4 ms·

I think nuclear is a technology that is beyond what the current human society can support - we really are not ready for the technology until we deal with uneduc

I think nuclear is a technology that is beyond what the current human society can support - we really are not ready for the technology until we deal with uneducated masses, fundamentalism, techno-literacy etc

jerf 10y ago
"The masses are too uneducated for nuclear" would be a lot more compelling an argument if those who are putatively "the educated" weren't quite against it too. It's not poor uneducated people filing lawsuits against every nuclear reactor every step of the way, and unless you mean "environmental fundamentalist" (which isn't out of the question) it's not any other sort of fundamentalist I can think of either.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Some people play the game of life cooperatively, by trying to help each other and make the world a better place for everyone. But there's also lot of those who play it competitively - who don't mind abusing the system and fucking everyone else over as long as they get what they want for themselves and those close to them. You can see plenty of the latter type among many educated people "filling lawsuits against every nuclear reactor every step of the way", along with many other things. The problem isn't with those on the other side of the issue who are honestly opposing it; the problem is with people on both sides who don't care about subject matter at all, but only about how to profit from it.
  - guscost 10y ago
    In my experience American society is organized around the belief that people can be left to pursue their own goals without everything falling apart. While there will still be corruption and selfishness, the government and culture work together to make sure this problem is, if not much less serious than in other kinds of societies, at least not more serious either. It sounds like you are saying this isn't good enough, and that you would be against any powerful new technology until we can fix these problems. Until the fabled Eschaton/Utopia/perfect society arrives, basically. I think this is a terribly misguided attitude. Cheap and plentiful power will save and help a lot more people than those hurt by accidents. Especially taking into account the amazing safety science and engineering that goes into this particular technology, and its amazing safety record apart from Chernobyl (you know, that graphite-moderated reactor with no concept of passive safety).
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      You misunderstood me; maybe my comment wasn't written clearly enough. Personally, I'm very much pro-nuclear for very much the reasons you articulated. I definitely don't think we need to stop good ideas because of social problems. I merely wanted to point them out - that nuclear energy (and many other things as well) is being blocked not because some people are wrong, but because some people don't care about it at all, but use it as a way to make a profit.
      - guscost 10y ago
        OK it seems like I had your point pretty much backwards, whoops.

jerf 10y ago

"The masses are too uneducated for nuclear" would be a lot more compelling an argument if those who are putatively "the educated" weren't quite against it too. It's not poor uneducated people filing lawsuits against every nuclear reactor every step of the way, and unless you mean "environmental fundamentalist" (which isn't out of the question) it's not any other sort of fundamentalist I can think of either.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Some people play the game of life cooperatively, by trying to help each other and make the world a better place for everyone. But there's also lot of those who play it competitively - who don't mind abusing the system and fucking everyone else over as long as they get what they want for themselves and those close to them. You can see plenty of the latter type among many educated people "filling lawsuits against every nuclear reactor every step of the way", along with many other things. The problem isn't with those on the other side of the issue who are honestly opposing it; the problem is with people on both sides who don't care about subject matter at all, but only about how to profit from it.
- guscost 10y ago
  In my experience American society is organized around the belief that people can be left to pursue their own goals without everything falling apart. While there will still be corruption and selfishness, the government and culture work together to make sure this problem is, if not much less serious than in other kinds of societies, at least not more serious either. It sounds like you are saying this isn't good enough, and that you would be against any powerful new technology until we can fix these problems. Until the fabled Eschaton/Utopia/perfect society arrives, basically. I think this is a terribly misguided attitude. Cheap and plentiful power will save and help a lot more people than those hurt by accidents. Especially taking into account the amazing safety science and engineering that goes into this particular technology, and its amazing safety record apart from Chernobyl (you know, that graphite-moderated reactor with no concept of passive safety).
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    You misunderstood me; maybe my comment wasn't written clearly enough. Personally, I'm very much pro-nuclear for very much the reasons you articulated. I definitely don't think we need to stop good ideas because of social problems. I merely wanted to point them out - that nuclear energy (and many other things as well) is being blocked not because some people are wrong, but because some people don't care about it at all, but use it as a way to make a profit.
    - guscost 10y ago
      OK it seems like I had your point pretty much backwards, whoops.