Dave!?

Save a slap for the leap seconds creator.

Or, we could collectively realize time is but an illusion and transcend this silly problem.

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site.

Won’t that create a bunch of targets all over the country? Then terrorists or enemy states can use simple small bombs to make whole areas uninhabitable for the next millennium.

I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.

But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?

This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”

Sometimes I use the term “psychopathic hoarder class” when referring to this group of people.

This is only a slight exaggeration, all cookies are slowly being replaced by versions of Oreos.

Right!? 30 mins for Age of Sin!? Are they kidding? Is this shrinkflation?

Nate is amazing, he and some of his guests are exactly who I learned this from.

To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.

But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth’s ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.

I never understand this line of thought. The amounts of energy we use is never ever going to go down. It just isn’t.

If we don’t develop practical nuclear fusion before our fossil inheritance effectively runs out we sure will. It will also go down following ecological collapse caused by using all that energy. Infinite energy doesn’t make up for a collapsed ecosystem.

Oh, what about when there’s like 3 or 4 going in the same yard, sounds like that Tibetan Monk chanting with their motor rev going up and down.

I hate them, but we use gravel a lot here to save water and can’t think of a way to keep gravel walkways clear without blowing debris. Brooms, rakes, etc don’t work in this case.

I love schnozzberrum

You’re right, to some insufficient degree, but that’s like reducing your meth habit.

It’s not possible to produce the amount of meat needed to feed our massive population while treating animals humanely.

There are really two options to deal with this:

1. Most humans in the world become vegan – sounds great but it’s not gonna happen

2. Reduce our population to sustainable numbers (by eliminating the driver of the population explosion, i.e. fossil energy) – maybe also not gonna happen

Edit: What (do I think) will happen? We’ll continue as we are now as hundreds of billions of animals are tortured until our civilization collapses. This will happen because we were all brought up under a state and told that defending ourselves, our communities, our animals, is wrong and illegal.

These problems are not all the fault of either the producers or consumers, we’re both part of a fucked up cycle within an exploitative economic system and influence each other.

It doesn’t make any more sense for the consumer to wash their hands of all blame and consume without concern and push all the blame on the producer than it does to say it’s all about our “carbon footprint”.

Then there’s the temperateur, controlling the thermostat in France.

Still not quite getting my analogy. I’m not merely speaking of calories, or how we decide to dispose of waste.

I haven’t seen any evidence of this.

–> I’ve never seen anyone use this terminology before about “human eutrophication”, I made it up. But if you want more info on this topic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjhb8Nu1Sk

The evidence is the apparent non-sustainable lifestyle that is only possible by the addition of energy not part of the natural short-term energy cycle of the planet. We are making species go extinct and destroying this planet.

By using fossil/nuclear energy we are able to produce enough food to quadruple the population this planet could sustain without that extra energy. All those extra people need more than food, and in producing all the other needs for this expanded population, we damage the ecosystem. The planet is not ours to use, we are

If you do that then count the deaths finding and acquiring nuclear materials, the political tensions nuclear materials cause and any related deaths, the deaths of people building the plant, the engineers that died in car accidents in the decade going back and forth to the office in their gas car in the plant planning stages, etc.

There is no perfect energy source, we should stop looking for “the one”, use the nuclear plants we have as we degrow and use more green energy (which is a scam if sold as a solution for eco problems on it’s own).

The fact that nuclear is still significantly better than

If you ignore that near everlasting radioactive waste problem we have yet to come with a solution for.