True or false: a nuclear reactor can create a nuclear explosion? (the answer may surprise you!)
To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
11–20 of 666 posts
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.
'Basic human nature'is a phrase that assumes a lot of things. How would you characterise this phrase in more detail, as it pertains to this topic? And how would you justify such claims?
The human drive to reproduce.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.
'Basic human nature'is a phrase that assumes a lot of things. How would you characterise this phrase in more detail, as it pertains to this topic? And how would you justify such claims?
The desire to breed is pretty hard wired, species die without it. Sex is only fun because it rewards our desire to breed.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.
'Basic human nature'is a phrase that assumes a lot of things. How would you characterise this phrase in more detail, as it pertains to this topic? And how would you justify such claims?
Basic human nature is to further the species through population growth. It's literally the only thing that everyone can agree on as being "why we're here". Every instinct ingrained in every living creature is to produce offspring.
Telling people to stop producing offspring goes against basic human nature, and requires a pretty educated populace in order to understand why they have to stop this instinctual process.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#15True or false: a nuclear reactor can create a nuclear explosion? (the answer may surprise you!)
I would expect a significant percentage of people know that nuclear explosion is not a risk of nuclear power.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.
'Basic human nature'is a phrase that assumes a lot of things. How would you characterise this phrase in more detail, as it pertains to this topic? And how would you justify such claims?
You're basically proposing to make consumables more expensive and to make reproduction more difficult and/or costly.
Countries that experience high costs for food and essential consumables see significantly higher rates of social unrest, riots, and revolution [1].
Not to mention that being able to reproduce is a fundamental goal of all sexual reproducing organisms because of evolutionary selection.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-an...
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#17When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
We've been splitting atoms for 70 years. France has run its electric grid on 80% nuclear power. What's our track record on reducing consumption and population?
Not saying we shouldn't do them all, but I don't think nuclear is the most difficult of these three.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#18When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
Population would be declining in us w/o migrants entering the country. So the US is doing its part on population reduction.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#19When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
We've been splitting atoms for 70 years. France has run its electric grid on 80% nuclear power. What's our track record on reducing consumption and population? Not saying we shouldn't do them all, but I don't think nuclear is the most difficult of these three.
My thoughts too. I would go further and say that at our current point in time, splitting atoms is easier than reducing population, and maybe easier than reducing consumption.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#20When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
reducing consumption (and) population Those goals don't conflict with a shift to nuclear.
They don't, but if we met those goals we may be able to get away with not using nuclear. Nuclear produces a lot of power with relatively low side effects, but solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects. If we can globally bring our power consumption down to that smaller amount that can be met by solar and wind, we could get rid of the economic and political arguments that keep nuclear from taking off.
Nuclear has such a bad name in so many countries that it'd be nice if we could consider it a dead technology. To do that, it would really help if we could cut consumption to not need the massive glob of power than nuclear is designed to provide.