5 ms·

> Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose civilisational paths like a buffet meal. In more democratic countries the denizens can indeed pick if they want a go

by rcbdev 3y ago

> Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose civilisational paths like a buffet meal. In more democratic countries the denizens can indeed pick if they want a government for or against nuclear energy. > We should make it illegal for software engineers to complain about industrialisation unless they give up laptops, gpus, air-conditioning, coffee machines and refrigerators. What a silly needlessly polarizing sentiment. What we should make illegal is for countries that have the means and know-how to provide on-demand emission-free electricity for the grid to remain on coal and gas - lest the institutional and societal knowledge on nuclear power plants completely atrophies.

boppo1 3y ago
>illegal is for countries You can be the first to go fight those wars. There's no 'illegal for countries'.
- krisoft 3y ago
  There is internal change. We can all take our own countries to account and drive the change we want to. That is how we can achieve the same with no war.
- rcbdev 3y ago
  For the sake of brevity, read "countries" as "ministries of energy in countries" or "relevant public or privatized equivalents of ministries of energy in countries" - there's many modes of governance when it comes to this. A good example of "illegal for countries" in this sense would be if the EU made their member countries adopt jurisprudence in this matter through implementation via their own respective national laws. > You can be the first to go fight those wars. At the end of the day, a public agency can only act on the basis of laws in their respective country. (Principle of Legality) How national laws are passed however is sometimes influenced through supranational organizations - entirely without the need of a war.
  - gruez 3y ago
    > For the sake of brevity, read "countries" as "ministries of energy in countries" or "relevant public or privatized equivalents of ministries of energy in countries" - there's many modes of governance when it comes to this. A good example of "illegal for countries" in this sense would be if the EU made their member countries adopt jurisprudence in this matter through implementation via their own respective national laws. What do you do if some countries don't want to play ball, and they turn out to be the biggest emitters?
foofie 3y ago
> What we should make illegal is for countries that (...) Your comment is self-contradicting. If you expect solutions to work at a democratic level, you cannot advocate for a solution where a random third-party is able to force it's will upon any country. For instance, where do you fit in your mental model a scenario where a democratic country decides via referendum to meet all it's energy needs with coal?
- rcbdev 3y ago
  It entirely depends on who you think "we" is in "we should make X illegal".
  - foofie 3y ago
    The full quote is "we should make X illegal for countries to (...)". What kind of democratic process do you expect to follow to make something illegal for countries to do anything when they didn't voted for it?
    - rcbdev 3y ago
      The often proposed EU with qualified majority voting and without individual veto rights would be exactly this kind of system.

by rcbdev 3y ago

boppo1 3y ago

>illegal is for countries You can be the first to go fight those wars. There's no 'illegal for countries'.

krisoft 3y ago
There is internal change. We can all take our own countries to account and drive the change we want to. That is how we can achieve the same with no war.
rcbdev 3y ago
For the sake of brevity, read "countries" as "ministries of energy in countries" or "relevant public or privatized equivalents of ministries of energy in countries" - there's many modes of governance when it comes to this. A good example of "illegal for countries" in this sense would be if the EU made their member countries adopt jurisprudence in this matter through implementation via their own respective national laws. > You can be the first to go fight those wars. At the end of the day, a public agency can only act on the basis of laws in their respective country. (Principle of Legality) How national laws are passed however is sometimes influenced through supranational organizations - entirely without the need of a war.
- gruez 3y ago
  > For the sake of brevity, read "countries" as "ministries of energy in countries" or "relevant public or privatized equivalents of ministries of energy in countries" - there's many modes of governance when it comes to this. A good example of "illegal for countries" in this sense would be if the EU made their member countries adopt jurisprudence in this matter through implementation via their own respective national laws. What do you do if some countries don't want to play ball, and they turn out to be the biggest emitters?

foofie 3y ago

> What we should make illegal is for countries that (...) Your comment is self-contradicting. If you expect solutions to work at a democratic level, you cannot advocate for a solution where a random third-party is able to force it's will upon any country. For instance, where do you fit in your mental model a scenario where a democratic country decides via referendum to meet all it's energy needs with coal?

rcbdev 3y ago
It entirely depends on who you think "we" is in "we should make X illegal".
- foofie 3y ago
  The full quote is "we should make X illegal for countries to (...)". What kind of democratic process do you expect to follow to make something illegal for countries to do anything when they didn't voted for it?
  - rcbdev 3y ago
    The often proposed EU with qualified majority voting and without individual veto rights would be exactly this kind of system.