5 ms·
so we didn't plan for the problem in the past, so we shouldn't bother this time? that's pure whataboutism and not helpful
by metalliqaz 5y ago
so we didn't plan for the problem in the past, so we shouldn't bother this time? that's pure whataboutism and not helpful
- nharada 5y agoThe urgency is different. You don't earthquake-proof your house while the living room is on fire.
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoAn even more apt analogy might be: if your living room is on fire, you should dump water on it. You shouldn't let the fire rage because the water could damage the carpet.
- metalliqaz 5y agoit's not an apt analogy. We can do both! There's no reason that we can't legislate proper waste handling with the subsidies. No reason whatsoever.
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoYou can either let the fire rage while you make a plan for how to repair the carpet, or you can pour the water now and deal with the carpet later. There is in fact a limit to how much you can get legislatures to do at once. I’m all for coming up with policies for nuclear waste, I just don’t think it should hold up the construction of reactors. The world is on fire.
- metalliqaz 5y agowhy fight so hard against even trying???
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoWe should try! But I think the logical end result of "we should do X hard thing before Y" will be that Y never gets done! It's almost like a form of bike shedding—except that the bike shed is in fact important, but its construction can trail launch, and launch is on a tight deadline.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]