5 ms·

Are you stating that the environmental activists that are against nuclear energie are not so because of the possible dangerous but simply because it might be a

Are you stating that the environmental activists that are against nuclear energie are not so because of the possible dangerous but simply because it might be a solution and that would make them obsolete? I am sorry but that argument rings as absurd to me.

im3w1l 4y ago
Without saying that that is what it is about, I want to point out that such a thing would not be unprecedented. Supposedly, "roughly 100 U.S. firefighters are convicted of arson each year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on... (Aka Munchhausen by Proxy)
ravenstine 4y ago
Of course environmentalists believe in possible dangers. Whether those dangers are acceptable or even real is a different matter. But yeah, when people dedicate their lives to something, anything really, facts and logic have a poor track record at convincing people to change their minds. If that's news to you, then I'm really not sure what else to say other than that you might benefit from learning more about human psychology.
- pluijzer 4y ago
  But that is a different argument. People can have an irrational fear against something new and protest purely from those fears not with logic. That might be the case for nuclear power too. I don't know all the factors but I would also rather see nuclear power instead of burning coal. It is just that I do not buy that people protest against it because conciously or subconsciously they know it is the answer to the problem and fear of becoming irrelevant. This is luddites that fear that progress would stop their livelihood.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This is an actual argument that nuclear PR reps make in detail: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06... > The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment. > The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could. I guess it works in certain political bubbles, even if it appears insane from others

im3w1l 4y ago

Without saying that that is what it is about, I want to point out that such a thing would not be unprecedented. Supposedly, "roughly 100 U.S. firefighters are convicted of arson each year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on... (Aka Munchhausen by Proxy)

ravenstine 4y ago

Of course environmentalists believe in possible dangers. Whether those dangers are acceptable or even real is a different matter. But yeah, when people dedicate their lives to something, anything really, facts and logic have a poor track record at convincing people to change their minds. If that's news to you, then I'm really not sure what else to say other than that you might benefit from learning more about human psychology.

pluijzer 4y ago
But that is a different argument. People can have an irrational fear against something new and protest purely from those fears not with logic. That might be the case for nuclear power too. I don't know all the factors but I would also rather see nuclear power instead of burning coal. It is just that I do not buy that people protest against it because conciously or subconsciously they know it is the answer to the problem and fear of becoming irrelevant. This is luddites that fear that progress would stop their livelihood.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

This is an actual argument that nuclear PR reps make in detail: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06... > The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment. > The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could. I guess it works in certain political bubbles, even if it appears insane from others