3 ms·

I agree. The problem with that position is that pretty much everyone ever believed that their actions would make things better, even if they were very wrong and

I agree. The problem with that position is that pretty much everyone ever believed that their actions would make things better, even if they were very wrong and just made everything worse. Nevertheless, I don't think the anti-nuclear movement is evil. They're guided by extreme fear, not malice. I don't know how you can bring them around though, unless your offering some form of therapy. But even with that, would they accept it? Would you accept therapy to change some of your deeply held beliefs that you don't view as 'wrong'?

konschubert 4y ago
Some people do things that they know are bad for others because they want to hurt others.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Sure, but I don't believe you run into a lot of actually evil villains in politics that only do what they do because they want to see suffering and want their action to scale instead of ripping the wings from a butterfly one by one. Stalin or Mao didn't just enjoy seeing peasants starve, they believed that sacrificing a million here and there is the price to pay for the communist utopia they thought they were building.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    I agree that very few, if any, leaders are intentionally evil. Even the most (in)famous ones such as your examples. However, I'm not sure the distinction is too useful. Ultimately we're judged by actions, not intentions.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Certainly, I was just pointing out that that's the very problem with the position that someone or some group shouldn't be morally judged for things they do/cause while having good intentions. It's a tough problem, and I guess we're mostly basing our judgement on results. Push through a stupid policy and it's expensive but nobody freezes and you'll be forgotten. Do the same and be unlucky and a million citizens freeze because of it and you won't be forgiven.
wizofaus 4y ago
"Extreme" seems an overstatement, and I don't think it's necessarily the main motivator for a lot of people that are anti-nuclear. Many don't like it because they believe large-scale power sources supplied and run by (or inevitably being a source of profit for) mega-corporations are a bad idea in general. Others because there are genuine environmental consequences to and risks with uranium mining and storage of radioactive waste that we don't have complete solutions for, even if by almost any measure those consequences are less serious than they are for fossil fuel extraction and consequent GHG emissions. And others because they're skeptical it can scale up quickly and economically enough to reach necessary emissions targets (I have one foot in that camp, at least for my own country). Ultimately I think increased nuclear power will be accepted as a "necessary evil" or "least worst" solution in most developed countries, though it's hard to see it happening here in Australia, despite the fact we supply much of the world's uranium (*) and arguably have a fair number of appropriate options for waste storage. * actually we have almost 30% of known viable resources, but only contribute 8% or 9% of the world total supply currently, producing less than a 5th of Kazakhstan, by far the most prolific supplier.
- luckylion 4y ago
  It looks extreme to me, and from my experience is closely related with a general fear of GMOs, strong dislike for plastics, a preference for "alternative medicine" etc. It's fundamentally an emotional approach that isn't concerned with "how do we deal with the waste?" but just grips on to that to rationalize the intuitive fear. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I am not overly concerned about nuclear plants, I'll gladly live next to one (but not too close, I don't want to live in a shadow half the day) and have the waste containers stored a few hundred meters below me. And my willingness just increases with a thought of all the great things energy does for us. Of course there are risks, but everything has risks attached -- we calculate the probabilities and then stop worrying about the risks if they're minuscule. And of course there's an economic part to consider, but I'm pretty sure if you counted the amount of hours Germans have spent in 2022 talking about the energy crisis, we could've been well on our way to 100% nuclear coverage if we had spent that time productively instead.
  - 4y ago

konschubert 4y ago

Some people do things that they know are bad for others because they want to hurt others.

luckylion 4y ago
Sure, but I don't believe you run into a lot of actually evil villains in politics that only do what they do because they want to see suffering and want their action to scale instead of ripping the wings from a butterfly one by one. Stalin or Mao didn't just enjoy seeing peasants starve, they believed that sacrificing a million here and there is the price to pay for the communist utopia they thought they were building.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  I agree that very few, if any, leaders are intentionally evil. Even the most (in)famous ones such as your examples. However, I'm not sure the distinction is too useful. Ultimately we're judged by actions, not intentions.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Certainly, I was just pointing out that that's the very problem with the position that someone or some group shouldn't be morally judged for things they do/cause while having good intentions. It's a tough problem, and I guess we're mostly basing our judgement on results. Push through a stupid policy and it's expensive but nobody freezes and you'll be forgotten. Do the same and be unlucky and a million citizens freeze because of it and you won't be forgiven.

wizofaus 4y ago

"Extreme" seems an overstatement, and I don't think it's necessarily the main motivator for a lot of people that are anti-nuclear. Many don't like it because they believe large-scale power sources supplied and run by (or inevitably being a source of profit for) mega-corporations are a bad idea in general. Others because there are genuine environmental consequences to and risks with uranium mining and storage of radioactive waste that we don't have complete solutions for, even if by almost any measure those consequences are less serious than they are for fossil fuel extraction and consequent GHG emissions. And others because they're skeptical it can scale up quickly and economically enough to reach necessary emissions targets (I have one foot in that camp, at least for my own country). Ultimately I think increased nuclear power will be accepted as a "necessary evil" or "least worst" solution in most developed countries, though it's hard to see it happening here in Australia, despite the fact we supply much of the world's uranium (*) and arguably have a fair number of appropriate options for waste storage. * actually we have almost 30% of known viable resources, but only contribute 8% or 9% of the world total supply currently, producing less than a 5th of Kazakhstan, by far the most prolific supplier.

luckylion 4y ago
It looks extreme to me, and from my experience is closely related with a general fear of GMOs, strong dislike for plastics, a preference for "alternative medicine" etc. It's fundamentally an emotional approach that isn't concerned with "how do we deal with the waste?" but just grips on to that to rationalize the intuitive fear. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I am not overly concerned about nuclear plants, I'll gladly live next to one (but not too close, I don't want to live in a shadow half the day) and have the waste containers stored a few hundred meters below me. And my willingness just increases with a thought of all the great things energy does for us. Of course there are risks, but everything has risks attached -- we calculate the probabilities and then stop worrying about the risks if they're minuscule. And of course there's an economic part to consider, but I'm pretty sure if you counted the amount of hours Germans have spent in 2022 talking about the energy crisis, we could've been well on our way to 100% nuclear coverage if we had spent that time productively instead.
- 4y ago