Yes, nature seems to have a way of dealing with nuclear disasters.
I believe the hemp crop is carefully disposed of or carefully processed and used for a purpose where the toxins won’t be an issue.
Get your facts straight before you start arguing on a topic and whitewashing it.
Source: Chernobyl Population 2026
Ukraine hasn’t run a census in over two decades (it would be destabilising), and much of the Zone population are squatters residing there illegally (the only legal way to reside in the Zone is if you owned the house before the disaster, in which case you’d obviously be of advanced age by now).
Get your facts straight before you start arguing on a topic and blackwashing it.
In other words, you have no data on how many people live there. Got it.
Neither do you.
In 2013 an official estimated 2000 illegal residents. This number has likely climbed since then, apparently some war refugees also moved into the Zone.
At least I posted my source in English. I’m not trying to argue with you by posting sources in Italian or Portuguese.
Also, it’s 2025 already:
My source was in Russian, which is the most common spoken language in Ukraine. If you’re going to pick nits, at least select better ones.
Yes, that’s from 2013. Like I said, Ukraine hasn’t run a census since 2001. We have no good data. My 2013 source is still a lot more authoritative than yours, since that site doesn’t quote any sources, outright says they’re making an estimate, and apparently base their estimates on United Nations, US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, and Pew Research Center publications, none of which have conducted any census on Ukraine either.
1 Like
There are numerous ways to get rid of oil and gas and to automate everything related to oil and gas enough to make you expendable.
Bioplastics and bio-resin are a thing: Bio-Derivable Resin Transforming Wind Blade Fabrication | Plastics Engineering
And even if hydrocarbons are needed for resin and other aspects of wind and solar power plants, the processes to extract, refine and turn them into end-products can all be heavily automated, making humans in the process less and less necessary. There is also research going on in recycling and recovering the resin and fiber mats after a wind power turbine has reached the end of its life-time, which means the need for new oil extraction.
Nuclear keeps the dependence on autocratic and cartel-like structures for resource procurement in place, which is utterly undesireable. There’s no point in phasing out OPEC/Russia dependency for Oil/Gas with a Russia dependency for uranium (Niger is also under russian influence). Europe in particular needs to rid itself from this toxic relationship with the world to regain political, diplomatic and economic weight. The recent attempts from the US and Qatar to coerce the EU into submitting to their bidding by threatening to withold gas supplies over laws passed in the EU for the EU:
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/qatar-threatened-cut-eu-lng-supplies-over-sustainability-law-letter-shows-2025-07-26/
An economy entirely run on renewables is absolutely possible and Germany is on track to achieve that. With massive amounts of battery storage and other storage facilities which are running (building, operation) without any government subsidies and entirely on normal market mechanisms, that goal becomes ever more achievable. Wind is not in short supply offshore and even harvestable at the open ocean with floating wind turbines (which have been in actual use off of the coast of Scotland (Hywind Scotland - the world’s first floating wind farm - Equinor).
Once Europe rids itself from the fossil fuel lobbies, we can start to tap into that potential easier with less artificial and falsehood-based backlashes from “concerned citizens”.
And to bring this all back to AI. That’s what is going to happen if the “AI” bubble is not bursting sooner than later. The biggest issue is that so many people are satisfied with mediocre quality (just look at the CCP apologists on the forum) and passing down the hard and frustrating work to fix the AI mess to people who receive less money for more work. The next few years will be fascinating in that regard.
What language are you using to talk to me? This isn’t nitpicking. I don’t understand russian and it makes no sense to quote me sources in russian. (I tried using the English version of the page, but it redirected to main page. And articles beyond 2015 were unavailable in English). If you want to argue with me post sources in English (Italian and French are also acceptable for me), not in chinese or russian, or whatever else language to make it look like you’re proving your point.
I’m not the one making outlandish claims like ‘'leading cause of death is some heart disease associated with old age not cancer’’ or ‘’land won’t be rendered unusable for even a decade’’ in relation to a nuclear disaster. If you’re gonna make such claims, I wanna see some sources, and they better be PubMed or equivalent, not some local newspaper articles of your choice in a language I can’t read or from 20 years back.
This is way off topic anyway. And I won’t continue on this thread with you. You won’t be the one to change my mind, so have fun staying off topic if you wish.
I disagree. I think Russia is a reliable and trustworthy trading partner, and that the west is making a major mistake throwing their relationship with us away.
But anyway, if you must be russophobic, extract and refine your own yellowcake. Countries like Sweden have plenty uranium available and I’m sure by your metrics are less doubleplus ungood than those nasty, nasty Russians.
Get over yourself. For information about Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian are going to be the best languages, not English, Italian, or French. Je ne pense pas que ce soit difficile à comprendre.
No, you’re making outlandish claims in the opposite directions. Chernobyl will not be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. It wasn’t even uninhabitable for a decade. If even the worst possible nuclear accident can be cleaned up in a handful of decades, then obviously the problem isn’t as severe as doom-predicting environmentalists like to think.
And no, I’m not going to look for sources in English just because you can’t read Russian. Use a translation software, they tend to be good at Russian→English. For information about the USA I’d look for US sources, for information about France if look for French sources, and for information about Ukraine I’d look for Ukrainian sources (and keep an eye out for propaganda).
Thank you for conceding the point. Total Infomorph Victory.
It’s the latest craze ( and I do mean crazy ). A.I will become their deity and they will worship it.
Businesses prefer to use A.I instead of paying a person which tells me people are now superfluous and been disposable for quite some years already.
It’s been ridiculous for quite some time but as long as some people have been ok getting ripped off it wasn’t a problem.
They don’t care about the environment and certainly don’t care about public health. In fact, they’re both constraints on their bottom line.
I don’t think he gives a sh-
But that’s the plan. These people aren’t working towards a better world, they’re working to enslave humanity and without means of sustenance we’re as good as slaves.
I wish it was. A.I is a tool to control and enslave humanity.
They didn’t abandon us, they were never with us in the first place. All they did was strictly for money. They couldn’t give two sh- about gamers. Never have.
1 Like
I am not talking about reliability. I am talking about toxic, dangerous and coercive nature. Almost any nation dealing with oil and gas is a horrible nation. The only nations I can think of which are not autocratic, dictatorial, expansionistic, imperialistic, coercive, hostile in this field are Norway and Canada. Everything else dealing with oil and gas only has the worst for humanity and its customers in mind. Qatar is the best most recent example.
As for your link about Germany: First of: The welfare state is not the issue. Rich people not paying their fair share to run society is. There is a saying in Germany from the time of the Wirtschaftswunder: “Die starken Schultern können tragen” (The strong shoulders can carry a lot), meaning that those who are most successful in the economy are also the ones that should pay the most into the welfare system so that those that are not as successful and lucky (most of their success depends on luck, mostly a lucky birth, as most wealth is inherited in Germany) can properly participate in society and keep consumer demand and everything else running so that the most successful people can make even more money. Over the years, this paradigm has gone lost and the wealthiest and most successful groups have removed themselves through lobbying from this society contract. That is why we can no longer “afford” the welfare state.
Secondly: What does that have to do with energy?
Thirdly: To get this back to energy: With renewables, companies and private people have the means to save massive amounts of energy by generating their own power and energy, lowering power bills for private homes and power and energy bills for companies. Since these companies can basically generate a huge chunk of their energy demand themselves, big power corps got really scared about 20 years ago and started to lobby against this Energy Transition with all their might. They shot thousands of arrows into Germany’s knee to save their business and profits, while destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs, making it possible for China to take over Germany’s leadership role in PV and Wind Power production, and the reliance on Coal and Gas (the most expensive forms of energy and power generation) drive our electricity prices sky-high.
This has to end and this will end, one way or another.
1 Like
They can go ahead and worship it, for most businesses introducing AI will only serve to make their current process a little more efficient and there will still be lots of other factors which affect their success. A typical business isn’t going to start making billions more in profit just because they have incorporated AI.
If we look at the idiotic Elon Musk for example, he is affecting public health in america by using an array of polluting mobile power generators which must also be very costly…just to power a bot named Groc on his X social platform. I’m unsure how a bot that answeres queries and gives guidence results in billions more in profit, but if anyone can explain please feel free.
It is reported that Grok has so far costed Billions of dollars to create and maintain, so much is being spent on a feature that most people will get bored of after a few months and ignore it.
I can agree that the some forms of AI are very useful such as the ability to create graphics quickly based on a small description, I can definitely see lots of small business paying a subscription for this service, I’m not sure if it can replace the skill of an artist/graphic designer but it is a very strong business tool.
Yes, a business may prefer to use AI instead of paying a person, the only issue is if every business has this mentality then the long term effect will be worldwide productivity being lowered . We will definitely have more people claiming unemployment benefits and there will be less people buying products/services.
I’m actually quite surprised, there are intelligent people running governments around the world and I cannot see any of them creating laws for how AI is to be used. for example the UK could create a law to limit the amount of staff made redundant due to AI. Many countries were quick to jump on crypto and create laws due to it’s volitile nature and possible negative effect, to me AI’s negative effect seems much bigger.
If we look at driverless cars which are also a form of AI due to the parallel processing needed to carry out this task safely, we can see that this has the potential to end Uber driving as a means of employment for a person.
I have a feeling the world is going to learn another harsh lesson, business can go ahead and put lots of money into AI but what they may find is that taxes have to be raised to support the additional unemployed people, then on top of that some countries may have to borrow which will affect debt and tax level further.
Sorry, I know there is a lot in this post,
We seem to have a generation of government and business leaders with a strong desire to make themselves and their friends rich beyond anyone’s wildest immagination which is very dangerous, I’m not sure if these people are very smart as they never ever seem to see the bigger picture and they never seem to understand THEY are in fact servants who serve you and me.
2 Likes
The “harsh lesson” will be that we cannot maintain our current model of society any longer. Which is “pay people for work and then tax their income to pay for everything else”.
Machines taking over work that a human has not to do any more is in itself a good thing. We shold be insanely happy that more and more jobs can be done by machines. We simply have to find new ways to spread the wealth generated from all that work. And we should not aim to find more work for all those losing their jobs to machines. This won’t be possible in the forseeable future anyway. You simply won’t need that much humans for doing work any more. Especially the kind of simply and repetetive work that the majority of the people can do and which will be exactly the kind of work that will be replaced first by machines. Because lets face it: The jobs that will stay in human hands will have requirements (empathy, skill, talent…) that the overwhelming majority of the people lack in sufficient amount to do the job properly anyway.
The “harsh lesson” we will have to learn that (human) “work” is neither the god to pray to nor the cow to milk any more, the fundament of our wealth that keeps the society running. We will have to accept that large parts of the population will simply no longer work or will work at greatly reduced times - and we will still pay them one way or the other. And it will be okay.
1 Like
It really does feel like a lot of people at the top are focused on enriching themselves and their circle, while losing sight of who they’re supposed to work for. Calling that out isn’t cynical, it’s realistic. I don’t have much faith that they’ll suddenly “see the bigger picture,” because I believe they simply don’t care, but keeping that awareness alive at least stops the narrative from being completely rewritten in their favor. It’s not optimism — more like not letting them off the hook.
As for A.I and the rest, things are more exciting than I imagined when I was younger.
1 Like
It is an elaborate money hog that - while it showed some results that were impossible to do a few years ealier - can never return the investments shoveld into it based on what it delivers. According to recent analysts return of investments is already now impossible while the money burning nevertheless still increases. So it is only a matter of time until it implodes.
For reference:
https://medium.com/genusoftechnology/95-of-companies-are-getting-zero-return-on-their-ai-investments-2a5fe7242f29
1 Like
I went to the source, I asked ChatGPT about people investing in AI. I won’t cut, copy and paste but I will summarize the reply.
You will lose money investing in the application and the hype, but some layers of compatibility and infrastructure, should prove profitable over the long term. In short, don’t invest in the gold mine or the chance of gold being found, invest in the picks and shovels. It sited recent failures with crypto tokens but the blockchain tools persist. It deems the “High Risk” investments will be;
- AI wrapper apps charging subscriptions
- Companies dependent on user growth
- ChatGPT itself
What it predicts will be a good investment;
- Chips especially GPUs that incorporate AI
- Data Centers
- Power, cooling, and networking
- Semiconductor tooling
Overall it stated, that regardless many investors in AI will fail, in the end AI itself will not become obsolete.
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. I personally don’t invest in AI or tech toys. I got my money the hard way, I got it from my parents. Dad invested in Dow Chemical, back in his day, I cashed in those stocks and bought the apartment building I currently reside. Chemicals are a good, safe, long term investment, they are used in everything from medicine to weapons.
Have fun!
2 Likes
Thinking about this again I do think the AI that can write legal letters, amend letters/emails, and generate graphics might actually be worth a lot. If it’s marketed as “AI Office assistant” I can see many small businesses paying a subscription for it.
If the amount of subscriptions for “AI Office Assistant” is high and can be proven then this could also create an advertising opportunity, perhaps a 30 second advert that can’t be skipped which appears before the user’s AI task is carried out would generate extra revenue.
There is also an opportunity to create an AI program for car/vehicle repair, if someone can get their AI machine to “learn” everything about cars and all current models in the world this might be a useful diagnostic tool for independant car mechanics to use.
A sensible AI company can put a small investment into the 2 suggestions above and patiently wait for a return, the issue is that they are moving too fast investing in uses for AI that won’t have a good return.
It does seem that wealthy people want to use AI to actually replace people in the workplace, the sensible course of action would be to invest in an AI system that enhances the productivity of the human employee. So instead of replacing the Receptionist/Assistant person, they could have tools to do their job faster and perhaps move on to helping in other areas of the business.
If we look at recent events in the USA, San Francisco, all of the driverless AI cars in the city literally stopped in the middle of roads due to a power cut and caused major issues, now the company responsible have to go back to the drawing board and spend lots of millions redesigning the system so the taxi’s can either carry on operating during a power cut or park on the side of the road so they don’t cause a hazzard. I definitely do not envy their workload, straight away I can see it would have been many many times cheaper for them to hire human drivers..the amount of money about to be spent fixing this will be a lot.
As for government investment in AI, it should definitely be restricted to using the people’s money for things like AI and medical care, it is a good idea to get a machine to learn all brain scans ever recorded and get the machine to have a full understanding of all the things doctors are looking for within these brain scans, investments like this immediately get my thumbs up as they have a very high chance of helping people. I think a big part of the problem is rich ceo techbro’s are trying to replace the doctor rather than providing sophisticated tools to help the doctor.
AI and Science is also something I would want the government to invest in with the people’s money, any advancement in science or gaining a better understanding of nature can help the planet as a whole.
I agree it won’t become obsolete. Any moron with a PC can download open source AI for free. Will it be useful? Well a man working at a spring factory came out with the “Slinky” toy and it was a fad as a toy. In jungle combat, it was later repurposed as a radio antenna. You could toss the slinky up into a tree and it was a sure bet it would get stuck. Then you attach your antenna wire to the slinky to get a good signal. Today this use has been replaced with better microwave transmitters. Slinky spring toys are still sold in stores, it is only a matter of time before they are again repurposed.
Not when the software is available for free. The only reason you would need a subscription is to access non local servers. As it stands, I made three music videos inside 2 months for free from services begging for subscriptions and subscribers. I am a drain on their revenues. The free open source will improve over time and so will PC hardware, making these subscription services obsolete.
Also I don’t think it is a good idea, for any government, to invest tax payers money into AI. It should be up to the person paying the taxes, and not a politician with no idea how a computer functions. Also most governments are not going to look at AI in beneficial ways, they will desire to weaponize it.
I disagree with you here as the need for a computer system that can assist with various aspects of life comes from a logical course of investigation. If we look at weather for example a team of meteorologists will obviously have a need to study the atmosphere in a specific way, I’m not any sort of specialist in this field but I am sure that a computer system that can process around a Quintillion calculations per second in a parallel manner would be very useful for meteorologists.
There is much more to AI than creating digital trinkets, talking voices, music, document and graphics creation, The crucial aspect of AI is simply the ability to process data in a parallel manner , that’s it, Anything you see associated with AI simply uses parallel processing to either create it or use it to generate something at a users command.
If we look at NASA, they have been collecting data for many decades and may have a need to re-process that data using some sort of parallel processing system to see if there is anything they missed.
It would seem that data in lots of different industries were processed in a sequencial manner due to processing limitations, so as you can see there is actually quite a lot to AI.
Flight/Airspace controllers might want a computer system that is based on parallel processing, the monitoring of lots of planes in the sky is important work and would need to be well funded with the most up to date and reliable processing available to man.
Generally specialists would request government funding for AI projects which I would assume included plans on what it’s for and it’s benefit to society.
This video explains the core of what AI is.
There are lots of different perspectives out there, as an example; a typical safe driver might not understand why a 20mph speed limit is imposed on a specific road, but then civil servants who are first responders to car accidents will have a completly different understanding than you do.
For people like you and I with a good tech understanding yes you are 100% correct. But for a well established business where say a personal assistant or receptionist is using an AI tool to achieve a task like creating a document, they won’t have the same understanding you and I do if the AI task fails for any reason, they would want a support service available where they can call or e-mail and get the specific issue resolved, this requires lots of people paying a subscription so support can be offered.
I suppose it’s the same with most other business products, there simply has to be a support system in place for when users face problems and it will need funding.