4 ms·

Thank you for your reply. I think we need to cut down on what we are talking about here because the focus is being lost. First and foremost I will not yield on

Thank you for your reply. I think we need to cut down on what we are talking about here because the focus is being lost. First and foremost I will not yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations. Second, you brought up nuclear waste disposal in oil wells as a hand waving suggestion. I had no intention of changing the subject. I should not have responded to this disposal comment. There is quite a concerted effort to stop the countries you mentioned achieving nuclear arms, and it may stop them, so it's not irrelevant to the oil well point. It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium. This whole oil well thread of conversation is irrelevant however, in my opinion. I suggest we drop this element of the conversation, because it will not lead anywhere fruitful, I believe. To bring some focus to this discussion: you have said that I have made two separate claims. I made one single claim. The claim I continue to make is that: Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. The second time I mentioned this, was as clarification to the claim. Here is what he wrote: >>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take. This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. As I see it, that is the claim I am making, and that quote is the evidence to back up my claim. This is not a second or third claim, this is the claim I have been making all along. If you could please, tell me what separate claims you think I am making. I don't think you can make a rule out of the claim that western societies' pollution has decreased over the last 50-60 years. You've given an example, I've given counter examples, i.e. it is not a rule. We can get into an example war, where I can give more and more examples of pollution increase, and you can give more and more examples of pollution decrease, and there's no point in it. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology. Just because China has started to invest in clean technology (clean in some circumstances means nuclear, I assume you don't mean that), doesn't mean it's going to use it, and it doesn't mean it's pollution and energy usage will reduce. I've invested in pink socks, am I going to wear them? I will read Andi's other comments now for better or worse. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Is that clear?

berntb 15y ago
>>This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. (I know what Andi wrote, I quoted it in the comment above...) He talks about future generations -- and against technological progress being important; he is arguing against cities and some back-to-nature garbage. A confused Luddite. He is of course welcome to go back to being too poor for education and having 30% child mortality. But he'll have to kill off most of the population that can't survive in his world, Khmer style. Which was what I rested my case on before. You could have asked for links to his comments, instead of ignoring them in your answer. (I meant that you repeated your claim again, without any support. Like here. Not made a new one. Sorry for any confusion.) >>It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium. So the West should close down a large part of the energy production -- because radioactive materials might, in ten years time, end up with dictators. The really unpleasant dictators already have nuclear reactors (and bombs, in at least two of the three cases mentioned). (I know that Pakistan isn't formally a dictatorship right now.) That is just not coherent. (The point about oil wells was more of a proof of principle which I've seen geologists argue -- it is not popular locally, because political parties has married another solution. We can get rid of radioactive materials, if we absolutely have to. It is not a good idea, yet.) >>Just because China has started to invest in clean technology ... doesn't mean it's going to use it Sigh... And China might also stop growing food? China has to implement clean tech -- since the economy will grow multiple times the coming decades and there are already bad environmental problems. It is just too expensive not to do it. (Popular unrest, public health and destruction of farming land.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12595872 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12595872 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis And why isn't nuclear clean? Check how many people coal kills in China/year... And so on, I'll probably not check if this is answered.
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  I read his comments, you should go and visit some truly bad cities to appreciate why someone might argue against them. His other comments are not relevant to the claim I am making, now that I've read them. On weapons grade plutonium, you are trying to put words into my mouth - I can make my own points thank you. You seem to have some narrative built up of how the world will progress. e.g. pollution and energy use, what China is going to do, what would happen if they don't, what happens if nuclear power is abandoned, how China's economy will develop over the next few decades. And if you don't mind me saying so, you cannot see into the future, you are far too sure of yourself. Coal can be a lot cleaner than it is in China. However that country's disregard for its miners and workers, betrays a certain level of contempt for human life. Do you think that China will operate nuclear reactors as clean and as well as the rest of the world? Nuclear is not clean, clean is a classical propaganda term for nuclear, like pro choice and pro life camps in an American abortion debate. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology, not for China, any of the countries you mentioned, not for anywhere. I will de-construct Andi's comment that is so contentious for you: Here is what he wrote: >>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. The crucial words here are 'stuck in a view' and 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' It the phrase 'stuck in a view' links this sentence to the following one: >>This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take. Here he states that people 'stuck in this view' this 'classical view' see 'technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take' and this is the crucial link back to the first sentence, because people are stuck in this view 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' 'technical progress' here is dependent on the nuclear reactors of the first sentence. This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. to be more specific: This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations. It's really telling that you berate me for ignoring Andi's comments while I go to look at them, when at the same time saying my claims have no support(in what way - you never said what part is unsupported?) and then informing me that you are probably going to leave the conversation altogether, and ignore my reply to you completely. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you disagree with this statement?

berntb 15y ago

>>This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. (I know what Andi wrote, I quoted it in the comment above...) He talks about future generations -- and against technological progress being important; he is arguing against cities and some back-to-nature garbage. A confused Luddite. He is of course welcome to go back to being too poor for education and having 30% child mortality. But he'll have to kill off most of the population that can't survive in his world, Khmer style. Which was what I rested my case on before. You could have asked for links to his comments, instead of ignoring them in your answer. (I meant that you repeated your claim again, without any support. Like here. Not made a new one. Sorry for any confusion.) >>It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium. So the West should close down a large part of the energy production -- because radioactive materials might, in ten years time, end up with dictators. The really unpleasant dictators already have nuclear reactors (and bombs, in at least two of the three cases mentioned). (I know that Pakistan isn't formally a dictatorship right now.) That is just not coherent. (The point about oil wells was more of a proof of principle which I've seen geologists argue -- it is not popular locally, because political parties has married another solution. We can get rid of radioactive materials, if we absolutely have to. It is not a good idea, yet.) >>Just because China has started to invest in clean technology ... doesn't mean it's going to use it Sigh... And China might also stop growing food? China has to implement clean tech -- since the economy will grow multiple times the coming decades and there are already bad environmental problems. It is just too expensive not to do it. (Popular unrest, public health and destruction of farming land.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12595872 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12595872 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis And why isn't nuclear clean? Check how many people coal kills in China/year... And so on, I'll probably not check if this is answered.

eliasmacpherson 15y ago
I read his comments, you should go and visit some truly bad cities to appreciate why someone might argue against them. His other comments are not relevant to the claim I am making, now that I've read them. On weapons grade plutonium, you are trying to put words into my mouth - I can make my own points thank you. You seem to have some narrative built up of how the world will progress. e.g. pollution and energy use, what China is going to do, what would happen if they don't, what happens if nuclear power is abandoned, how China's economy will develop over the next few decades. And if you don't mind me saying so, you cannot see into the future, you are far too sure of yourself. Coal can be a lot cleaner than it is in China. However that country's disregard for its miners and workers, betrays a certain level of contempt for human life. Do you think that China will operate nuclear reactors as clean and as well as the rest of the world? Nuclear is not clean, clean is a classical propaganda term for nuclear, like pro choice and pro life camps in an American abortion debate. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology, not for China, any of the countries you mentioned, not for anywhere. I will de-construct Andi's comment that is so contentious for you: Here is what he wrote: >>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. The crucial words here are 'stuck in a view' and 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' It the phrase 'stuck in a view' links this sentence to the following one: >>This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take. Here he states that people 'stuck in this view' this 'classical view' see 'technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take' and this is the crucial link back to the first sentence, because people are stuck in this view 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' 'technical progress' here is dependent on the nuclear reactors of the first sentence. This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. to be more specific: This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations. It's really telling that you berate me for ignoring Andi's comments while I go to look at them, when at the same time saying my claims have no support(in what way - you never said what part is unsupported?) and then informing me that you are probably going to leave the conversation altogether, and ignore my reply to you completely. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you disagree with this statement?