The entire ideal seems rather sidestepping to me. This doesnt really solve anything or shut anyone up or do anything, it merely presents more problems.

From the Pro-life perspective, this does fine.

From the Religious perspective, this does fine because no moralized philosophies are violated.

From the Pro-choice perspective, personally, Id still like to see abortion in place for the elimination of unwanted future elements, but yes this is fine too. As long as they dont start taking up shitloads of space in basements across the world.

Yes, the fater should have some right to allow the continuation of growth, but at the same time no, they shouldnt. From the equal rights perspective, the man was equally and arguably more responsible for the fermentation to begin with. However, from the autonomy perspective, its a big no-no because its her body, right? If it were another woman's body continuing the growth of a fetus after the father's partner had it removed, Id say the father's consent is required. If the mother would like to continue it, no the father's consent would not be required, for if these two partner's are still together and the father did not consent it, LOOK OUT.

Heres a page on the Macroscopic violation of Thermodynamics. I Believe it also makes reference to other violations, including scalar dimensions/universes, Quantum Foam(Theory?), certain interpretations of aerodynamics and other specific statistical theories I cant remember.

http://archive.numdam.org/ARCHIVE/AIHPA/ AIHPA_1964__1_4/AIHPA_1964__1_4_421_0/AIHPA_1964__1_4_421_0.pdf

DOUBLE RAINBOW LEPRECHAUN SLAVE LABOR POWER GENERATORS! ITS BRILLIANT!

As for thermodynamics, Look up the three laws then look up Thermodynamic violators in another page. Wikipedia is sufficient for both.

HA! It would appear that Ive one this one, seeing as no one wishes to challenge the vast elellitude that is Brotherhood.

I never said the technology existed, Protozoa. Im merely relating it back to the argument of cleanest and best energy source. If you think about it, all one really requires is electromagnetism and superdense matter. After that, youre golden. The Zero-point energy I speak of is the transcendant energy of gravity waves of all matter floating through space. I dont think it would be very difficult whatsoever to harvest that.

As for the manipulator search suggestion, that was mostly a joke. Refer to my first statement.

Okay, yes, its energy conversion, but weve already cleared that part up.

As for entropy, Screw it. Think about non-realistic applications of the manipulation of zero-point energy fields and how nice and useful that would be. Just think about it. Its so limitless.

As for antimatter, I just dont see it happening on planet. It requires way too much Capital.

Go do something better Enigmatic. That is all there really is to say. Unless of course you are trying pointlessly to rack up some quick points for your account. Then by all means, continue. And eating with sticks is indeed fun. Anyone who disagrees with that is a bigoted fool.

As for my lunatics comment, I mean the Chinese Communist government in general when I say lunatics and the rest of the country is very quickly moving toward a capitalistic-Democracy.

How about a privatized Government? One that utilizes the competition mechanic to achieve efficiency and lower costs? Except, instead of competing over money, they are competing over the number of people that live in their country and the educational/worth density of those people? In other words, splitting a well-established country in two to achieve privatized government, one that legislates quite literally as the people see fit to get the most that they can out of them and their opponent. Now, the question here would be how do you prevent underhand tricks? you do so with a promotion of open-book government, a paradigm change to such and a paradigm switch to making everyone more politically active or at least more politically aware. This would result in a much lower and even destroyed underhand-dealing mechanic.

As for war, these two separate governments are still part of the same country. In the end, these two governments act as one internationally. Kind of like two states instead of fifty in the US. They both have equal access to their respective north and south relative borders, i.e. both have equal access to Mexico and Canada in the case of the US. Finally, both would sign a document guaranteeing their mutual disclosure of information, resources and military power, Ultimately meaning that the two are still the same country with checks and balances to each other, but potentially significantly different laws apply to things inside each respective government's boundaries. War is prevented, the people get what they want, the economic experiment is engaged and no one gets hurt. It also forces to surface many issues that require answers. Thus, the ultimate serving of government is, well, served.

I disagree with your statement on the insatiable want to grow the government, by the government. Has every government in American history acted this way? No, Jefferson shrank the size of the government significantly, Hoover did, Coolidge did and I believe one of the post-civil war presidents did as well. Some even left them the same size by the time they left the office. Whats to say that next United States president after Obama wont shrink the size of government significantly, even destroy specific taxes, sign in free energy and destroy Public Healthcare? Any of that could happen, right? More or less. Regardless, Saying that government by nature of its establishment hungers for growth of itself is misguided at best. It depends entirely on the institution, its leader and how good he is at selling an idea.

"Well, that is your opinion, and it is not a negative attitude, it is simply the truth."

Do not confuse a sense of realism with pessimism.

Hey! Im not uneducated!

And I did not know it had passed 60% efficiency. Perhaps we should be looking to that then.

As for antimatter, even a mechanic for capturing the antimatter generated by Lightning storms would be expensive, dont you think? Transport is still a problem, holding remains a problem, manipulation remains a problem, realistically, youd need an entire planet designated for energy generation for cost to become feasible. Thus, I do not believe it has any realistic potential. So there.

As for Zero-point energy manipulator generator, I meant merely a device used for manipulating and conglomerating Zero-point energy into a useful amount of energy and then using it to generate electricity. Not a manipulator-generator, something that generates manipulators. Sorry about that.

If you want an article, look up "zero-point energy manipulator" alone. That ought to turn up some results.

Its rather easy to conglomerate energy into more using a really long addition problem, Protozoa.

Secondly, were not converting energy to a higher state, were just putting it together to say we have more energy total. No conversions there.

And when I say energy manipulator generator, I mean energy that is being manipulated into a closed state i.e. conglomerated, and then used to generate electricity.

As for Nuclear Fission, it is actually rather green. Youre environmental argument stems from the 1960s and '70s, when analysts obviously saw waste products from a radioactive process being dumped in places. All of these arguments have been more or less stemmed thanks to an overview. When you think about the total radioactivity of 5 years worth on Nuclear Power plant waste, it comes up to about one cancer dose. Secondly, the materials used to encase the waste products and make sure they stay that way are generally lead and tungsten composites. These exist naturally in the environment to begin with. We are merely putting it in other places on the planet. Places with equivalent specs to the places we took those resources from. Thus, taking resources from one desert and putting them into another desert(Sahara to Nevada) isnt really much of a problem.

As for efficiency, if you can just cite the source for your stats at the bottom of your argument, Ill address that. Until then, The most cost-effective/energy-effective Nuclear power plant built recently has been built in China, with a (non-cited) low building cost and it produces nuclear energy at a rate of $0.022/kW/h. Pretty cheap.

When one addresses the cost of maintenance on either wind or Nuclear and the length of their lives producing power, the average 20-acre Wind farm has a 20 year life, whereas modern nuclear has a 35-40 year life span. Cost of maintenance over the course of their life times per year are actually EXACTLY the same(weird!). That number comes out to be $4,500(rounded).