They’re seismically isolated

Or much much longer. It’s not going anywhere. It can’t escape its cask, and outside human intervention the casks won’t be breached. It’s just locked-up metal that gives off some radiation, fully contained within the cask. It isn’t oozing green goo.

The casks waste is stored in would take bunker buster yields to breach.

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site. Waste certainly isn’t the main issue, though it’s portrayed to be. Cost of deployment and staffing are more prohibitive issues, and both are surmountable. I don’t think it’s a bandaid for all power issues, but it’s a powerful tool that should be used more often, not phased out.

“Doesn’t believe in transgenders”

Genuinely funny.

I agree that killing should be the absolute last resort, though I disagree that killing humans for population control should ever be in consideration. There is a difference between taking the role of a natural process, the predators that have been depopulated, and killing humans for population control, which have no natural predators. We also never need to consider that as an option, because as you pointed out, we can’t distribute pills and condoms to deer, but we can to humans. We shouldn’t be thinking of things in terms of equality, but equity. Humans can be managed through effective legislation and education. Deer cannot, and need much more direct intervention. I look forward to the day that culling is no longer necessary, as it’s a brutal and unfortunate necessary evil. And for the purposes of demonstrating that it’s not specifically about species to me, yes, I believe that if the only way to save the global ecosystem was a rapid depopulation of human beings with no alternatives, it would be right to do so, regardless of how impossible that hypothetical situation is.

Without getting all Agent Smith about it, yes, humans are an ecological disaster. I’m not trying to throw charged what-ifs back and forth. We solve the problems we can. Can you clarify what you’re saying? I agree that no animal should be killed by humans, but I also recognize that we must work with the solutions we have. Are you suggesting that we stop cullings and allow overpopulation to happen?

I strongly agree that hunting should not be a sport. I also believe that if we’re going to kill an animal, we should at least use the corpse to feed back into the ecosystem, and I don’t begrudge those that eat the things they hunt, if necessary. Many people subsist off hunting to survive, and while I disagree with the concept of hunting another animal for food, I won’t suggest that they starve, especially when they’re filling a vital ecosystem role. If we don’t need the food though, we should not be hunting animals for food. I don’t know if my opinion is well founded enough to defend the position that if an animal is killed, tragically necessarily, for culling, it should not be eaten. I believe that to be true, but I can’t defend that position with anything but my personal feelings and beliefs. On some level, I understand the argument that if an animal must be killed, then it’s wasteful to not use the meat. Regardless of either argument, I strongly disagree with trophy hunting, and find any hunting for sport abhorrent.

I hope you can see the nuanced nature of my position. I’m not trying to play devil’s advocate or be contrarian. I have a well-formed belief from my experiences, and I am trying to argue my position, and don’t think you have to agree with me, nor do I expect you to. I do not see a large scale alternative to culling at the moment. I think those types of alternatives are being pursued by some in the industry, but the scale is small. I also do not believe it’s an option to allow populations to grow uncontrollably. I believe allowing that to happen would be as morally reprehensible as hunting for sport, as it’s neglecting a duty we have to sustain an ecosystem that we damaged. I am open and interested in any and all alternatives to culling, but I’ve heard none that haven’t been tried or that haven’t been able to succeed at scale.

I’m vegan with a somewhat differing view on culls, having worked for the EPA and with national parks. I agree that a better solution than culling would be ideal, and that no life wants to be killed or population managed. However, we cull because of our past failings. We wiped out natural predators in many areas that kept a balance, and now, if left unchecked, deer will eat themselves into starvation, and devastate their ecosystem. It would be death on a massive scale if unmanaged, and would even affect humans. I think it’s a far smaller crime to kill a few deer and manage populations at safe levels, than to allow the mass starvation of entire ecosystems because of our past destruction of that balance.

Better solutions have been proposed. Ideally, where we can, we reintroduce native predators and protect their populations until they’re stable. Is that different from killing for population control? We’re introducing animals for the explicit purpose of hunting and killing deer in order to keep a balance. If that’s wrong, then should we kill all predators? Of course not, but I digress. Those aren’t arguments I think you’d make, and I’m not suggesting you’d agree whatsoever, but those are the perspectives we think about. Many many smart people have tackled this issue, and we have not found a better solution than culling. Sometimes, we’ve done some of what you suggested, and attempted to reduce fertility rates, though I see the same moral issue there as well. No sentient creature wants to be neutered or drugged to prevent reproduction. However, it’s better than hunting in certain circumstances, and something has to be done. This isn’t a problem that can be ignored to reduce environmental impacts in other areas. Overpopulation will happen, and it is devastating. I wish there was a simple solution, but we made mistakes when we destroyed the native ecosystem, and now it falls to us to keep it from totally collapsing.

You saw it too huh

It’s a reference to Noah’s Ark, where God supposedly flooded the whole world except two of each animal and Noah’s family, then put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol that He’d never do it again. Young Earth Creationists and their like take the story as fact, despite the fact that such an event would have put humanity well below the number of people needed for a stable gene pool, and that two of an animal likely wouldn’t repopulate an entire species. I digress.

Oh, wonderful. It “failed to upload twice,” but apparently it lied to me.

Jesus Christ. Take it down a notch, if you want anyone to take you seriously. Perpetuating a cycle of violence leads to lasting resentment and hatred. Sometimes violence is necessary to make voices heard, but that’s from the oppressed against the violence of their oppressors. Violence should never be used to control.

Surely this will not cause religious friction. I can see no flaws with this plan.

Solving a problem of violence with even greater violence seems to be shortsighted at best, and would probably cause more unforeseen future issues. I’m no expert, but surely there must be some nuanced position in between “cheer them on like a cage match” and “total authoritarian control over two peoples.” It just seems so reactionary and extreme to say “oh just forcibly disarm them and make them be nice to each other. With force.” It won’t cure decades of cultural friction and religious tension, and seems a bad precedent to set. On whose authority would this coalition act? They have the absolute power to dissolve two states? Could they do this to anyone they dislike? Where is the line?

Obviously you weren’t genuinely proposing this as a real solution, but reactionary takes like that just dilute the discussion and inflame emotions.

Authoritarian doesn’t mean exercising authority. Banning slavery did exercise authority, of the law, over slave owners, but it was anti-authoritarian. It took power, and authority, condensed wrongly in the hands of a few and, in theory, distributed it to the many, however effective it actually was.

I’ve never seen any sort of logical response to this argument.

Person A: Maybe we should reduce harm

Person B: But Biden is bad and evil!

Person A: I agree, but Trump is worse and more evil.

Person B: These are both the same!

Clearly, there are people that will be under attack under Trump that won’t under Biden. I’m not voting Republican or Democrat in the primaries, but I’m voting against Trump in the general. Not for Biden, but against Trump, because he’s far more dangerous in the same ways that Biden was, and spreads out his harm to others as well.

Ricky Gervais is never obligatory

I don’t like the Democrats one bit. It frustrates me to have to vote for them. BUT, they aren’t the ones demonizing me and removing my healthcare because of an innate part of myself. I’m trans, and Republicans are doing their damnedest to kill us. Democrats aren’t helping, but they aren’t calling to put us on lists and remove all of our healthcare, or make it illegal for us to change our names. Being a casualty of the apathy of those that think it doesn’t matter makes me want to cry, every day. And we aren’t the only ones! There are so many other targets conservatives are hunting and actively trying to hurt (people that can give birth, immigrants, veterans, etc), and no vote is just letting them get away with it. The Democrats are complicit and aren’t doing nearly enough, I’d vote for a leftist even after the primaries if one had any chance of election, but right now I have no choice for my own self preservation than to vote blue.

Please, I beg you, think of those that are vulnerable and hurting if conservatives have power. It’s not a good choice to vote blue, but it’s the least bad one.

This is the funniest comment on this post, and I believe you entirely

God forbid any game doesn’t cater exclusively to the greatest size group. Why not have representation in games proportional to the real life people that play them? If all you care about is plurality, then every character should be straight, Han Chinese men. We should cater to the maximum amount of people, right?

My mother doesn’t have a mom and a step dad. She has a mom and dad. Her step dad is her dad, as far as she is concerned. Bio dad was just a sperm donor. Family is a choice, not blood.