Nuclear power really is a darn good solution to our energy problems, and is more feasible and entirely more humane than using less energy. Our growing energy demands are not just a result of us being spoiled, they are a direct result of our need to sustain more and more people. Cut down on the energy, and you quickly fund yourself cutting down on progress and on the welfare of the poor.
Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions.
That surprised me, but I didn't mean to say that fossil fuel power plants are a great alternative.
> Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions.
I'm not saying we should go back to not having energy at all. But it seems like there's quite a bit of potential for saving energy without seriously lowering anyone's quality of life.
For instance, does 50% of the population have to commute in a big car every day? That doesn't sound like progress to me.
The US's per capita energy consumption is more than twice that of the UK [1], is there really no way to save some of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac...
Nuclear power really is a darn good solution to our energy problems, and is more feasible and entirely more humane than using less energy. Our growing energy demands are not just a result of us being spoiled, they are a direct result of our need to sustain more and more people. Cut down on the energy, and you quickly fund yourself cutting down on progress and on the welfare of the poor.
Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions.