[ExI] THE END for nuclear power
mrjones2020 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 25 02:16:35 UTC 2011
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>wrote:
> The point is that the proposed solution is irrational.
It's irrational to take a more sustainable approach to the world's energy
usage? It's irrational to go with a fuel source, that's produced domestic,
keeping the funds 'in-house'; instead of feeding the bank accts of those
trying to do us harm. It's irrational to choose a path that repairs the
environment we depend on, versus raping it?
> It is irrational because it react to a problem with a reflexive response
> without taking in consideration the obvious and less obvious consequences.
A reflexive response doesn't guarantee irrationality. Increase the
likelihood perhaps, but your logic fails here. And just because you don't
like the 'response', doesn't mean the (less)likely consequences have(n't)
> It don't take in consideration that, sometimes, the most rational
> solution is to take the hit and rebuild and repair; the cost of moving
> or hardening could be greater than the costs of rebuilding from scratch
> after. In this case the obvious solution is to be so wealthy to have a
> very large reserve of resources put away for the rainy days.
How convenient, that those with the most wealth put away, are those that
have created the very situation that threatens so many. So those most
victimized by this situation, are those who also get to pay the lion's share
of the bill, and enjoyed little/none of the benefits.
It's that greed and selfishness that got humanity into the mess it's in now.
You want to talk about irrationality?! Doing the same things over and
over, expecting different results; it's insane, and irrational.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat