4 ms·

Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism. There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum system right at our borders and we are buryin

by hawk_ 5y ago

Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism. There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum system right at our borders and we are burying our heads in sand.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
It seems odd that you use the term "short termism" in connection with a remark about the anti-nuclear movement, one of the major concerns of which has been the the multi-thousand year half life of fission waste.
- hawk_ 5y ago
  short termism there is the fear of losing elections due to a misinformed populace. we should have educated people instead and embraced nuclear as the stop gap for the next 100 years while we develop all kinds of other energy tech.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I'm 58. Back at the "height" of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK (which I'd peg at about 1978-1982, that movement was full of educated people who chose to reject nuclear (fission) power. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't require you to suggest that they were uninformed or uneducated. I don't agree with you (mostly), but that just means that I've come to different conclusions about what is in reality a complex question.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      They are directly guilty for the climate crisis, though. We wouldn’t have so much CO2 in the air if we followed the logical path to almost free electricity from nuclear.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        > almost free electricity from nuclear. It seems that you may have watched a few too many of the early promotional videos of the nascent nuclear industry. Also, "directly guilty for the climate crisis" seems a little over the top. Sure, the anti-nuclear movement did lead us to generally not go down a path that would have helped avert or at least reduce the climate crisis. But the climate crisis was directly caused by the discovery and subsequent use of fossil fuels, not the anti-nuclear movement. That movement had what it considered a clear and present danger that implied that nuclear was not the right answer to replace fossil fuels. It is not a "logical" path to follow - the decision involves many tradeoffs and value judgements, and while I understand that you apparently would have resolved those differently, the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith to try to avert what was at the time considered a much greater risk than climate change. We might, or might not, ever discover if they were right.
        nickpp 5y ago
        > the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith They didn't - they never proposed anything to replace nuclear. The renewables success was unexpected and is owed entirely to the tech progress. They were pure luddites simply wishing to revert humankind to a pre-industrial state.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        A comment which shows that you apparently don't know much about the luddites, who didn't want to "revert humankind to a pre-industrial state" but were concerned about the implications of technology and in particular the question of control. The anti-nuclear movement at its peak was already after the soft/alternative technology wave that had started at the end of the 1960s and generally wimpered out by the mid to late 1980s. Maybe you and/or the mainstream were not aware of the suggestions, but solar (hydronic and PV) was already known, small scale wind and hydro were being developed, and groups like the New Alchemists and others were busy working on concepts that would eventually translate into stuff like Passivhaus construction. The renewables success was entirely expected by people who knew about this sort of thing. The movement (such as it was) at that time (and to some extent in its modern forms too, such as Extinction Rebellion, not so well known in the USA) was much more focused on energy use reduction rather than replacement of fossil fuels outright. There were plenty of tinkerers, engineers and starry-eyed folk who shared that vision, and quite a few have been involved in "the renewables success".

by hawk_ 5y ago

Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism. There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum system right at our borders and we are burying our heads in sand.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

It seems odd that you use the term "short termism" in connection with a remark about the anti-nuclear movement, one of the major concerns of which has been the the multi-thousand year half life of fission waste.

hawk_ 5y ago
short termism there is the fear of losing elections due to a misinformed populace. we should have educated people instead and embraced nuclear as the stop gap for the next 100 years while we develop all kinds of other energy tech.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I'm 58. Back at the "height" of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK (which I'd peg at about 1978-1982, that movement was full of educated people who chose to reject nuclear (fission) power. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't require you to suggest that they were uninformed or uneducated. I don't agree with you (mostly), but that just means that I've come to different conclusions about what is in reality a complex question.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    They are directly guilty for the climate crisis, though. We wouldn’t have so much CO2 in the air if we followed the logical path to almost free electricity from nuclear.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      > almost free electricity from nuclear. It seems that you may have watched a few too many of the early promotional videos of the nascent nuclear industry. Also, "directly guilty for the climate crisis" seems a little over the top. Sure, the anti-nuclear movement did lead us to generally not go down a path that would have helped avert or at least reduce the climate crisis. But the climate crisis was directly caused by the discovery and subsequent use of fossil fuels, not the anti-nuclear movement. That movement had what it considered a clear and present danger that implied that nuclear was not the right answer to replace fossil fuels. It is not a "logical" path to follow - the decision involves many tradeoffs and value judgements, and while I understand that you apparently would have resolved those differently, the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith to try to avert what was at the time considered a much greater risk than climate change. We might, or might not, ever discover if they were right.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        > the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith They didn't - they never proposed anything to replace nuclear. The renewables success was unexpected and is owed entirely to the tech progress. They were pure luddites simply wishing to revert humankind to a pre-industrial state.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        A comment which shows that you apparently don't know much about the luddites, who didn't want to "revert humankind to a pre-industrial state" but were concerned about the implications of technology and in particular the question of control. The anti-nuclear movement at its peak was already after the soft/alternative technology wave that had started at the end of the 1960s and generally wimpered out by the mid to late 1980s. Maybe you and/or the mainstream were not aware of the suggestions, but solar (hydronic and PV) was already known, small scale wind and hydro were being developed, and groups like the New Alchemists and others were busy working on concepts that would eventually translate into stuff like Passivhaus construction. The renewables success was entirely expected by people who knew about this sort of thing. The movement (such as it was) at that time (and to some extent in its modern forms too, such as Extinction Rebellion, not so well known in the USA) was much more focused on energy use reduction rather than replacement of fossil fuels outright. There were plenty of tinkerers, engineers and starry-eyed folk who shared that vision, and quite a few have been involved in "the renewables success".