|
McDowell posted:
What about thorium-fueled reactors? I had heard that thorium is way more abundant than uranium, and the fuel cycle is utterly worthless for making weapons-grade material. Though asteroid mining could still come in handy for getting materials for things like solar cells and electric car batteries. Spazzle posted:I find it hard to believe that people will willingly give up their luxuries, even in the face of disaster. At any point in time, they will always say that the cost is too much, and that their changes wouldn't make any difference. Any changes we make in the short term will make life significantly more unpleasant, and any benefit will be long off. You have to give cars, planes, cheap and reliable power, cheap products, most foods, and lots of other things we associate with a high quality of life. Things might get better in the long run as we learn to cope, but thats a maybe vs a certainty of a lowered standard of living now. The people who will most affected by climate change are the poorest, and thus those with the least power to change anything (since they have have the least to give up). And then there's the inverse correlation between standards of living and birth rates. Having people make such drastic cuts wouldn't do much good in the long run if we only end up having to worry about overpopulation again.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2011 03:40
|
|
B.b.b.but McDowell! Uranium is a scarce resource too!
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:37 |
|