Also interesting is that this could sometimes be a counter-productive process:

people in the grip of the uncanny tend to see patterns where none exist — becoming more prone to conspiracy theories, for example. The urge for order satisfies itself, it seems, regardless of the quality of the evidence.

I knew there was a higher purpose to all those hours I spent watching Monty Python.

Kudos to Kelvin Thompson, federal Labor MP, for having the courage to stand up to the “eternal growth” fools who currently dictate economic and development policies in the western world and point out that excessive population growth is the root cause of most of our serious problems.

It is time for governments and policy makers around the world to come to their senses and take steps to stabilise the world’s population,” he said. “It needs to happen in every country, including here in Australia – especially here in dry, arid Australia.

This probably qualifies Mr Thompson as a member of the ‘green fascists’ that The Australian is always banging on about.

I noticed some very sensible remarks in relation to this article at Larvatus Prodeo from a guy calling himself “hannah’s dad” who actually lives on the Murray and is seeing the destruction of the lower river system first hand.  In particular, this seems to be the indisputable truth:

There is only one perspective that will solve the problem, it has been recommended by studies and reports but essentially ignored.

Too hard politically.

That is to treat the entire river as a catchment and drainage basin as nature has organized it.

Firstly, allocate TO THE RIVER the amount of water it requires to be healthy. Which is probably double or treble or even more the current ‘environmental’ flows. [As an aside the river level has dropped more than a metre in my region in the last month or so and the ferry landings are going to need rebuilding so the ferries can operate.]

Secondly, allocate the necessary amount needed for URBAN purposes, after all this is people we are talking about and they need bugger all when you look at the numbers. 2 million or so people use a fraction of the water used for irrigation.

Finally, irrigation can have what is left over.

And if that is not enough to sustain present levels of irrigation, and it won’t be, then something will have to be done about that won’t it?
But the point is that there is simply not enough water for all at the moment and its NOT going to get any better in the future, probably worse.

Stupidly, these ideas would be regarded as extremist, ‘un-Australian’ and just not worth discussing in the national discourse on this topic.  So strong is the desire to serve political expediency that actual rationality is being completely excluded from the discussion.

As well as talking a lot of sense, some of what he has to say is just incredibly depressing.  Like this:

We had a bat detector at our place for a week some years ago back in the good ol’ days when we had water.
Its a recording device which measures the ultra sound calls of bats and then identifies them by those calls.
We had 9 different species of bat flying around for each night of that week, I had no idea there were that many species.
One was Myotis macropus [or adversus], Large-footed Bat, so called because it flies over the smooth lagoon waters trailing its feet in the water and catching tiny fish with the aid of its sonar. It weighs 8 grams for Pete’s sake.
It’s tiny.
There is no lagoon anymore.

It’s one thing to be slightly paralyzed by a problem as massive as global warming – but it’s something else entirely that we have an obvious problem, an obvious solution, and instead of solving the problem just sitting back and helplessly watching an entire ecosystem die right before our eyes.

Now if only we could find one of those obelisks…

Aurora Australis photographed from the Space Shuttle in 1991

Aurora Australis from an observation satellite (enhanced, I think).

In moderation, caffeine can increase the capacity for mental or physical labor, but when used in excess, it also can be intoxicating, causing nervousness, irritability, anxiety, muscle twitching, insomnia, headaches and heart palpitations, other studies have shown.

I wonder what my customary 4+ cups does…

Even more interestingly, it also seems possible that we might be able to clone a Neanderthal. The implications of that would be staggering – we would bring into existence another sentient, intelligent species. Apparently the “ethical” plan is to use a chimp as the mother and genetic launchpad, which produced this fairly hilarious quote from the scientist in question:

The big issue would be whether enough people felt that a chimp-Neanderthal hybrid would be acceptable, and that would be broadly discussed before anyone started to work on it.

For example, the principal of one religious school tells The Age that at least he doesn’t “hide” evolution from students:

“We don’t hide the fact that there is a theory of evolution, and that’s how we’d present it, as a theory,” Mr Bray said.

“We teach it, explain what it is, and at the same time we present clearly and fairly, and we believe convincingly, the fact that our position as a school is that God created the heaven and earth … There wouldn’t be any point of being a faith-based school if we didn’t think that God was the creator.”

Mr Bray’s faith-based school has no problem accepting money from secular-based taxation of unbelievers, of course.  According to The Age, up to 200,000 Australian children are now being taught in evangelical Christian schools.

These issues are particularly relevant as the new Federal Government considers a reallocation of funding for such schools, which gradually increased throughout the Howard era.  A more in depth piece can be read here, which highlights the fact that independent schools in Victoria are exempt from discrimination laws relating to employment and are thus free to hire only the devout.

There are increasing signs that Australia is going to go nuclear in the medium term.

First Thought

One way of looking at the benefits of nuclear power versus the risks is to consider the worst case scenario of an accident, rather than the base likelihood of an accident.

As an analogy, consider the difference between a plane and a car in operation. If something goes badly wrong with a car, it might be really bad for a few people in the immediate area, but most likely it will just break down and require repair. If something goes badly wrong with a plane, it’s almost certain to be really bad for all aboard, and for anyone who happens to be in the area at which it reaches an altitude of 0. A plane may have many advantages over a car, including efficiency and an overall much lower rate of failure, but when it fails in flight it has very, very serious implications.

Arguably, a corresponding comparison can be applied to nuclear power and other forms of power. If a coal power station malfunctions seriously, there are likely to be localised problems at worst. If a nuclear power station malfunctions badly, you might end up with a Chernobyl-type scenario (and yes, the design of Chernobyl was inherently faulty, but unless we have devised a way to see the future with 100% certainty then it could still happen again).

Rationally, one must accept that there are many advantages of nuclear power. However, does the worst case scenario warrant the risk? To take the analogy a step further, there’s a good reason why the average punter doesn’t fly a jet plane to work, and there’s arguably a good reason why thousands of nuclear power plants spread across the globe is a bad idea too.

Second Thought

Another hypothetical: let’s say nuclear power does become the default for most countries. The fascinating film Crude Awakening gives an estimate of 10,000 nuclear reactors being needed to fully replace oil as a source of power.

Now suppose there’s a serious war somewhere. What are the chances of a stray missile or bomb hitting a reactor? What would the consequences be? What about the temptation to hit one deliberately? Eliminating power is a basic military strategy, after all, and if recent conventional wars are anything to go by the ability to attack far outweighs the ability to defend in modern warfare.

Is deliberately bombing a nuclear power station the equivalent of an attack with a nuclear weapon?

Your thoughts…

Pictured: an abandoned fairground near Chernobyl.

Taken in part from this post (by the same author) at Larvartus Prodeo.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia. The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire. Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Of course wheeling this paper out next time some macho jerk is being homophobic is unlikely to be good for your physical safety, but it might provide the basis for a smug smile in any event.

(via Growing Passion).