Another strike against the animal rights movement: a supporter would rather let people die than use pigs to grow transportable human organs.

If animals deserved the right to live, as humans do, we would have the duty to try to save them when they are in danger, as we have towards humans. It would follow that we ought to stop barn owls from killing mice, stop dolphins from killing fish, and stop frogs from killing flies.

Perhaps in 200 years in a totally transformed world, we could do this and keep all those animals alive without any eating any.

Developing small ion rockets to power small and light drones.

Is anyone developing a technology to prevent tiny robots from invading our homes, then spying on us or worse?

The town of Galveston was raised 110 years ago to resist hurricanes, but now due to global heating the hurricanes are gaining on it.

If we don't curb global heating, sooner or later Galveston will have to be abandoned.

One Single UK Aristocrat Just Avoided More in Inheritance Tax Than the Entire NHS Deficit.

A bombardment campaign is not a halfway step to war. It is war.

However, there is a distinction to be made between fighting on the side of a country's recognized government and fighting against it. Under international law, states are allowed to support other states militarily.

In some of the countries where the US is carrying out drone bombardment, it is aiding the more or less legitimate government. This is true in the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan.

In Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, that claim is less clear, but it is arguable. In Syria it is clearly not true.

Legally permitted by international law is not the same thing as morally justified. I think that fighting against PISSI is entirely justified. Fighting against Assad, maybe not.

Meanwhile, the Salafi-US bombardment of Yemen is legalized by the support of the official government of Yemen—but it is clearly wrong.