Skip to main content

View Diary: The Nuclear Shill Apologizes. (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  every question has a simple answer, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LIsoundview, bryfry
    that is wrong.  The simple and wrong answer in your case is "overpopulation".

    Never mind that Chernobyl was no power plant, the overpopulation argument was wrong when Thomas Malthus first coined it around 1860, it remained wrong when Paul Ehrlich repeated it in 1968, and you are very unlikely to be right about it either.  Moreover, Ehrlich was spectacularly wrong in all his predictions about resource depletion and Malthus was an asshole whose idiotic ideas condemned lots of poor Indians to needless suffering and death.  

    You are even wrong about this "continuous growth" silliness:  The population in industrialised countries is no longer growing.  Given this, it is not farfetched to assume that, should the whole world achieve a life style that is now reserved to the "first world", the human population will grow to no more than (say) 15 billion.  To sustain this life style, a source of environmentally benign energy is needed, and nuclear power can supply this energy for a few billions (yes, billions) of years, since any old rock is a uranium and thorium ore body.  The only reason that we have a bottleneck now is that illiterate dogooder-wannabees stopped nuclear power in its tracks in the 80s.

    For more details see John McCarthy's progress notes at and before you post a knee-jerk reaction, please try to get some solid support for this 50-100 years number you pulled out of thin air.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site