<p>I live in Eastern time, and I sent in my application at 11:58. The time recorded was 8:58.</p>
<p>I’m a proponent of a lot of green things especially because they drive innovation. I’m not sure where I got this statistic (Fuel Cell magazine?), but Hydrogen fuel cells and internal combustion engines both have like, 30% efficiency, and the internal combustion engine has existed and been re-engineered and improved for over 100 years. Which do you think has a lot more potential for improvement? Plus I think it would be awesome to attach a little condenser to the exhaust pipe in case you ever got thirsty while driving.</p>
<p>The plastics question is a lot more interesting… While I do believe in individual action like I believe St.Hudson said, I’m also big on corporate regulation. Cutting industrial waste for products made and sold in the US would be a smart step, and who really likes big business anyway? You could make it mandatory that plastics made in the US be recyclable (There are some like plastic-metal chimeras that aren’t, I think. Like in some hair spray cans?) Most things are already, but it would make things clearer. Or offering federal aid to municipalities to start recycling programs. If you made it easier, a lot of people probably would. But a lot of people just don’t feel like driving out to the recycling center where they live.</p>
<p>It seems that only a few states have deposits on used cans/bottles. In Michigan it is generally $0.10, towards the higher end. It definitely gives people an incentive to recycle, and it doesn’t cost much, if anything, because it’s just getting a cash return on the value of plastic/metal that can be reused.</p>
<p>My biggest concern with global warming and greenhouse gas production is the livestock industry, this coming from a vegetarian…</p>
<p>if energy efficiency is the issue (getting the most energy out of the smallest amount of fuel), maybe we should look into matter-antimatter research. while we’re at it, we should also make light sabers for our troops. :)</p>
<p>also, about energy saving, use fluorescent light bulbs. they use way less energy, last longer, and much more efficient than standard light bulbs</p>
<p>You talked about corporate regulations, mandates, and federal aid, so would I be too far of saying you have liberal leanings, Earilmadith?</p>
<p>Heh. I’m a full out liberal when it comes to big business. I’m a classical liberal (like a slightly more conservative libertarian) for most other things. Hell, I’d even be Republican if they returned to their roots. I just hate government screwing around with individuals.</p>
<p>I think if you’re going to do crazy physics experimentation, go all out. Vacuum energy! We could blow up the earth with a light bulb!</p>
<p>I’m actually more a Republican, but hate the politicians who masquerade under the guise of Republicanism. They don’t stand for the basic fundamentals of the party. All politicians, Democrat and Republican, are pro-big government. The only thing they differ on is abortion, gay marriage, etc., which should all be personal choices, not political stances.</p>
<p>I agree abortion and gay marriage are complete non-issues. When a government begins to preach “morality,” we have obviously crossed the line of church/state serparation.</p>
<p>Exactly! God, it’s hard enough to be gay or pregnant without the politicization of your situation.</p>
<p>I guess it’s kind of sad that politicians have to resort to things people are really opinionated about nowadays, instead of focusing on important things, like the government and the economy. …Things that are their jobs.</p>
<p>Although, morals aren’t only a church thing. I’m sure there are atheists with very strong morals, and we all know some clergy and religious fanatics have “awful” morals by the standard they’re supposed to be holding themselves to. I agree, it’s a definite personal choice and not something some millionaire with 51% of the vote can decide for us.</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree that morals aren’t a church-only thing. But the way that many politicians use the term “morals,” they make it sound as though only Christians (or certain sects even) possess them, hence the quotes.</p>
<p>Some religious people might argue that present-day morals were derived from religion. I’m not one of these people, but I’m hoping to bring out a commenter with an opposing view. Don’t be scared, we just wanna talk…</p>
<p>as of the current moment I don’t personallysupport abortion, except in cases like rape
but I’m pro choice, because it’s not right for the government to force that upon someone.
personal choice is one thing, government interference with personal choice is a whole other.
and I just don’t get the argument against gay marraige…like at all.</p>
<p>and btw i’m not very religious</p>
<p>One could argue that present-day morals have always been a part of human nature and not derived from religion at all. I don’t necessarily believe this, but a lot of intelligent people have argued that the separation of the human from the rest of the animal world, in a cognitive sense, is defined by our potential for empathy and our conscience, and that these traits are inherent to being human (of course, there are deviations).</p>
<p>well, present day morals ARE derived from the ideas behind religion. just about every one of society’s major moral codes- don’t steal, don’t hit people, be nice- can be traced back to the bible. or similar texts, i suppose. i mean, i don’t read the koran or anything… why would you believe otherwise, hudson?</p>
<p>i don’t think morals are particularly ingrained into human nature; survival, however, is. say i’m hungry and i need to eat. i steal a fruit, a cantaloupe, maybe. this is an action that is part of the human’s nature, but clearly against morals. if i’m living in a society with no religion like structures in place, no particular affinity for being morally correct, i wouldn’t see this as wrong.</p>
<p>just blathering on…</p>
<p>i dont know about deriving them. but i do think religion makes an effort to reenforce them. and i dont just mean christianity either, most religions ask their followers to have some level of morals or respect for others, or nature, or laws.</p>
<p>I doubt very many people support abortion, alamode, and I’m very glad you don’t :)</p>
<p>The controversy is over whether a fetus can qualify as an independent being, and whether banning abortion is a violation of women’s rights (which, to some, is the core underlying issue). Feminists argue that banning abortion would set women’s rights back a generation. Their opponents claim that an unborn child is still a living being with equal rights to life.</p>
<p>I’m with you, pro-choice. I hate it when mudslinging politicians twist this more “liberal” viewpoint into pro-death or anti-life, because that is definitely not what pro-choice means.</p>
<p>Directed to inconspicuous, but anyone can reply…</p>
<p>Sure the Bible makes references to “no stealing,” “no killing,” etc., but one must remember that Christianity (and Judaism) wasn’t founded until very late in human history. Are you implying that these morals didn’t exist before the rise of monotheistic religions?</p>
<p>For example, what about Chinese law and morality codes (keep in mind that China was isolated for a great deal of time)? China had no organized religion in pre-modern times, and flat-out rejected Christianity when it came along. Confucianism, a belief system, but certainly not a religion, defined social custom. How did their morals evolve?</p>
<p>i am one to side with the belief that it is a independent being. but that Is MY opinion. the government in no way should restrict someone’s decision ( i wouldnt call it a whole generation) but its not their place. i will run around calling people baby killers or evil no. its about choice.</p>
<p>wink: nope im not saying that. they in a sense put it out to the people. i think people do naturally have some sense of right/wrong, like it was said above, but the people in those particular religions offer a path to keep these morals.</p>
<p>inconspicuous…but what about before the bible?
before there was christianity and islam and judaism and all of that fun stuff, were people just completely immoral?
I think that the concept of morality has always been there…but religion is an attempt to reinforce moral choices, and provide an incentive to make moral decisions. Without religion, the only real incentive to make moral decisions is personal conscious and the law. Most of the athiests that I know (obviously a skewed distribution, but whatever) have very strong morals, and I think it is because of this that they are able to accept the concept of not having a religion—because they have strong morals regardless of religion, this nullifies one of the primary concerns of religion.</p>
<p>and yeah wink, I don’t see any problem with allowing people to decide for THEMSELVES whether or not a fetus is an independent being. I hate when people try to force their beliefs on others. and i kind of cross posted with you on my first point haha</p>