5 ms·

I totally agree with this last comment. However - I have two major issues with it. 1. You assume that green technocracy is "better" than current technocracy.

I totally agree with this last comment. However - I have two major issues with it. 1. You assume that green technocracy is "better" than current technocracy. Or are you proposing that we let hysteric extremist (fascist?) wing of green take over? 2. The largest issue of nuclear power is that people who are declaratively for saving environment block any and all attempts to improve current situation. In this sense - the greens are at fault for Fukushima. Otherwise this plant would be probably dismantled 10 years ago and replaced with more modern and safer model. The same goes for nuclear waste - green is playing an extremely dangerous game of trying to prove that the problem of nuclear waste is insolvable, by obstructing any attempts of solution. 3. In retrospective - show me single plan created by bureaucrats that stood the test of time.

lispm 16y ago
The greens are definitely not fascist. I think you are confusing this. Fascist is the influence of huge corporations over people. Not the influence of people over themselves. Wow, Fukushima is caused by the Greens now? And I though it was caused by a greedy and incompetent company not willing to invest into safety. No company would invest into a newer model. These are extremely expensive. Like 5 billion Euro in western Europe. Every electricity company is talking about EXTENDING the life of the current plants. Replacing old ones which are running with new ones is the most stupid thing an electricity company can do. What they want is getting the money from the existing plants with as little effort as possible.
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  Excuse me. I didn't mean to imply that all greens are fascist. And I also meant Green in the broadest possible sense - as in environmentalists of all denominations. And this context I meant the extremist faction(s) when I said fascist green extremists. Because they only have one agenda: Stop corporations. Stop Nuclear Power. Stop Consuming Carbon power sources. But I don't see an alternative proposal how to deal with everyday human existence in 21st century. Saying renewables have loads of potential just doesn't cut it. In US last nuclear power plant has been built in 1977. Something similar holds true worldwide (there haven't been that many nuclear power plants built since then). Nuclear power production is probably THE most regulated industry in the world (and probably state owned a lot). Newer better plants haven't been built since, guess who, didn't allow it. These old reactors should be shut down and replaced, but since coal power plants are also not allowed to be built (by guess whom) and there are only that many rivers you can turn into accumulation lakes (not to mention disastrous effect on environment - species are dying out due to hydro power). World is in this weird deadlock where we are forced to expand lifetimes of these old nuclear power stations, just to keep going. And I'm accusing you of being disingenious by pretending that current renewable plans won't have adverse side effects. And by pretending that nuclear industry is in its current state due to greed of plant operators. And you still haven't provided me with an alternative strategy for while we wait for renewables to save us. We have 40 years of burning coal to meet our demands for energy in front of us - whether you accept it or not. We could diminish some of that impact by building safer, better nuclear power plants.
  - eliasmacpherson 16y ago
    "If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy." We don't. That's your premise, and you argue that reducing energy consumption represents a regression. A week of vacation per year would consume less energy than someone working in many of the places I have worked. "Our demands" for energy are not realistic, valid or sustainable. We don't need more energy.
    - JanezStupar 16y ago
      Excuse me for assuming that you are from western world. To attain our conflicting goals of improving living conditions for entire human populace, without increasing power consumption the average westerner would have to forfeit 80% of his energy consumption. So you're telling me that we as species are willing to "devolve" to a standardized standard of living that is somewhere in the ballpark of early 50's? If so I think you are either dishonest or severely lack perspective and knowledge of human species. I honestly believe that finding additional power sources and utilizing them to satisfy and further expand our consumption of power is the most pragmatic, fair and painless way forward for our species. To express myself poetically - I believe that god wants us to increase our power consumption up to the level where we will be able to consume entire star systems and beyond. I might be weird, but I also believe that single "purpose" of life is to increase entropy. Thus a perfect life form would expand its power consumption to the level where it would drain the whole universe of its energy potential. Disclaimer: Proposed 80% is a number I pulled out of where the sun don't shine.
      - eliasmacpherson 16y ago
        You are excused, I am from the western world. It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals. It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace. You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions. You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless. Your poetic expression is utterly disgusting. What happens to your perfect life form after it has drained the whole universe of its energy potential? Or even before it has drained it, when the sun don't shine?

lispm 16y ago

The greens are definitely not fascist. I think you are confusing this. Fascist is the influence of huge corporations over people. Not the influence of people over themselves. Wow, Fukushima is caused by the Greens now? And I though it was caused by a greedy and incompetent company not willing to invest into safety. No company would invest into a newer model. These are extremely expensive. Like 5 billion Euro in western Europe. Every electricity company is talking about EXTENDING the life of the current plants. Replacing old ones which are running with new ones is the most stupid thing an electricity company can do. What they want is getting the money from the existing plants with as little effort as possible.

JanezStupar 16y ago
Excuse me. I didn't mean to imply that all greens are fascist. And I also meant Green in the broadest possible sense - as in environmentalists of all denominations. And this context I meant the extremist faction(s) when I said fascist green extremists. Because they only have one agenda: Stop corporations. Stop Nuclear Power. Stop Consuming Carbon power sources. But I don't see an alternative proposal how to deal with everyday human existence in 21st century. Saying renewables have loads of potential just doesn't cut it. In US last nuclear power plant has been built in 1977. Something similar holds true worldwide (there haven't been that many nuclear power plants built since then). Nuclear power production is probably THE most regulated industry in the world (and probably state owned a lot). Newer better plants haven't been built since, guess who, didn't allow it. These old reactors should be shut down and replaced, but since coal power plants are also not allowed to be built (by guess whom) and there are only that many rivers you can turn into accumulation lakes (not to mention disastrous effect on environment - species are dying out due to hydro power). World is in this weird deadlock where we are forced to expand lifetimes of these old nuclear power stations, just to keep going. And I'm accusing you of being disingenious by pretending that current renewable plans won't have adverse side effects. And by pretending that nuclear industry is in its current state due to greed of plant operators. And you still haven't provided me with an alternative strategy for while we wait for renewables to save us. We have 40 years of burning coal to meet our demands for energy in front of us - whether you accept it or not. We could diminish some of that impact by building safer, better nuclear power plants.
- eliasmacpherson 16y ago
  "If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy." We don't. That's your premise, and you argue that reducing energy consumption represents a regression. A week of vacation per year would consume less energy than someone working in many of the places I have worked. "Our demands" for energy are not realistic, valid or sustainable. We don't need more energy.
  - JanezStupar 16y ago
    Excuse me for assuming that you are from western world. To attain our conflicting goals of improving living conditions for entire human populace, without increasing power consumption the average westerner would have to forfeit 80% of his energy consumption. So you're telling me that we as species are willing to "devolve" to a standardized standard of living that is somewhere in the ballpark of early 50's? If so I think you are either dishonest or severely lack perspective and knowledge of human species. I honestly believe that finding additional power sources and utilizing them to satisfy and further expand our consumption of power is the most pragmatic, fair and painless way forward for our species. To express myself poetically - I believe that god wants us to increase our power consumption up to the level where we will be able to consume entire star systems and beyond. I might be weird, but I also believe that single "purpose" of life is to increase entropy. Thus a perfect life form would expand its power consumption to the level where it would drain the whole universe of its energy potential. Disclaimer: Proposed 80% is a number I pulled out of where the sun don't shine.
    - eliasmacpherson 16y ago
      You are excused, I am from the western world. It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals. It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace. You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions. You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless. Your poetic expression is utterly disgusting. What happens to your perfect life form after it has drained the whole universe of its energy potential? Or even before it has drained it, when the sun don't shine?