Oh boy...
Well, I have opinions.
The first being how saddened I am to see Oliver Stone give into this propaganda. He's such a great, and at this point, legendary artist. But that's all this is, in my eyes -- propaganda.
First, nuclear energy is NOT the only solution. As a matter of fact, we don't require more energy. We require less. And we can easily achieve that by recognizing and admitting the actual problems. And ultimately, working through them once we can reasonably agree as we go.
What's the problem? Clear as ******* day... Overpopulation. Limit the number of children allowed per family, worldwide -- and it needs to be done now! Start working on how to negotiate allowing elderly, terminally ill, and other folks who have been fully (and I mean fully -- no more fucking cutting corners to achieve numbers -- and keep the fucking money hand in fucking jail where they fucking belong) counseled individuals who have reasonable considerations for euthanasia.
It's not easy. We all fucking know this. But using these energies -- it's not wrong. It's just too! fucking! soon! We need to learn before we fucking leap with this shit. They'll be no turning back. We have already made changes that cannot be taken back with previous meltdowns. If we, as a species, want to continue (and it will be a mutating species at a much faster rate now because of the aforementioned reasons), we have to slow down in this department, and I believe the first step is probably slowing down population growth and bringing it down slowly.
This is a very anti-human stance.
Given how certain you sound -- I imagine you're just going to ignore everything that I say.
But in the tiny chance you're even a little open-minded to new information, hear me out for a second.
Population Growth
Firstly, on the population front -- virtually every developed country is in population decline or will be in the next few decades.
Fertility rates are abysmally low in the Western world, and this will have massive repercussions on the world. More and more old people relying on the labor of less and less young people to sustain the whole system. Limiting population further is not just ill-advised, it's civilization suicide.
Here is what a healthy population pyramid looks like that can sustain a growing society (this is Uganda):
Here's the US -- well on its way to terminal:
And here are Germany, South Korea, and Japan -- completely terminal populations, and a sneak peak into where all developed countries will be by mid-century:
So, virtually 100% of the population growth is happening in developing countries while the developed world is facing population crisis.
Energy Sources for Developing Countries
Secondly, on the climate front... Developing countries are countries that are currently burning wood, shit, coal for their energy.
For example, the continent of Africa relies on biomass (shit and wood) for almost 50% of their energy:
Africa: primary energy demand by source | Statista
Despite some political ideologues touting biomass as some sort of mother-nature-friendly energy source, objectively speaking, burning wood for energy is absolutely terrible for climate change, especially over the next century (the "critical point"):
Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy - IOPscience
For another example, South Asia gets almost 50% of its energy from burning coal:
Market Report Series: Coal 2019
I don't think I need to make the argument on why coal is bad.
Energy Poverty and Human Suffering
Thirdly, the countries that are fuelling all of the global population growth AND burning the dirtiest sources of energy
are the same countries that are in the worst states of energy poverty.
These regions require MUCH MORE energy, not less. Many of these regions
don't have dependable access to electricity, heat, cooking fuel.
It's hard to imagine what it's like to live an incredibly poor country where you don't have a dependable way to boil your dirty water, cook your scraps of food, and light your home at night -- let alone transportation, communication, etc.
So to summarize...
- Developed world is in population free-fall
- All population growth is happening in poor countries
- These countries have the absolute worst energy mix in terms of impact on climate
- They need substantially more access to energy, not less, in order to ease human suffering and give people basic amenities you and I take for granted
If these are all correct (and I've provided sources for all of them, so feel free to dispute with your own sources), then I think your argument boils down to a very anti-human one.
Instead of investing in energy sources that we know are (a) relatively safe, (b) carbon neutral, (c) able to satisfy growing energy demands, and (d) able to alleviate human suffering and afford opportunities for people who had the bad luck of being born in the wrong part of the world...
Your answer is:
Fuck those poor people, make them stop reproducing, let them suffer, and hopefully enough of them die to reduce demand.
Did I get that right?
