I do not mean to debate you (at least not for the sake of debating) - I believe we are here to practice mutual enlightenment. For example, you asked if Americans got nuclear propaganda in school - and I answered.
Try as I might (checking the Code of Conduct, TOS ), I cannot find any rules against "debate-bro bullshit" generally or "splitting posts into segments" particularly. (I've avoided doing so here to be polite to you.) If such rules exist, please be so kind as to link me to them. I get that debate-broism can be problematic, but I do need it defined for me because the line between discussion and debate is naturally vague.
I split your post up for clarity, so you can tell what I am replying to. It also makes reading easier, because each point stands on its own and you don't have to read the full thing if you don't want to. I did not mean to cherry-pick anything you said or attack any of your points. Rather - you disagreed with OP's perspective, I expanded on what that perspective is. If you have a problem with the way I said anything in particular - please point it out so I may learn and grow.
You are right that power consumption should be cut back generally. Under capitalism, consumption is cut through the regressive mechanism of pricing poor people out, while it's really the rich and middle class in the developed world that consume too much, but the general principle of cutting consumption is great.
However, the real question is how to generate the power that we can't forego. "Dirt-poor countries" is where most people live, and Western countries actively prevent them from developing nuclear industries, sometimes using fears of nuclear energy as arguments. In the medium term, they must be allowed to keep using fossil fuels because it's most economic and because the developed world owes them a debt for both exploitation and historic pollution. (This puts even greater pressure on the developed world to switch to non-fossil-fuel energy sources, whichever are available the fastest, without relying on the assumption that new technologies will solve existing issues.) Additionally, the change to renewables requires the closing of old power plants - and the anti-nuclear groups counter-productively wish to see nuclear plants closed before fossil fuel ones (which means more CO2 emissions). So it's a valid topic of conversation wherever you live.
Neither OP nor I advocate investing in nuclear energy instead of renewable energy when one is free to make that choice. The reason for saying "nuclear is good" is to reverse the misconceptions about it and to highlight how much worse fossil fuels are despite escaping the same stigma.
I hope I've expressed myself in a manner to your liking even if we still disagree. I respect your position 100% - I am simply interested in describing my own.
Sincerely and with warm regards,
Your Comrade Audeamus
Dear Comrade Hog of House Wild,
I do not mean to debate you (at least not for the sake of debating) - I believe we are here to practice mutual enlightenment. For example, you asked if Americans got nuclear propaganda in school - and I answered.
Try as I might (checking the Code of Conduct, TOS ), I cannot find any rules against "debate-bro bullshit" generally or "splitting posts into segments" particularly. (I've avoided doing so here to be polite to you.) If such rules exist, please be so kind as to link me to them. I get that debate-broism can be problematic, but I do need it defined for me because the line between discussion and debate is naturally vague.
I split your post up for clarity, so you can tell what I am replying to. It also makes reading easier, because each point stands on its own and you don't have to read the full thing if you don't want to. I did not mean to cherry-pick anything you said or attack any of your points. Rather - you disagreed with OP's perspective, I expanded on what that perspective is. If you have a problem with the way I said anything in particular - please point it out so I may learn and grow.
You are right that power consumption should be cut back generally. Under capitalism, consumption is cut through the regressive mechanism of pricing poor people out, while it's really the rich and middle class in the developed world that consume too much, but the general principle of cutting consumption is great.
However, the real question is how to generate the power that we can't forego. "Dirt-poor countries" is where most people live, and Western countries actively prevent them from developing nuclear industries, sometimes using fears of nuclear energy as arguments. In the medium term, they must be allowed to keep using fossil fuels because it's most economic and because the developed world owes them a debt for both exploitation and historic pollution. (This puts even greater pressure on the developed world to switch to non-fossil-fuel energy sources, whichever are available the fastest, without relying on the assumption that new technologies will solve existing issues.) Additionally, the change to renewables requires the closing of old power plants - and the anti-nuclear groups counter-productively wish to see nuclear plants closed before fossil fuel ones (which means more CO2 emissions). So it's a valid topic of conversation wherever you live.
Neither OP nor I advocate investing in nuclear energy instead of renewable energy when one is free to make that choice. The reason for saying "nuclear is good" is to reverse the misconceptions about it and to highlight how much worse fossil fuels are despite escaping the same stigma.
I hope I've expressed myself in a manner to your liking even if we still disagree. I respect your position 100% - I am simply interested in describing my own.
Sincerely and with warm regards, Your Comrade Audeamus