• possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have one axiomatic argument I stand by, although I recognize both pros and cons.

    We’ve missed our targets and deadlines and climate change is happening faster-than-expected. Infrastructure is being brutalized by weather extremes. I believe it is reasonable to assume that many regions will decomplexify as a result of the changing environment reducing the carrying capacity and energy economy. Nuclear power plants are some of the most complex technology we have - even the supply chains and maintenance are extremely complicated. When we currently plan for these installations, it is with the assumption that society will be carrying on as usual. They would appear much riskier if we had to take into account situations where resources and/or personnel may be unavailable. Those situations will be almost inevitable for some regions, but determining where and how stability will collapse is still impossible to predict.

    Where there are other solutions available (including degrowth), I would first support those.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well if you don’t support nuclear because its “too complex,” you de facto support coal, which will inevitably turn into “degrowth” as most of the world can’t support agriculture anymore, and so you will get to nod your head as 100’s of millions are “de-growthed” into starvation.

      • zaphod@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why would anyone who’s against nuclear automatically be pro coal? It’s not like the only options available to us are nuclear and coal.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then why are you here? Your horrid omnicidal wish will be, by your own admission, inevitably granted. You have nothing to worry about.

              • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not true. Choosing degrowth prevents deaths, kicking the can until nature forces degrowth leads to more deaths.

                Is this one of those projection things driven by a guilty conscience?

                • shanghaibebop@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Degrowth is a dangerous ideology. For those living in rich countries, degrowth might just mean austerity, for those living in middle and lower income countries, degrowth is going to mean destitution and certain death for x percentage of the population.

                  • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I disagree for many of the reasons I’ve already explained on responses to this comment. The climate science community also disagrees based on a consensus of studies. After becoming informed on the situation, degrowth is clearly the least dangerous ideology to pursue because it doesn’t further extend our overshoot. And that applies to all locations.