4 ms·
From the review, it sounds like our current political problems receive no attention/treatment, and that Pinker advocates a future-dependent technological soluti
by roymurdock 9y ago
From the review, it sounds like our current political problems receive no attention/treatment, and that Pinker advocates a future-dependent technological solution (better/more nuclear power to increase clean power generation) to a political problem we currently face (no will/incentive to enforce taxation scheme to reduce the status quo of carbon emissions) :
> What, for instance, about climate change? Pinker is no climate-change denier, and admits that “the challenge is daunting.” But then he quickly pivots from his position that things are getting better and better to say that we can avoid the looming doom if only we start taxing carbon emissions, increase the use of nuclear power, and engage in deliberate climate engineering to lower global temperatures.
> He largely disregards the fact that the political will to move in any of these directions is wholly lacking and will remain so as long as the party that controls the White House and Congress refuses to admit that a problem even exists. When it comes to his favored technological solution, nuclear power, Pinker also seems determined to ignore the problem that the people who manage plants do not always follow their own safety procedures and cannot plan for every possible natural disaster (as Fukushima showed all too dramatically). The industry, he insists, has learned from its mistakes. But has it?
I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how accurate this portrayal is
- boomboomsubban 9y agoMuch of the current political situation arises from a lack of trust in science and fear mongering leading to panic.
- roymurdock 9y agoReally? I think it arises from simple economic incentives - not taxing emissions makes people (politicians and employees of basically all companies) richer than taxing emissions. Even the most educated and science worshiping populace would be hard pressed to vote for policy that would hamper economic growth and cost jobs/profits.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoAll the various rules under the EPA cost money, yet people passed it as there was a clear need to do so. The unwarranted doubt placed on global warming research is being used to mask the clear need. The economic implications aren't as clear as you make them. Companies may make less profit right away, but assuming the amount of work needed is the same, that gap would need to be filled by innovation or manual labor.