3 ms·

“the more we move away from burning things for energy, the better” is not self evident. We’ve been burning things for energy since the invention of fire 1 or 2

“the more we move away from burning things for energy, the better” is not self evident. We’ve been burning things for energy since the invention of fire 1 or 2 million years ago. It is a major major factor for how we have built this global civilization that we all benefit from. That said, we moved away from burning fire, not because we ran out of wood, but because we found something more efficient. Currently, hydrocarbons are the single best method of generating and delivering cheap, reliable energy. Only nuclear comes close, but for some stupid reason it is demonized. Solar and wind serve a purpose, but they’re nowhere near ready to replace hydrocarbons. We should only transition away from hydrocarbons at the point that by doing so, humans flourish more, and not less. This means either we develop a newer, better technology (nuclear nuclear nuclear), or we begin to run out of fossil fuels, which won’t be for a very long time.

Timon3 3y ago
> Solar and wind serve a purpose, but they’re nowhere near ready to replace hydrocarbons. We should only transition away from hydrocarbons at the point that by doing so, humans flourish more, and not less. This means either we develop a newer, better technology (nuclear nuclear nuclear), or we begin to run out of fossil fuels, which won’t be for a very long time. You are ignoring the main reason we have to move away from burning things for energy: it is making our future selves flourish less. People aren't suggesting to move towards renewables because they look better or because it just feels so nice to use solar energy. The negative externalities from our energy usage today are literally negatively affecting, partially even destroying, our future. If you only look at the present you're ignoring all the problems our current consumption of fossil fuels is introducing. Imagine your grandma is cold. Sure, you can warm her up by setting her house on fire, but it will only help for a short time.
- hexhexhexagon 3y ago
  Technologies like solar and wind are actually very ugly! No one is suggesting moving to them flippantly, and certainly not because of an aesthetic. To the extent that we can make the planet more survivable, fossil fuels is our number one energy source for making that happen, and nothing comes close. I’m a fan of solar and wind, as much as I am of hydroelectric, but they simply can’t handle the demand at their current output. Not to mention, they require energy from the burning of fossil fuels to build their own infrastructure, and then even more to provide the on-demand backups whenever the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow enough. The energy we derive from fossil fuels is precisely why we have thriving civilization and flourishing humans today. Nowhere where fossil fuels are absent do we see such flourishing. That doesn’t mean we should put our heads down and burn burn burn until the planet runs dry. It means we should acknowledge the good and the bad, and work towards a more sustainable future. In my opinion, until we come up with a better way to harness solar energy (which is what hydrocarbons actually are), we can’t lock ourselves into solar panels and batteries. There has to be something more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons. It’s nuclear. Nuclear is the answer. The faster we can get people, countries and continents to adopt nuclear, the faster we can move toward a future where our energy concerns effectively disappear.

Timon3 3y ago

> Solar and wind serve a purpose, but they’re nowhere near ready to replace hydrocarbons. We should only transition away from hydrocarbons at the point that by doing so, humans flourish more, and not less. This means either we develop a newer, better technology (nuclear nuclear nuclear), or we begin to run out of fossil fuels, which won’t be for a very long time. You are ignoring the main reason we have to move away from burning things for energy: it is making our future selves flourish less. People aren't suggesting to move towards renewables because they look better or because it just feels so nice to use solar energy. The negative externalities from our energy usage today are literally negatively affecting, partially even destroying, our future. If you only look at the present you're ignoring all the problems our current consumption of fossil fuels is introducing. Imagine your grandma is cold. Sure, you can warm her up by setting her house on fire, but it will only help for a short time.

hexhexhexagon 3y ago
Technologies like solar and wind are actually very ugly! No one is suggesting moving to them flippantly, and certainly not because of an aesthetic. To the extent that we can make the planet more survivable, fossil fuels is our number one energy source for making that happen, and nothing comes close. I’m a fan of solar and wind, as much as I am of hydroelectric, but they simply can’t handle the demand at their current output. Not to mention, they require energy from the burning of fossil fuels to build their own infrastructure, and then even more to provide the on-demand backups whenever the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow enough. The energy we derive from fossil fuels is precisely why we have thriving civilization and flourishing humans today. Nowhere where fossil fuels are absent do we see such flourishing. That doesn’t mean we should put our heads down and burn burn burn until the planet runs dry. It means we should acknowledge the good and the bad, and work towards a more sustainable future. In my opinion, until we come up with a better way to harness solar energy (which is what hydrocarbons actually are), we can’t lock ourselves into solar panels and batteries. There has to be something more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons. It’s nuclear. Nuclear is the answer. The faster we can get people, countries and continents to adopt nuclear, the faster we can move toward a future where our energy concerns effectively disappear.