i got an academic expert telling me nuclear isnt the soluti…

The best metric by which to measure if someone is a reasonable enviromentalist/lefty is their openness to nuclear energy

💯

I think it has more to do with the 'reasonable' part and less with the 'enviromentalist/lefty' part. If there is no requirement to categorise it is prudent not to do so unless wanting to show your own bias.

Perhaps my phrasing was bad. What i mean is if a person is legitimately motivated by reducing carbon emissions/pollution (as opposed to advancing a political agenda) they tend to be more open to nuclear power

correct

When it comes to the ‘reasonable’ part - that works both ways, too.

Everything is Bayesian: Everything has upper- + lower-bounds.

I’d wager that blindness to range-maxes (and mins) contributes to many slippery slope arguments.

ie: It’s not only openness.

Folks less comfortable exploring boundaries see the lack of an ‘upper bound’ on logic as ‘unreasonable’, because it’s shortsighted.

‘Shortsighted’ - insomuch as the full context is either not considered or part of the argument.

And maybe this should probably be expected, too.

Those comfortable with exploration are perhaps more likely to throw caution to the wind, so to speak.

I think this just goes to show that depth of nuance is ultimately important, and that patience + ability to accept uncomfortable situations for long enough to have a true grasp on understanding .. is key to societal progress.

The habit of micro aggression betrays our critical faculties.

In the modern world, this fuels #escapeism + overly-consumptive behaviors that feed ‘the drip’.

Right + Wrong are replaced by Happy + Sad.

Hacking the frontal lobe from the outside.

For the record, I support nuclear fully and still have some skepticism about the amount it can generate. Only so much Uranium. One day we'll get it right and have a Dyson sphere powering Earth and Mars!

Defensive ideology is often huddled behind the angry chips on shoulders from reacting to existential threats.

Physical touch plays an important role, too. Without it, we lose sight of how much stress we hold in our bodies; negative nerve feedback.

https://twetch.app/t/1dfb8a6f7431eddedf155671ec97e441a0e88b8f4ced73b9598654e5d6ffa21c

Nuclear is a great option. Whether it can be deployed and operated more cheaply than solar/battery is the question now.

Imagine being long coal hahaha

Its already deployed and operational over here and cheaper than solar.

imagine not being able to harvest 384.6 yotta watts efficiently.🤦‍♂️

So much fear of threats is also centered around uncertainty + confusion.

I always try to be better at embracing the discomfort a perceived existential threat presents, with an eye toward learning to 1) be aware of and 2) control my visceral reactions.

https://twetch.app/t/71efb87bf50b2773c479bc401086cd3ca12648241808aae632547728b74732b2

Wrong expert. Ask an insurance underwriter. Nukes are pure communism at its finest. Nukes cannot afford disaster insurance which all industrial companies routinely buy from free markets. Taxpayers subsidize nukes— if U love high taxes build more nukes.

I disagree. Nuclear is inherently subsidized so it’s a VERY uneconomic source of power. Nukes cannot get private disaster insurance bc no Sane insurance company will write it— see Chernobyl & Fuki cleanup costs. Nukes are the highest cost energy on earth.