The world is not ending, this is a very slow rolling problem. And humans will solve it for sure. Worst case scenario, quality of life goes down a bit but it would still be much higher than what the average human experienced for 99.9% of our history.
Tell me you don’t understand the implications of climate change without telling me you don’t understand the implications of climate change. If you think food and water shortages that put 80-90% of the world’s population at risk of death and simultaneously destroys global economic flows humanity has become reliant on is better quality of life than ever you are dillusenial.
I won’t argue about the science because there’s no argument left for that, but if you think money or technology is a magic formula that will shield us from climate change you’re putting a lot of faith in something with very little certainty.
Quality of life will go down massively for less developed countries. Remember when literally 1/3 of Pakistan was under water? These people had quite low QoL.
Fusion is perhaps better, but not ready. We’re out of time, and doing nothing new guarantees death for all.
Modern nuclear reactors, especially ones not trying to turn a profit, and be made extremely safe in almost any environment. Investment in solar and wind is good too, but they can’t handle the current loads needed to keep things working.
Even something as simple as requiring all new construction be outfitted with solar panels would be a step forward, but politics and money will be the death of us all. Literally.
Fusion could still take decades, or maybe never happen at all. Modern fission reactor designs are already more than safe enough. We can’t afford to wait any longer.
You’re right. But I don’t get how people can’t see the risk. No matter how many controls you put in place, how safe you make it, there’s always a chance. And if that happens, we face a nuclear meltdown which will make the place and nearby locations uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I don’t know if controls even exist to prevent a meltdown caused by an earthquake or tornado/hurricane.
What is preferrable: a tiny chance to make a small area (Chernobyl-size is impossible with modern reactors) uninhabitable or a guarantee to make the entire planet uninhabitable?
The world is not ending, this is a very slow rolling problem. And humans will solve it for sure. Worst case scenario, quality of life goes down a bit but it would still be much higher than what the average human experienced for 99.9% of our history.
Humans will solve it?!? LMAO like how we all got together to kill off COVID? Instead of just making it a political problem?
Naw dude, humanity will never ever work together again. If aliens invaded half of y’all be making deals with em so they eat you last.
Tell me you don’t understand the implications of climate change without telling me you don’t understand the implications of climate change. If you think food and water shortages that put 80-90% of the world’s population at risk of death and simultaneously destroys global economic flows humanity has become reliant on is better quality of life than ever you are dillusenial.
It’s not that bad.
I won’t argue about the science because there’s no argument left for that, but if you think money or technology is a magic formula that will shield us from climate change you’re putting a lot of faith in something with very little certainty.
We can do amazing thing when we are united and determined. I trust that as the situation gets worse humanity will rise up to the task.
Quality of life will go down massively for less developed countries. Remember when literally 1/3 of Pakistan was under water? These people had quite low QoL.
“Many of you shall die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make”
Lol. Well how many people would die if we stopped using fossil fuels? In the end we’ll have to rely on technology to fix this.
We have the technology. Nuclear power can save the planet.
There is no will to put in the work.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to change people’s minds now that they’ve grown up thinking nuclear power is the devil.
“It’s easier to fool a man than to convince him he’s been fooled.”
How do we make it safe with the rise of natural disasters? Nuclear meltdowns are bad for us and the environment.
I’m really looking forward to advancements in nuclear fusion.
Fusion is perhaps better, but not ready. We’re out of time, and doing nothing new guarantees death for all.
Modern nuclear reactors, especially ones not trying to turn a profit, and be made extremely safe in almost any environment. Investment in solar and wind is good too, but they can’t handle the current loads needed to keep things working.
Even something as simple as requiring all new construction be outfitted with solar panels would be a step forward, but politics and money will be the death of us all. Literally.
Fusion could still take decades, or maybe never happen at all. Modern fission reactor designs are already more than safe enough. We can’t afford to wait any longer.
You’re right. But I don’t get how people can’t see the risk. No matter how many controls you put in place, how safe you make it, there’s always a chance. And if that happens, we face a nuclear meltdown which will make the place and nearby locations uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I don’t know if controls even exist to prevent a meltdown caused by an earthquake or tornado/hurricane.
What is preferrable: a tiny chance to make a small area (Chernobyl-size is impossible with modern reactors) uninhabitable or a guarantee to make the entire planet uninhabitable?