3 ms·

I guess there are two types: 1) those who oppose nuclear because they fear science and don’t grasp the logistics involved in solar, 2) those who might have been

I guess there are two types: 1) those who oppose nuclear because they fear science and don’t grasp the logistics involved in solar, 2) those who might have been able to prevent climate change if they had more political sway many decades ago. I think the first group will win, because it will always be the larger group. It will always be a smaller group that have greater intelligence and foresight. For this reason I think discussion and public debate about climate change is counter productive. Trying to involve more people in a solution will just bring more mediocre minds to the discussion and hinder our best attempts to solve the problem with their innumeracy, ego and lack of scientific understanding.

RobertRoberts 5y ago
This is maybe an oversimplification. My biggest concern comes from waste storage, of which my information came from a congressman who had to directly manage the waste in a particular state. To store this waste you must trust many moving parts, including greedy politicians, greedy corporations and more. None of which have ever proven to be trustworthy indefinitely. I'd rather have less electricity and peace of mind than nuclear and be forced to trust the untrustworthy to protect our lands forever.
46756e 5y ago
I feel like saying "discussion is bad because it brings mediocre minds" to a discussion is a bit gatekeep-y. That applies to every discussion. That being said though, I do agree somewhat with the premise that "democracy is great because anyone can vote, but it is terrible because anyone can vote." It sucks when some field becomes political, because the attitude around it changes from "lets listen to the experts" to "it is my God-given right to have an opinion on it regardless if I understand the issue."
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The problem with "listening to the experts" is that at some point people figure out that the experts are very easy to bribe/intimidate/silence. So if we hand over the reigns of the nation to experts, then that's basically ceding our decision making to whoever can best organize to control the most experts. Don't think that academia and the tenure process aren't rife with groupthink, forbidden thoughts and positions, etc. And it's hard to find a group of people with less integrity than researchers chasing grants or academics trying to get tenure. Today, universities are the places where freedom of thought and expression are most suppressed, and groupthink runs rampant. Academics are under the thumbs of administrators and terrified of angry student groups. Researchers are sometimes afraid of being physically attacked if they espouse the wrong opinion. This is not who you want to hand control of society over to. So there is really no substitute for wisdom and intelligence. A foolish population is going to make foolish choices and a wise population will make wise choices. Both science and politics are downstream of culture.

RobertRoberts 5y ago

This is maybe an oversimplification. My biggest concern comes from waste storage, of which my information came from a congressman who had to directly manage the waste in a particular state. To store this waste you must trust many moving parts, including greedy politicians, greedy corporations and more. None of which have ever proven to be trustworthy indefinitely. I'd rather have less electricity and peace of mind than nuclear and be forced to trust the untrustworthy to protect our lands forever.

46756e 5y ago

I feel like saying "discussion is bad because it brings mediocre minds" to a discussion is a bit gatekeep-y. That applies to every discussion. That being said though, I do agree somewhat with the premise that "democracy is great because anyone can vote, but it is terrible because anyone can vote." It sucks when some field becomes political, because the attitude around it changes from "lets listen to the experts" to "it is my God-given right to have an opinion on it regardless if I understand the issue."

rsj_hn 5y ago
The problem with "listening to the experts" is that at some point people figure out that the experts are very easy to bribe/intimidate/silence. So if we hand over the reigns of the nation to experts, then that's basically ceding our decision making to whoever can best organize to control the most experts. Don't think that academia and the tenure process aren't rife with groupthink, forbidden thoughts and positions, etc. And it's hard to find a group of people with less integrity than researchers chasing grants or academics trying to get tenure. Today, universities are the places where freedom of thought and expression are most suppressed, and groupthink runs rampant. Academics are under the thumbs of administrators and terrified of angry student groups. Researchers are sometimes afraid of being physically attacked if they espouse the wrong opinion. This is not who you want to hand control of society over to. So there is really no substitute for wisdom and intelligence. A foolish population is going to make foolish choices and a wise population will make wise choices. Both science and politics are downstream of culture.