spear. Hunter-gatherers have to hunt or they don't get enough protein to survive, so they have to do it. But big animals are very dangerous, they might end up killing you if you try to poke them with a pointy stick, and it's just bullshit to pretend that's a glorious transformation to maturity. When people figured out how to do animal husbandry, butcheries, and getting protein from beans, most people stopped hunting.
Our current society isn't any different. Toiling at work for hours every day, mucking about with paper-work to pay bills and taxes, it just sucks, there is less risk of getting ripped to peaces by large fangs and horns, but there is stress related damage to your body. It doesn't improve you as a person. People will quit doing it once they find a better way to live.

<socialist education as wage-job
>Sounds nice but alot of people are gonna assume this is gonna encourage entitlement.
It probably would be introduced as an incremental reform in an already established socialist society. Beginning with paying students small rewards to motivate good learning outcomes. There would be political struggles about what kind of fields of study would be eligible. Some people would try to get payed for attending frivolous activities pretending to be education. You know the usual institutional growing pains would apply. But there would also be successes of improving study outcomes, and eventually studying would become to be seen as a type of labor.

>No matter how much people may criticise institutions and brainwashing, theyre all still lead by indocrinated beliefs.
OK ? not sure how that's related to anything but alright, lets talk about that. Socialist are ideologues and very self-aware about it. Socialist education will also be ideological indoctrination. The difference is socialists aren't cynical. So the ideology part will be clearly marked as ideology. There will be no attempt to pretend that socialist ideological positions are "natural" or in anyway unbiased. Read socialist theory, it's characterized by enthusiastic highlighting of ideological considerations.

>>478089
>grown-ups sometime die in fatal work-accidents or from side effects of bad labor conditions, if you bring back child-labor, that will happen to children as well. So yes it definitely will kill some children.
But the main point was that it'll probably have negative effects on development.

Again, if you think kids doing any sort of labor is bad, youre spooked. You just want to kids to remain as simplistic naive pets for moral comvenience.


Yes we have workplace accidents but its not that much of an excuse to absolve able bodied ypuths from working. By your logic, schools shouldnt be attemded because of fatal sports injuroes, bullying, amd deranged shooters.
>Treating children like miniature adults lead to bad results.

Only if theyre rushed into it.
But treating kids as adults in training doeshave positive effects. If anything our culture kills any osrt of maturation in kids. Precociousness is criminalized.
Our society is going the route of adults being overgrown kids. This is a way bigger problem than kids being miniature adults.

>You want to make them do wage labor, that's a bit more than "helping out"

Wage labor or not, kids shouldnt be exempted from earning their own bread. Isnt socialism about "work according to ones needs and abilities?"

Why do you have such strong pro-coddling philosophy?

>>478089


>Yes but all societies are full of shit that way. Pretty much all the coming of age rituals and stories are just manipulation.If you live in a hunter gatherer tribe you'll be considered a grown-up warrior once you stabbed a big animal with a spear. Hunter-gatherers have to hunt or they don't get enough protein to survive, so they have to do it. But big animals are very dangerous, they might end up killing you if you try to poke them with a pointy stick, and it's just bullshit to pretend that's a glorious transformation to maturity. When people figured out how to do animal husbandry, butcheries, and getting protein from beans, most people stopped hunting.
>Our current society isn't any different. Toiling at work for hours every day, mucking about with paper-work to pay bills and taxes, it just sucks, there is less risk of getting ripped to peaces by large fangs and horns, but there is stress related damage to your body. It doesn't improve you as a person. People will quit doing it once they find a better way to live.


Humans have main character sybdrome. The process of maturation is often moralised/philosoohised to the point where they create laws to separate the young from autonomy by conjuring up bullshit like :" You aint old enough to shave" or "you never had kids".


Adults treat maturity as some epic spiritual quest to put down the youth and cope with their lives being monotonous.
Most adults are disgruntled grey haired achey jointed teenagers.
And Gen X/Millennials are encouraging this sentiment into ther petulant slacker/Disney Adult trend

"Youth is wasted on the young" just means "you little shits have too much fun, I wish I was your age again".

Adults often say "getting older means you dont give a fuck about others opinions."

Nothing could be further from the truth. They say that while getting upset about getting called old or offended about new tech/media.

Anyfime they see a younger person outperforming them, they accuse them of "living life on easy mode."

Adults can only not give a fuck if theyre already accomplished.

>>478089
>socialist education as wage-job

<Sounds nice but alot of people are gonna assume this is gonna encourage entitlement.

>It probably would be introduced as an incremental reform in an already established socialist society. Beginning with paying students small rewards to motivate good learning outcomes. There would be political struggles about what kind of fields of study would be eligible. Some people would try to get payed for attending frivolous activities pretending to be education. You know the usual institutional growing pains would apply. But there would also be successes of improving study outcomes, and eventually studying would become to be seen as a type of labor.

This is where society keeps going wrong in childrearing.

We still think kids are property of the school.
If you view a child only as a student and treat them as such, you will feel threatened by their increasing desire for autonomy and differing opinions.

>I'm not opposed to training children, but you want to use them as a source of labor power, that's not training.


Isnt socialism all about labor reparations?

Why yes, kids are sources of labor power. As are adults.
Hell, we use animals for labor.
And robots.

Training kids is because theyre a labor power.

Shy do we have schools? Its to teach hem to be a functional worker.

We lose sight of this.

Too many adults think academics is a self inherent virtue.

We now see academia as the only form of proper labir amd are forcing kids to devote their every waking moment of youthful vitality to schooling. Due you not unerstand that the moral over-assignment of academia to the youth is why we have peer pressure and the usual cringey alienated culture associated with adolescence.


I have said it before and I will say it again: ADOLESCENCE IS A KEY INGREDIENT OF CAPITALST EXPLOITATION.

>Small businesses are a capital interest group, they should be able to get the state to do that for them if they organize effectively.

This is why leftism is not taken seriously.
"Let the state handle it."
Not everyome has the influence to get the state to sponsor small businesses. Only big prospect investments like oil rigging or precious mineral extraction gets state support.

bump

>>478093
>We still think kids are property of the school.
What do you mean with "we", socialists don't think people are property.
Anyway this sounds a little bit like you want children to be property of something else.
>If you view a child only as a student and treat them as such, you will feel threatened by their increasing desire for autonomy and differing opinions.
be more specific, this just sounds like a slogan

>Isnt socialism all about labor reparations?
No seeking reparations is pointless, there isn't enough wealth in the world to even begin repaying the damages done to the proletariat. The goal of socialism is for the proletariat to take over and remake the economic sphere and society in general into something better, you know leveling-up civilization. Creating a better mode of production, making humanity able to consciously decide over it's history.

>Why yes, kids are sources of labor power.
No, they used to be, and then people decided that was fucked up.

>Training kids is because theyre a labor power
Some of the training is for children to become skilled labor in the future when they're grownup, but some of it is also so that the next generation have the knowledge of the previous generation to build on top off.

<Small businesses are a capital interest group, they should be able to get the state to do that for them if they organize effectively.
>This is why leftism is not taken seriously.
Nah, you just don't want to punch up.
Sometimes smol-business tries to align it self with big-corporate to attack labor, to worsen labor conditions, depress wages, or even bring back child-labor. But that is foolish, because big-corporate will eat smol-business the first opportunity it gets.

Economically you want to go towards proles getting higher wages, while using the most advanced means of production, so that human labor-time is spend as productively as possible. Really good means of production are expensive tho. That means that smol-business needs to get subsidies to be able to buy the best tools. And the only place where you can get that kind of money is from the biggest capitalists.

People really hate big corporations, and generally prefer smaller capitalists, simply because big corporations are scary, powerful and usually unaccountable to democratic oversight, while smaller capitalists are easier to make compliant with democracy. So you would be able to get a lot of support from the masses to "deleverage the corporate sector". But you have to do it in a way that it prevents a decline in production. At the moment small capitalists can only afford low-end productive forces and that means the labor-power they hire cannot be very productive. Instead of trying to drive down wages, you have to level up productive forces. And the way to do that as small capitalists is to take capital from the big boys and redistribute it to the little boys.

Socialists used to prefer big capital over small capital because big capital deployed more advanced productive methods, in the 18 and 19 hundreds. At that time larger capitalist automatically meant more effective use of labor power by giving workers more advanced tools. But that has changed the Neo-liberals came in an they stopped investing in leveling up the productive forces, they often even let the existing productive forces become run down. If you want to try dispersing capital you also have to invest into really efficient transportation, like rail-ways and river-freight-barges. Politically that also means that wages have to go up a lot. You want labor-power to be expensive, so that it's worth investing into fancy tools to make the best use of the pricey labor-power.

Socialists take the historical perspective, societies that do not level up their productive forces get displaced by societies that do. So this isn't optional. If you make people work very advanced tools that are very powerful, you also want people to be well rested and the work-day should be reduced as well.

I'm unsure whether the small capital scheme, i out-lined will work, i'm just trying to tell you something you might be interested in. There always is the alternative of converting the corporate sector into the public sector as a transitional measure to socialism.

Forget about trying to maintain the status quo by making the lives of people worse, or by forcing children back into the labor-force, that's just a dead end of a society committing suicide.

>>478259
>What do you mean with "we", socialists don't think people are property. Anyway this sounds a little bit like you want children to be property of something else.

Nice deflection there. If you really believe that children arent prooerty, why are you so afraid of them having worldly exposure and participation?

>be more specific, this just sounds like a slogan

Its not a slogan. Ive explained myself too many times.
Reducing children to be students does not make proper adults.

>No seeking reparations is pointless, there isn't enough wealth in the world to even begin repaying the damages done to the proletariat. The goal of socialism is for the proletariat to take over and remake the economic sphere and society in general into something better, you know leveling-up civilization. Creating a better mode of production, making humanity able to consciously decide over it's history.

How cute.
"All proletarians are like-minded, mutually-appreciative, high-brow workers".

This your brain on idealism.
Everyone has their own selfish ideas of "bettering society".

>No, they used to be, and then people decided that was fucked up.

Nah. It was because people thought that they could escape elbow grease.
People think themselves as too good for honest work and impose their dreams of "living it large" onto their kids.
They started to take away kids' right to have independent social lives because "muh pedophiles/devil worshippers/delinquents".
We used to have vocational classes in school but they were removed because ethnic parents were too stricken with racial envy of the prosperous white minority.



>Some of the training is for children to become skilled labor in the future when they're grownup, but some of it is also so that the next generation have the knowledge of the previous generation to build on top off.

Humans have nearly doubled the length of their childhood stage in the past quarter-millenium.
We are seeimg an era where average adults have declined skillsets and socio-psychological disorders.
They whine about "adulting" and waste money on kiddie stuff.
They have no home training.

All of this is due to socio-legal conditioming from childhood where they were dumped into schools and never taught how to do anything for thwmselves.
We have more kods with academic prowess than anytime in history.
They can solve algebraic equations without needing to write it down or use calcultors.
They can recite extensive events in history.
They can talk about the planets.

But they cannot do business calls, talk to the opposite sex, or make meals from scratch.

And its because of smothering parents.

>Nah, you just don't want to punch up. Sometimes smol-business tries to align it self with big-corporate to attack labor, to worsen labor conditions, depress wages, or even bring back child-labor. But that is foolish, because big-corporate will eat smol-business the first opportunity it gets.

>Economically you want to go towards proles getting higher wages, while using the most advanced means of production, so that human labor-time is spend as productively as possible. Really good means of production are expensive tho. That means that smol-business needs to get subsidies to be able to buy the best tools. And the only place where you can get that kind of money is from the biggest capitalists.

And what happens when small businesses get subsidies from the macro-cap guys?
They have to do the big guy's bidding.

You really are naive.

>People really hate big corporations, and generally prefer smaller capitalists, simply because big corporations are scary, powerful and usually unaccountable to democratic oversight, while smaller capitalists are easier to make compliant with democracy. So you would be able to get a lot of support from the masses to "deleverage the corporate sector". But you have to do it in a way that it prevents a decline in production. At the moment small capitalists can only afford low-end productive forces and that means the labor-power they hire cannot be very productive.

People dont really hate big capitalists. They wish they could be jist like them. People look down on the poor more.
It need not be mean patronizing.
It can be polite paternalism, but paternalism nonetheless.

>Instead of trying to drive down wages, you have to level up productive forces. And the way to do that as small capitalists is to take capital from the big boys and redistribute it to the little boys.

Again, how are yoy gonna do that? Nothing of that sort happens without some "selling ones soul".

>Socialists used to prefer big capital over small capital because big capital deployed more advanced productive methods, in the 18 and 19 hundreds. At that time larger capitalist automatically meant more effective use of labor power by giving workers more advanced tools. >But that has changed the Neo-liberals came in an they stopped investing in leveling up the productive forces, they often even let the existing productive forces become run down. If you want to try dispersing capital you also have to invest into really efficient transportation, like rail-ways and river-freight-barges. Politically that also means that wages have to go up a lot. You want labor-power to be expensive, so that it's worth investing into fancy tools to make the best use of the pricey labor-power.

If labor-power is expensive, people are just gonna go for cheaper.
You forget that capitalism isnt just enforced by the big guys. Small guys are still influenced by it.

>Socialists take the historical perspective, societies that do not level up their productive forces get displaced by societies that do. So this isn't optional. If you make people work very advanced tools that are very powerful, you also want people to be well rested and the work-day should be reduced as well.

>I'm unsure whether the small capital scheme, i out-lined will work, i'm just trying to tell you something you might be interested in. There always is the alternative of converting the corporate sector into the public sector as a transitional measure to socialism.

So even you admit your proposal is conjecrure but you dare dismiss my opinions as suicidal, even impractical, despite historical evidence?
>Forget about trying to maintain the status quo by making the lives of people worse, or by forcing children back into the labor-force, that's just a dead end of a society committing suicide.

Most people are pathologically against child labor. Most of the west is in decline and most of the jobs that should be for kids are occupied by low prospect adults.
Also, people choose to bring mew life into the world which incentivises capitalists to reduxe the slice of the pie for everyone.

>>477895
Nine tenths of the human genome is still unknown.

>>478944
No it's not.

>>478945
really?

>>478944
>>478945
>>478946
The entire human genome was sequenced decades ago, so its definitely known. To what extend we understand what all of that does on a biological level, that's hard to say.

>>478947
oh yea thats what I meant.
But seriously though, how is the genome fully mapped?

>>478949
>But seriously though, how is the genome fully mapped?
It might have been called "the human genome project", which was a massive international, publicly funded research program. I don't remember technical details but they probably used a statistically representative sample of human dna donors and then a horde of lab techs was let loose on that. That was before the time of mostly automatic DNA sequencing machines, which means it was a very labor intense process.

>>478951
How did they undergo it? Amd how long did they take and how many donor samples did they recieve to work on it?

>>478954
Sorry i don't know how the pioneers in DNA sequencing did it. I only have a rudimentary idea how it's done now.

You can have my privates when you pry them from my cold dead hands eugenicist.

>>478970
would you like to have kemonomimi partners like in the OP pic instead of having the default route of heterosexual romantic family planning?

What's funny to me is that the licensing regime is largely a product of eugenics rather than any legitimate reason why those things need to be licensed. All of the licenses regarding machinery, guns, political rights, and so on are a joke. The only restriction that is religiously enforced is the restriction on the family.

Also, you have to go to the judge to get the piece of paper saying you are married, saying the kids are yours - having a family is a lot of paperwork if you want to retain legitimacy. No one is going to give a shit if you "work illegally", and in practice employers freely ignore those restrictions when it suits them. Those restrictions entirely exist as an excuse for management to fuck with labor.

See how eugenists are virulently opposed to anything good? Anyone apologizing for them is a fucking fag, just a pure fag.

>>478996
Theres paperwork to be done for AFTER doing the nasty. Theres no licensing for BEFORE doing the nasty.


I think there should be mandatory training for people whom wanna have kids.
In fact, I think home economics should be mandatorised in secondary school, not just a mere elective.

>>478997
So your obsession is with entering the bedroom? The state will find out who is fucking whom. The state is not blind, and its officers make control of life from cradle to grave its business. I don't know what fucking world you live in where it is different. Sex and childhood are the most regulated things humans do, the rare exception to the "drive for freedom" - and under eugenism, the only freedom is the freedom of eugenics.

Also, what do you think school is, and what do you think sexual education is? It's all about choosing who is out of the reproductive game and making that known. Based on your caste, you are given a different explanation. They just show us slides of venereal disease and tell us "this is what you are, a disease". Satanics love that shit.

>>478996
>All of the licenses regarding machinery, guns, political rights, and so on are a joke.
>>478998
>Sex and childhood are the most regulated things humans do
You are mistaken, just ask a nuclear physicist, playing with radioactive elements that's the most regulated thing humans do.

>>479000
Do you know how much shit the state puts on parents to conform? Nuclear physicists aren't known to be wracked by debt and social shame for doing what they do.

Nearly every person who says this stupid shit not only doesn't have kids - usually because they're young dumb and cull of cum - but they hate the young and busy themselves with making others suffer.

>>479001
>Nearly every person who says this stupid shit not only doesn't have kids - usually because they're young dumb and cull of cum - but they hate the young and busy themselves with making others suffer.

Alot of people habe kis in their early twenties.

Also, "young dumb amd full of cum" is kinda hebephobic.

Especially considering that people over thirty are obsessed with spicing up ther bedroom.

Young single adults are the most repressed over-policed subjects there are.


Society wants to shut down youth sexuality while permitting degenerate boomers to fuck because theyre "married" and/or "older and 'wiser'".

>>478998
>Sex and childhood are the most regulated things humans do, the rare exception to the "drive for freedom" - and under eugenism, the only freedom is the freedom of eugenics.


Childhood is over regulated. Not even by the state but adults in general.

Adults constantly whine about "kids these days" for the slightest difference in cultural trend.

Also, sex is overregulated for young people.

Kids cannot even jack off without adults pathologising them.

Adults have far more freedom.amd leniency yet they rather throw away their freedom for "innocent pasttimes".

>>479001
>Do you know how much shit the state puts on parents to conform?
Yes. There is an order of magnitude more rigamarole for getting cleared to play around with radioactive stuff. I just told you this for the sake of perspective, it wasn't intended as a wailing competition.

>>479006
People feel much more strongly about their right to procreate and fornicate than the ability to safely harness radioactive mineras to make energy.

It goes to shows the priorities of humanity.

Procreation is always the most obsessed activity.
Civiliams are more obsessed with procreation than the government.

>>479009
well, yeah, they do, anon.
People are biologically driven to procreate weather you think you should or not, .but, people aren't driven by anything other than their own personal preferences do mine mineraqls, lol.

>>479010
Yet, society wants to punish ypung people for sex drive.

>>479005
Young people are far less interested in sex than the ruling ideas insist they must be. If not for the high pressure environment, it is very likely most youth would look around them, see that there is nothing for, and who is out of the game from the start. There wouldn't be this habitual lying about it, and there would be far less rape. For a long time, this disgusting fetishistic culture around sex only exists because ritual abuse is common and given sacred status. None of that is natural or a thing that people would desire, if not for the precedent set and being told over and over "this is what all the others are doing". It's actually surprising how much of the sexual "revolution" was directly inspired by Nazism and the Hitler Youth, and general German degeneracy.

See, this is what they do - when someone gets close to a valid critique, they call us pedophiles or some term of abuse, and it's always to protect their ritual abuse, or they send people to conflate our observations - that what this society has done to children for generations is an atrocity - with a bastardized form of the free love idea. What the "free love" people wanted had nothing to do with roping children into any of it, and usually people turned to that precisely to get away from the ritual abuse that is considered "normal" even though it disgusts most people and they try their best to get away from it.

>>479006
All you have to do is get security clearance and have any business touching fissionable material. Most people, unsurprisingly, do not have portable nuclear reactors, nor has that ever been an expectation in society like a car and petroleum are. If uranium was the only thing which powered motor vehicles and nuclear reactors were portable enough to enter common possession, it would become "common sense" to know how to handle uranium, and attempts to ban it would be like trying to outlaw petroleum and cars. It would be an outrage to take from people things they are used to, especially when they are aware of the state's malicious intent when denying the people hold over technology.

Part of the "cult of the atom" is this technocratic mystification, this need to sell the idea that eugenics is normal because ordinary people would nuke the world if they got ideas. That eugenists pushed both the wars and the development of nuclear weapons, and have held to that religion ever since - have been the source of all the malevolence that came out of nuclear power, and pushed for the use of atomic weapons for "peace" and enforcement of the eugenist terror - is not something we're allowed to say, even though their fingerprints are all over the entire nuclear power and radioactivity "debate". It leads some to believe that the nuclear weapons and nuclear power in general are fake, and certainly states are in the habit of exaggerating their technological capabilities.

When they're caught, the eugenist always goes for the thrill of torture and humiliation. That's what you're doing to me - because I go against this Satanic cult, I must be a "whiner", and to go against eugenics is ipso facto "retarded". Failed fucking race.

>>479017
>>479017
>All you have to do is get security clearance and have any business touching fissionable material.
Having a business and getting security clearance is already a huge hurdle, that most other activities do not require.
>Most people, unsurprisingly, do not have portable nuclear reactors, nor has that ever been an expectation in society like a car and petroleum are.
You are mistaken, a few decades ago people did have the expectation that most things would become nuclear powered. People even began powering medical implants like peacemakers with nuclear power-sources.

>If uranium was the only thing which powered motor vehicles and nuclear reactors were portable enough to enter common possession, it would become "common sense" to know how to handle uranium, and attempts to ban it would be like trying to outlaw petroleum and cars.
You don't seem to realize that there was a huge anti-nuclear power conspiracy, by fossil fuel corporations and some other factions. It is still ongoing. You could have loads of nuclear powered devices. Especially low powered stuff like remote controls, clocks, and simple communication devices like pagers. Small nuclear power sources last on the order of decades to centuries, and would have allowed for tech-gadgets that never run out of batteries, or have self-charging batteries where a small nuclear source trickle charges a battery to keep it topped off all the time.
Nuclear powered cars are less likely, because they would be very heavy and have unfavorable driving characteristics, but small municipal nuclear power stations that make electricity and heat for a town or a few city-blocks as well as powering chemical fuels-synthesis for cars. That was very possible and it was denied to you and everybody else.

>the malevolence that came out of nuclear power, and pushed for the use of atomic weapons for "peace"
You fell for the ruling ideology meme, atomic power doesn't cause atomic weapons. In reality nuclear power and nuclear weapons are 2 opposing tendencies that are at odds with each other.
The best nuclear fuel for atomic power reactors is thorium but if you invest into a thorium fuel chain for reactors, you get a technology tree that is nearly impossible to weaponize. The nuclear fuel chain with uranium and plutonium, that one was chosen because it could be weaponized easily, it was not a optimal fuel for power generation. If we had prioritized nuclear power, there probably would be no nukes.

>>479009
>People feel much more strongly about their right to procreate and fornicate than the ability to safely harness radioactive mineras to make energy.
I don't understand why you are juxtaposing reproductive rights against access to enegy. That doesn't make sense.
Anyway when we switched from agrarian low energy production society to industrial high energy production society, people fought really hard to get energy either in the form of direct power-supply or indirectly in embodied form inside of goods.

When we fully enter the "atomic age" (to borrow a very old slogan), the jump in energy production and improvement in quality of life will be more dramatic than going from agrarian to industrial.

Half of all our "big problems" just disappear if you can throw enough energy at the problem. For example: If you have a big enough power-plant you can suck CO2 out of the ocean and solve climate change without inconveniencing a single soul. Half of all wars are fought over energy resources. If you can make abundant low-cost energy it will no longuer be worth fighting over it.

If i had to guess: A medium to large country will figure out how to do hyper-scale nuclear power production. They gain a huge advantage and then everybody scrambles to follow suit.

>>479018
The point is that very few people would ever have a good reason to acquire uranium or think a nuclear reactor is totally harmless. There is a plausible enough rationale for regulation. Even if that plausibility where not enough, there is a far more obvious reality - energy monopolies don't want anyone bypassing the monopoly, and so nuclear energy has largely been their brainchild, as were the nuclear weapons.

The reasons for the draw-down of nuclear power are not competition, as if oil barons are afraid they'll go out of business. The oil men won a long time ago - they are old money and long ago diversified to fill every other niche. They own the uranium, the solar panels, windmills - any energy infrastructure belongs to them, and they don't want you to have anything more than what they give you, like a slave receiving an allowance from the master. So, there is no expectation that it was "supposed" to be any other way. People are very familiar with monopoly.

The sexual cult is something more than a monopoly, and there really is no "monopoly" of such, where someone imagines a harem of women serving "alphas" as in the pornified ideology.

>>479025
>The point is that very few people would ever have a good reason to acquire uranium or think a nuclear reactor is totally harmless.
We idiot-proofed so many technologies, there's no reason to think that nuclear energy can't be rendered into a harmless power-supply.

>monopoly
>own the uranium, the solar panels, windmills - any energy infrastructure belongs to them
They haven't monopolized nuclear power, because nuclear power wasn't deployed, beyond the small number of reactors. Maybe it can't be monopolized, it's not about who owns the uranium mines, that's far from the only source of nuclear fuel. Viable fuels can be found everywhere.

>So, there is no expectation that it was "supposed" to be any other way
Of course there is the expectation that the world gets better, simply because it's technically possible. Did you fall for a doomer psyop or something ?

>>479026
I don't think you understand anything that is being said. This is what eugenics does to a motherfucker.

>>479027
>I don't think you understand anything
I want nuclear power in both forms. Reactors that make a boatload of energy for really cheap. And small nuclear power sources that almost perpetually power electronic gadgets. There are no technical reasons that speak against this. It's very safe, very environmentally friendly, and there would be a huge payoff. The only way of understanding this, is in terms of figuring out the obstacles that are preventing this.

>>479028
Do you actually think about what electricity is used for? So much is for refrigeration, air conditioning, and such. It would be possible, if not trivial, to reduce power usage of a computer to something much less. For the computer, the electricity spent to power it is entirely "waste" or "noise" - it would always be optimal to send the least energy possible this not only saves energy but reduces the problem of overheating. The relevant output of a "gadget" is usually not a quantity of force but a quality that was desired from it. It is not so with substantive demands.

The truth is there is no "energy shortage" - and every time you're stuck in that mindset, you're brainwashed or you know exactly what you're doing and want forced starvation as a condition to control people. If the rulers really wanted to, they could build fission plants or even proper energy plants. The existing infrastructure is more than sufficient. For most purposes, energy needs have gone down - 50 straight years of ecological austerity have degraded standards of living enough that people gave up on the idea that heat and comfort exist for them.

>>479029
Sure the energy efficiency of technology can and should be improved, but there are hard physics limitations. Optimization is not a substitute for producing more energy, it's supplemental to producing more energy.

>The truth is there is no "energy shortage" - and every time you're stuck in that mindset
Well that depends on your perspective. If you want every human being to have a nice life with lots of amenities that make life comfortable, we'll need a lot more energy.

The people who do not want to produce more energy are usually very affluent and want to impose austerity on poor people. I think that the austerity mindset leads to civilization-suicide. The austerity mind-bug is somewhat prevalent in the west for some reason.

China and other powers are not afflicted by this mind-bug, they are developing nuclear power technology. There will come a time when they feel that it's ready and then they will build 10k reactors in ten years. The west would become hopelessly outclassed like a historical medieval fiefdom next to an industrial power.

The ruling class in the west still holds on to illusions that they will somehow be able to restrain China's development and that of the world in general. Their minds might be stuck in the mindset from the colonial era. When only the west was industrial and could slap around the rest of the world as it pleased.

All those schemes like great power competition, technology embargoes,… None of it has a snowball's chance in hell to affect anything. It's just wasting time and resources we could be using to level up our energy infrastructure.

>For most purposes, energy needs have gone down
What a strange idea. The point of making a machine more energy efficient, isn't always for using less energy. By reducing waste heat you increase the capacity to channel more energy. More efficiency also means that you can increase the amount of power utilization before it begins overheating.

>50 straight years of ecological austerity have degraded standards of living enough that people gave up on the idea that heat and comfort exist for them.
People will never give up on getting a better life, austerity just makes people angry. What's gotten into you ? Why are you shilling all that doomer stuff ?

>>479018
You ever heard about "The Radioactive Boy Scout"?

>>479033
No, what is it ?

>>479034
Back in the 1990s, some loner boy whom was a product of a single mom, had an interest in making green eregry. And he wanted to make a mini nuclear reactor as a personal hobby.

>>479038
>he wanted to make a mini nuclear reactor as a personal hobby.
Like a real reactor, or just a nuclear battery type device?

For the latter you can buy a radioactive-decay phosphor-glow thingy and glue a small solar panel to it. That makes a really tiny amount of electricity. It's a fun project for tinkerers.

For a real reactor your have to do enrichment, did he build a centrifuge ?

>>479039
Enrichment is only necessary for certain reactor designs that rely on U-235. However, there are nuclear reactors designs that don't. Heavy water reactors and molten salt reactors can run on natural uranium or thorium.

>>479041
>Enrichment is only necessary for certain reactor designs that rely on U-235.
>However, there are nuclear reactors designs that don't.
>Heavy water reactors and molten salt reactors can run on natural uranium or thorium.
I know, but we're talking about a kid from the 90s
for context see these posts
>>479033
>>479038
He probably didn't build an advanced reactor design as a hobby.
I'm still confounded how he build any reactor design.
Even a very basic nuclear pile would be very hard to pull off.

>>479043
He used radioactive pellets from broken smoke detectors.

>>479771
>He used radioactive pellets from broken smoke detectors.
Lol is that the reason those were banned for a while ?

Anyway did it work did he get any energy out of it ?

>>479772
I think so. Look up "Radioactive Boy Scout." It was from the 1990s.