4 ms·

But pretty much everything is connected to death. Computers are used for missile-targeting systems, but also for Wikipedia. I'd argue that anyone that's skeptic

But pretty much everything is connected to death. Computers are used for missile-targeting systems, but also for Wikipedia. I'd argue that anyone that's skeptical of computers in all their uses is missing the forest for the trees.

calibas 6y ago
Does nuclear fission not produce produce incredibly toxic substances, both during mining the resources and from operating? My computer isn't doing that at the moment, these are such bad analogies... And I'm skeptical of gasoline-powered vehicles "in all their uses" for the same reason. It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  > My computer isn't doing that at the moment Your computer was produced using all green energy, using eco-friendly manufacturing with resources that are mined in sustainable ways? Wow, it must have cost a fortune. This argument makes it seem like you're fine with people being poisoned as long as it's somewhere else. > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this? Would you say we are poisoning ourselves by blasting carbon into the air? I would. And by that metric, it obviously makes sense to look at the alternatives, and it seems to me that nuclear is currently the least-poisonous way to power our collective needs. Solar just cannot do it. Maybe on a bright sunny day it can! But it's not always bright and sunny, sometimes it's night or it's cloudy. So you need to overproduce, and store the energy somewhere. Where is it stored? According to 90% of the solar advocates here, in batteries filled with poison, that are produced using poisonous manufacturing. Solar and other renewables are not as "clean" as we'd like to think, and they also are just not up to the task yet. Nuclear is. I get that you're not anti-nuclear, but maybe this is some ammo you can use when you're arguing for it.
  - calibas 6y ago
    I made sure to specify "at the moment" as I'm well aware of the consequences of mining the resources to produce both computers and nuclear energy. I was trying to avoid this exact conversation. I'd be dead if my computer was producing anything comparable to nuclear fission at the moment. Also, I've lived off grid on solar power for over a year, I'm well aware of what it's like.
- gameman144 6y ago
  > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Kidney beans can potentially poison you. Salad can potentially poison you. Nutmeg can potentially poison you. It's fine to be skeptical, yes. But if they have strong merits, abstaining solely based on their potential downsides is irrational. Taking a stance of weighing the upsides and downsides and deciding that the upsides aren't worth it is fine. Saying "there are downsides" and using that as a basis for rejection is just silly, as that's true of basically everything you'll ever interact with.
  - calibas 6y ago
    The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me. It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless. You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad!
    - gameman144 6y ago
      > The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me. Canned kidney beans (and other canned foods) are linked with botulism, which is literally one of the most toxic substances to humans. The absurdity of the argument is exactly the point, though. You aren't against canned food (despite botulism killing roughly the same number of people as nuclear accidents in the same timeframe), because it has obvious upsides. The same reasoning should be afforded to other areas too, including nuclear power. > It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless. This is literally my exact tactic, yes. Not to convince you that nuclear is harmless, but to point out that the same criteria should be used. You already consider the aforementioned items harmless, despite their obvious upsides and everyday use and their potentially harmful downsides. The same line of reasoning should be used in both cases. It's absolutely fine if you say "Kidney beans downsides don't outweigh their upsides, nuclear power's downsides do outweigh its upsides." That's applying the same reasoning to both. However, the logic of "Nuclear power is linked to death, so it is bad" is just as rational as "Canned food is linked to death, so it is bad". Which is, as you say, a bit absurd. > You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad! To be totally clear, the point of the analogy is not to convince you that nuclear waste and salad are the same. It is to convince you that the cost-benefit analysis is the same between everyday things like beans and salad, all the way to totally different areas like nuclear power or skydiving or using a computer. e.g. for salad the risk is very low of death, and the benefits are super high. Salad gets the green light. Internal-combustion engines allow for a great deal of commerce and personal travel, but they also cause a lot of pollution. Should we ban them, and only let people with EVs or bikes drive? (The same thought process should apply here) Nuclear power has downsides (nuclear waste), but it also has upsides (Small-footprint, CO2-free energy). I don't care if people weigh those sides and disagree that it's a good option. I care if they look at the downsides and determine that it's bad based solely on those (just as I would in every other decision/policy-making process).

calibas 6y ago

Does nuclear fission not produce produce incredibly toxic substances, both during mining the resources and from operating? My computer isn't doing that at the moment, these are such bad analogies... And I'm skeptical of gasoline-powered vehicles "in all their uses" for the same reason. It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?

orthecreedence 6y ago
> My computer isn't doing that at the moment Your computer was produced using all green energy, using eco-friendly manufacturing with resources that are mined in sustainable ways? Wow, it must have cost a fortune. This argument makes it seem like you're fine with people being poisoned as long as it's somewhere else. > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this? Would you say we are poisoning ourselves by blasting carbon into the air? I would. And by that metric, it obviously makes sense to look at the alternatives, and it seems to me that nuclear is currently the least-poisonous way to power our collective needs. Solar just cannot do it. Maybe on a bright sunny day it can! But it's not always bright and sunny, sometimes it's night or it's cloudy. So you need to overproduce, and store the energy somewhere. Where is it stored? According to 90% of the solar advocates here, in batteries filled with poison, that are produced using poisonous manufacturing. Solar and other renewables are not as "clean" as we'd like to think, and they also are just not up to the task yet. Nuclear is. I get that you're not anti-nuclear, but maybe this is some ammo you can use when you're arguing for it.
- calibas 6y ago
  I made sure to specify "at the moment" as I'm well aware of the consequences of mining the resources to produce both computers and nuclear energy. I was trying to avoid this exact conversation. I'd be dead if my computer was producing anything comparable to nuclear fission at the moment. Also, I've lived off grid on solar power for over a year, I'm well aware of what it's like.
gameman144 6y ago
> It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Kidney beans can potentially poison you. Salad can potentially poison you. Nutmeg can potentially poison you. It's fine to be skeptical, yes. But if they have strong merits, abstaining solely based on their potential downsides is irrational. Taking a stance of weighing the upsides and downsides and deciding that the upsides aren't worth it is fine. Saying "there are downsides" and using that as a basis for rejection is just silly, as that's true of basically everything you'll ever interact with.
- calibas 6y ago
  The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me. It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless. You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad!
  - gameman144 6y ago
    > The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me. Canned kidney beans (and other canned foods) are linked with botulism, which is literally one of the most toxic substances to humans. The absurdity of the argument is exactly the point, though. You aren't against canned food (despite botulism killing roughly the same number of people as nuclear accidents in the same timeframe), because it has obvious upsides. The same reasoning should be afforded to other areas too, including nuclear power. > It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless. This is literally my exact tactic, yes. Not to convince you that nuclear is harmless, but to point out that the same criteria should be used. You already consider the aforementioned items harmless, despite their obvious upsides and everyday use and their potentially harmful downsides. The same line of reasoning should be used in both cases. It's absolutely fine if you say "Kidney beans downsides don't outweigh their upsides, nuclear power's downsides do outweigh its upsides." That's applying the same reasoning to both. However, the logic of "Nuclear power is linked to death, so it is bad" is just as rational as "Canned food is linked to death, so it is bad". Which is, as you say, a bit absurd. > You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad! To be totally clear, the point of the analogy is not to convince you that nuclear waste and salad are the same. It is to convince you that the cost-benefit analysis is the same between everyday things like beans and salad, all the way to totally different areas like nuclear power or skydiving or using a computer. e.g. for salad the risk is very low of death, and the benefits are super high. Salad gets the green light. Internal-combustion engines allow for a great deal of commerce and personal travel, but they also cause a lot of pollution. Should we ban them, and only let people with EVs or bikes drive? (The same thought process should apply here) Nuclear power has downsides (nuclear waste), but it also has upsides (Small-footprint, CO2-free energy). I don't care if people weigh those sides and disagree that it's a good option. I care if they look at the downsides and determine that it's bad based solely on those (just as I would in every other decision/policy-making process).