Pezotecom t1_is8bzpq wrote

At some point you need to give credit to the financial system and agree it's efficient.

If we at least assume that, then we are giving incredible leaps towards an even more energy intensive society. At least that's what data shows. What I mean by this is that the market is incredibly good at directing resources, in this case, energy, where its needed. Can we do it better? hell yes. I am not sure how a couple of benevolent geniuses would outperform decades of market capitalism, if you sugest some people actually know better than the decentralized system.

And about pollution: yes, I agree on what you said. But you can't deny that even that can't compare to the absolute wreck chernobyl could have been. That's a huge precedent and actually having fear of it is more than rational.


Pezotecom t1_is7ym8w wrote

This fallacious idea of capitalism not thinking in long terms has long been refuted. We don't even have to go to the roots of ideas for this, just watch the major corporations today and their plans. Uber's been losing money for a lot of years, and many other enterprises are in the same venue. Amazon keeps getting more and more sophisticated and you can barely call it a 'marketplace' today given the scope of its operations and the general road they want to take.

If anything, I believe this 'nuclear is incompatible with capitalism' is more like 'nuclear is incompatible with the free market' because unless you find a way to calm everyone, you are always a threat to people everywhere. The disaster chernobyl could have caused to the entire world means nobody, not even a government should run something so devastating as such. Same for nuclear weapons.