User:Tweenk/Agenda

Energy

 * Climate change is real, caused by human activity, and a major problem that necessitates immediate action.
 * Wind energy is nearly useless at fighting climate change, because it cannot be depended upon, has to be backed up by fossil fuel sources, and has a very low density (about 2 W/m2). If no major breakthrough happens in energy storage technology, it will remain very expensive.
 * Solar energy has slightly better energy density, but is very expensive and not available at night or in the winter.
 * In general, "renewable energy" as promoted by the environmental movement (which means wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, small hydro, tidal, wave, and osmotic power) is not nearly as useful for fixing climate change as they say. At best it is a distraction, at worst it is a scheme to extort government money via subsidies and tax breaks or an attempt to sell more natural gas (which fixes the intermittency).
 * Nuclear energy has very high energy density and negligible emissions. It is the best energy technology suitable for mitigating climate change. The commonly cited problems (such as nuclear waste storage, or safety of reactors) are far less severe than anti-nuclear groups claim.
 * Hydro power is a valuable source of energy. It is quickly dispatchable and can function as energy storage. Additionally, it prevents floods. However, it also causes large changes in the environment, so it should only be used where the environmental damage is outweighed by the provided benefits.
 * Effective CCS (carbon capture & sequestration, aka "clean coal") is pure conjecture at this point. It creates a waste management problem that is many orders of magnitude worse than the nuclear waste "problem", in fact worse than any waste problem that humanity has encountered to date.
 * It seems plausible that opposition to nuclear power is at least partially financed by natural gas suppliers, but I have not seen enough evidence to make a definitive judgment on this.

Environmentalism

 * Anti-nuclear groups are badly misinformed and spread fact-free propaganda on almost every possible subject, from effects of Chernobyl to safety of food irradiation.
 * Greenpeace is a well-intentioned organization that frequently (though not all the time) distorts the facts and spreads lies and propaganda to further a dogmatic Green position. This has at some times resulted in preventable harm to humans.
 * Organic farming consistently gives lower yields that conventional farming, and is therefore not environmentally friendly. Some techniques which improve soil health might be useful and could be incorporated into conventional farming, such as terra preta; however, the underlying ideology is wrong.
 * The least destructive form of agriculture is modern, intensive, high-yield farming which uses genetically engineered crops, agricultural chemicals in reasonable quantities, and techniques that prevent soil erosion. Techniques of subsistence agriculture are typically much more destructive.
 * The best method of population control is to encourage as much people as possible to move into cities.
 * An environmental position I agree with is contained in "Whole Earth Discipline" by Stewart Brand. Other people I mostly agree with include Mark Lynas and George Monbiot.
 * The main problem I have with the mainstream environmental movement is that it accepts the scientific consensus on climate change but rejects it when it comes to risks of nuclear power and genetically modified foods. Fundamentally it is not about protecting the environment but about being anti-industrial.

Medicine

 * Illegal drugs are not as harmful as common knowledge says. The majority of their harmful effects come from illegality itself, rather than from the specific effects of the drug.
 * Not everything said about ibogaine might be true, but its anti-addictive properties warrant at least a thorough scientific investigation. So far this is severely hindered due to its illegality in the United States and many other countries.
 * Anti-vaccine groups are dangerous, irresponsible, and should probably be prosecuted.
 * There is a widespread, global radiation hysteria that persists mainly because of anti-nuclear groups. This hysteria makes dirty bombs a real threat. If it were to go away, dirty bombs would no longer pose any substantial danger. Instead of ever more draconian regulations, which hamper the progress of nuclear technology, the root cause (radiation hysteria) should be fixed.
 * Linear no-threshold is definitely false. The most likely response to radiation is a threshold model, although radiation hormesis might be true.

Politics

 * "War on Terror" is an euphemism for an illegal war on certain Islamic interests that refuse to align themselves with US foreign policy.
 * US and British coverage of events leading to the war in Iraq were misleading and sometimes outright false. This included planting stories about supposed atrocities of the Saddam Hussein regime, which were mostly false, and demonizing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was a rather unimportant Jordanian terrorist not affiliated with Al-Qaeda in any way and was in fact a rival to Bin Laden.
 * Nuclear proliferation will not inevitably lead to nuclear war. In fact, it might be stabilizing, as seen in the Cold War where nuclear deterrence successfully prevented an invasion of Western Europe by the Soviet Union. Even in times of great political turmoil, such as the collapse of USSR and Cultural Revolution in China, the nuclear-armed countries have maintained control over their nuclear stockpiles. The argument for complete nuclear disarmament is intellectually shaky, and furthered mainly by groups with unrealistic pacifist and anti-nuclear agendas.
 * The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty might be destabilizing.
 * Missile defense is definitely destabilizing, contrary to most people's expectations.
 * There is a frequently repeated class of soundbites that MIRV ballistic missiles (or some other things) are first strike weapons. I think this is bullshit, because the existence of survivable nuclear forces, such as submarines and mobile launchers, guarantees that true first strike is impossible.

Religion

 * There is probably no God.
 * Most religion is evil, because it teaches you not to think for yourself.
 * Christianity is the unspoken reason for the genetic engineering controversy. I have a strong suspicion that most (though probably not all) GMO critics are in fact Christians, for whom the existing organisms were created perfect by God. For those people, creating a new organism with desirable traits designed by humans is a blasphemy.