• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well if you don’t support nuclear because its “too complex,” you de facto support coal, which will inevitably turn into “degrowth” as most of the world can’t support agriculture anymore, and so you will get to nod your head as 100’s of millions are “de-growthed” into starvation.

    • zaphod@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why would anyone who’s against nuclear automatically be pro coal? It’s not like the only options available to us are nuclear and coal.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then why are you here? Your horrid omnicidal wish will be, by your own admission, inevitably granted. You have nothing to worry about.

                  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    And how, exactly, do you expect to institute this proposal over the objections of the rich? Every previous attempt to do something like this, like the communist revolutions in Russia and China, ended up killing millions of people and accomplishing nothing of virtue, because the rich retained power and forcibly twisted the new post-revolution economy into something even worse than capitalism.

              • shanghaibebop@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Degrowth is a dangerous ideology. For those living in rich countries, degrowth might just mean austerity, for those living in middle and lower income countries, degrowth is going to mean destitution and certain death for x percentage of the population.