341–350 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most markets aren't particularly "free". Agriculture for example is heavily subsidized.
Don't think that's relevant since whale and mineral oil are finite natural resources. Governments can't distort them into existence like farm products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's pretty expensive and time consuming to build and people really don't like to have a nuclear power plant near them.
While the time to build is certainly true, is the cost truly more expensive than that of effects of climate change? I suspect not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your intuition isn't flawed. People are both willfully dense, and typically unable to grasp extremely complex systems, and both are at play with regards to climate change and energy shortage. The one that always gets me is how people expect us to even develop those new technologies. With what energy? The ones we're running out of? The ones that are already more and more expensive to find? And the fact that we'll be d…
Why isn't nuclear power the answer to climate change and energy shortage?
The dream was "power too cheap to meter". Didn't come true back then, and it turns out after you account for safety systems like a containment building and backup cooling, it's far more expensive than alternatives.
To make things worse, making nuclear remotely profitable relies on running it as close to 24/7 as possible. Given that renewables exist and produce cheaper power, nuclear only gets to offer anything when renewables aren't working, which makes it even more expensive.
Economically, it's extremely risky. Why risk billions on a plant that might profit 20 years down the line, when you could build solar or wind faster, and profit faster?
Politically, it's not great because construction times are very long, so any politician that starts building them probably won't be there to see the benefit, and may have their work stopped by a successor.
Practically, we can't build it fast enough. It's a big, complex, specialized tasks that few people do because there's not much market.
I love that there's a "technology will fix things" model. This assumes we'll discover some magical bullet, that we haven't thought of, that will counteract erosion of topsoil, water shortages, and climate change. Another implicit assumption is that we'll be able to move forward unilaterally with such a solution, instead of it becoming a political football until it's too late to do anything, like climate change. A lot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, especially when there's occasional extremists that refuse to acknowledge that putting one's own first isn't the natural state of things. I guess the way forward is to build a sustainable future for everyone and their families. And to get everyone to agree it's the best way to go about things.
> putting one's own first isn't the natural state of things I am very confused about this statement, can you please explain what is the "natural state of things" ?
Most people will chose child/spouse/relative without thinking twice and doing so is quite natural. Not everyone agree on that though, and would argue that the potential benefit the stranger could be to society should be taken into the equation.
Luckily, reality isn't that black and white in most cases, but most people will prioritize their in-group. That's just the way people work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure there will be weather events, but none of us will live to see anything climate related that causes an entire country to whither.
I'd take that bet.
Actually, when you see rich people placing what you could consider private bets, they always seem to be betting against climate disaster, e.g., building airports in the Maldives, buying beachfront property on Martha's Vineyard, etc. Even poor people seem to bet against imminent climate disaster when they, e.g., pay back their student loans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem which we already have the technology to fix is food. What people eat is cultural and is effected by cost and availability. There is much we currently discard or do not cultivate because it not what we traditionally see as food and because there is no cost incentive to encourage a change in culture. Changes can however occur given the right triggers, like how large portion of Europe went over to potatoes d…
I do not believe that everyone deciding to eat something different is "fixing" the food scarcity problem in the same way that desalinization (ignoring all other issues with it as we assumed technology improved to solve them also) "fixes" water scarcity: if everyone is told tomorrow "all water will safely come from desal" we might breath a collective sigh of relief... "starting tomorrow, all food will be replaced by s…
If traditional food sources go away and technology provides an alternative food source, that is what people will eat. Culture will follow technology, if that's what people have to do to survive.
EDIT:That mostly applies to the population in the developed world with access to capital, technology and industrial resources that we can use to adapt our food supply. Not everywhere in the world has those resources to fall back on though.
I love that there's a "technology will fix things" model. This assumes we'll discover some magical bullet, that we haven't thought of, that will counteract erosion of topsoil, water shortages, and climate change. Another implicit assumption is that we'll be able to move forward unilaterally with such a solution, instead of it becoming a political football until it's too late to do anything, like climate change. A lot…
The problem which we already have the technology to fix is food. What people eat is cultural and is effected by cost and availability. There is much we currently discard or do not cultivate because it not what we traditionally see as food and because there is no cost incentive to encourage a change in culture. Changes can however occur given the right triggers, like how large portion of Europe went over to potatoes d…
That's not fixing, that's a band aid, and an ugly one at that.
"Let's just eat worms, algae, problem fixed".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not believe that everyone deciding to eat something different is "fixing" the food scarcity problem in the same way that desalinization (ignoring all other issues with it as we assumed technology improved to solve them also) "fixes" water scarcity: if everyone is told tomorrow "all water will safely come from desal" we might breath a collective sigh of relief... "starting tomorrow, all food will be replaced by s…
>if you are relying on a cultural change it isn't a technological fix If traditional food sources go away and technology provides an alternative food source, that is what people will eat. Culture will follow technology, if that's what people have to do to survive. EDIT:That mostly applies to the population in the developed world with access to capital, technology and industrial resources that we can use to adapt our…