It is completely inexcusable that people in STEM fields are so reactionary, considering how capitalism utterly destroys science.
If universities were actually "left wing indoctrination factories" like the right thinks they are, every STEM grad would be taught, for example, what Kropotkin had to say about innovation.
feudalism isnt defined by a lack of electricity lol
It's not, but industry requires artificial power. And industry is Good. And Capitalism and Socialism require industry. They are even defined by machine industry. Read Marx.
it aint worth the time arguing with a nutjob. if it were real life, just physically force them out of the room is my opinion. i have a huge disdain for them if you cant tell
industry good therefor i cant even imagine a world in which we live without power but also embrace communism, trying to do so means youve never read a book.
im sure the anprims love you at parties.
Please explain how we reach fully automated gay communism without commanding many times more energy than what we can produce with our own bodies.
Your first sentence is exactly true, and anprims are indeed reactionaries. Marx on the Luddites, the anprims of the 19th century (edit: it's in section 5, 'The Strife Between Workman and Machine').
nah. youre rolling deep on some stemlord shit and i dont need to explain anything, let alone amuse the idea that fully automated luxury gay space communism is the only worthwhile goal possible.
i was proposing a thought experiment to try and shake things up but youre literally the least imaginitive person around town, so you jumped straight to "no! go read marx!" instead of actually thinking about what a coal powered world would look like, and how perhaps mass consumption and automation via coal would not be the best idea for peoples lungs.
but whatever.
fuck off
A world automated with coal is impossible, even if you ignored pollution, because there's not enough biomass in the world to sustain full automation. Communism will require the command of today unthinkable amounts of energy. Nuclear fission is the stepping stone so we can arrive there without polluting and cooking ourselves to death.
What is your goal? You can't roll back the wheel of history. De-electrification, and therefore de-industrialization, implies the death of 95% of the population of the world. And the return to subsistence farming and a pre-industrial mode of production. Edit: remember, the preindustrial mode of production is what killed all the forests of Europe, because they needed wood for cooking, heating and tool making.
my goal was to point out that something is not inherently a good option just because it seems like the only option.
yall seem to be labouring under this idea that i hate the very idea of nuclear energy existing. i dont.
nuclear waste is bad. get over it.
i do not support nuclear energy because i dislike the effects that it has on people when it goes wrong. that is the only real point ive had, and its got yall all bent out of shape.
i am not advocating turning off all the electricity. merely pushing for you to admit to yourself that nuclear is not all fucking sunshine and roses and that critique of it is not inherently bad or something only nutjobs do.
lmao i told you it had deaths. so youre just doing this contrarian debatelord shit to make yourself feel smart.
no, you minimized about it and acted like those deaths didnt count. fuck off
When I say it's a stepping stone, it's implied that it's of course not perfect. The point is that solar and wind power are worse. Nuclear fission (and hydro) are the best power sources we have today. Nuclear fission could immediately be even better if profit wasn't a concern, but that's too capital intensive to be viable under capitalism.
Still, if I had to vote for a new power plant today, I'd vote for a nuclear fission power plant. If I was hearing about the decommission of a nuclear power plant, I'd protest against it, because it implies worse pollution and more deaths in the future. What would you vote for?
buddy, i dont live in a place where my vote matters like that.
again, you seem to think this is about finding the bestest most goodest answer. it isnt. its about accepting critique and allowing discourse.
yknow, the original thing i was responding to? where anyone that dislikes nuclear power is basically an antivaxxer, because some people dont want to hear that nuclear has issues?
to answer the hypothetical: i would have to see actual proposals, but theres a roughly zero percent chance id pick nuclear, because i personally have no interest in living in another town with nuclear waste spillage, so convincing me to vote for that option would be a tough sell
That is why you're basically an antivaxxer. When faced with the choice, in practice, you can't let go of your ideology and choose instead death and pollution.
It's the twelfth form of liberalism.
"you choose death and pollution by refusing to choose the option you have literally seen pollute a town with deadly toxic waste!"
thats you. youre a moron
You might as well be saying "you choose death and disease by refusing to choose the option you have literally seen somebody die of a deadly vaccine!".
a complete failure of the system to prevent death and disease on a large scale is not equivalent to a person having an allergic reaction.
you might as well say "well of course people die from covid, but its not as bad as heart disease! therefor being upset about it means youre as crazy as someone that thinks eating strawberries should be banned because of allergies"
There is no such failure. Nuclear fission has caused the least death and disease of any kind of energy, per Wh produced. You still haven't said what exactly you'd pick, so that we can compare.
About 4 vaccinations per million end in death. This means that 1000-5000 people die of vaccination every year and 10-100× more (depending on the vaccine) have non-deadly complications. And still vaccinations are good, because the alternative is worse.
Compare this number to the amount of people getting power from your local fission power plant, and the amount of people who died because of it.