4 ms·

Well you might have a point in that our (global?) culture is becoming less and less prepared for looking reality in the eye. Yet would one consider mandatory s

by tekkk 6y ago

Well you might have a point in that our (global?) culture is becoming less and less prepared for looking reality in the eye. Yet would one consider mandatory seatbelts and stricter laws on driving under influence and so forth "paralyzing regulation"? You are talking about the other extreme with its polar opposite of not having any rules. But there evidently is a huge middle-ground where we can have regulation and not having people killed in large numbers. Consequently, if we look at history most of these "freak outs" have in fact resulted in regulation that has saved lives. Eg the gun laws in UK. We as humans are very short-sighted in general and I think it's more of a rule rather than the exception, that we need these kinds of accidents to improve the regulation and the laws in place. Sometimes maybe to the extreme, but I think it's better to be too strict than too lax.

kortilla 6y ago
That’s the thing with regulation though, it’s easy to point out some positive effects but you don’t know about all of the societal advancement you may have snuffed out. Climate change could have been a footnote if we didn’t effectively regulate nuclear power out of existence in the name of “safety”.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Climate change could have been a footnote if we didn’t effectively regulate nuclear power out of existence in the name of “safety”. Even if 100% of global elextricity generation was replaced with nuclear, that wouldn't be true. You'd have to also replace (for instance) 100% of transportation with nuclear. (And that's assuming that the infrastructure construction and maintenance costs of doing all that are carbon neutral, too, and that the reduced demand and price for fossil fuels resulting from that shift doesn't open up new uses that get you back into problems, which—absent aggressive regulation—youd naturally expect it would.) [55% reduction is CO2 is needed, electricity is 27%, transportation 28%.) Or maybe you are thinking that the absence of nuclear safety regulation would result in enough accidents to reduce the growth of population and industry enough to solve climate change, which I guess is a valid thought, if an extreme example of glass-half-full thinking.

by tekkk 6y ago

kortilla 6y ago

That’s the thing with regulation though, it’s easy to point out some positive effects but you don’t know about all of the societal advancement you may have snuffed out. Climate change could have been a footnote if we didn’t effectively regulate nuclear power out of existence in the name of “safety”.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Climate change could have been a footnote if we didn’t effectively regulate nuclear power out of existence in the name of “safety”. Even if 100% of global elextricity generation was replaced with nuclear, that wouldn't be true. You'd have to also replace (for instance) 100% of transportation with nuclear. (And that's assuming that the infrastructure construction and maintenance costs of doing all that are carbon neutral, too, and that the reduced demand and price for fossil fuels resulting from that shift doesn't open up new uses that get you back into problems, which—absent aggressive regulation—youd naturally expect it would.) [55% reduction is CO2 is needed, electricity is 27%, transportation 28%.) Or maybe you are thinking that the absence of nuclear safety regulation would result in enough accidents to reduce the growth of population and industry enough to solve climate change, which I guess is a valid thought, if an extreme example of glass-half-full thinking.