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.

  • unperson [he/him]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    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?

    • crispyhexagon [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      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

      • unperson [he/him]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        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.

        • crispyhexagon [none/use name]
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 years ago

          "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

          • unperson [he/him]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            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!".

            • crispyhexagon [none/use name]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              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"

              • unperson [he/him]
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 years ago

                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.