LogFAQs > #953474585

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	With all the talk about renewable energy, I don't know why nuclear is ignored.
ParanoidObsessive 05/02/21 1:36:15 PM #69:	shadowsword87 posted... But, we can talk about the environmental damage of coal, which is the largest producer of energy right now. Like I said, though, "environmental damage" doesn't really mean shit to most people. It's a question of visceral threat. Saying "this thing increases toxins in the environment, which can raise risk of cancer over the long term", is something that doesn't really impact most people on the visceral level. It's an intellectual threat rather than an emotional terror. Similar to the metaphor with the frog in the boiling pot, it's too easy to say "Yeah, but that's Future Me's problem" (and that's a documented facet of human psychology - we're MUCH more likely to view problems we have to deal with in the future as someone else's problem, because our brains actually think of "Future Us" as if they were different people). Add in bits of "Ehh, that's someone else's problem" or "Ehh, it's not so bad" or "Well, you have to take the good with the bad" or even "Well, we'll figure out a way to fix it eventually if it gets too bad", and it becomes super-easy to dismiss. It's part of why most discussions about climate change hit such a solid wall of apathy. And why no one really cares about things like massive swathes of microplastic in the middle of the ocean or Kessler Syndrome eventually fucking us all. It's not immediate, so it's not worth caring about it. Especially if we're being asked to sacrifice in some way to fix it. Conversely, a nuclear plant down the road from my house could explode tomorrow, doing direct, irreparable harm to my life and health almost immediately. THAT'S something worth worrying about. And again, it doesn't even matter if the fear is realistic - what matters is people's perception of it. People fear nuclear power because it can (and has) cause(d) immediate damage, and therefore might again. Coal pollution and hydroelectric power do less obvious damage over a much longer period of time, so it's far easier to ignore the consequences and risks. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:953474585] in With all t... [t:79415229]...</cite> <quote><cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>But, we can talk about the environmental damage of coal, which is the largest producer of energy right now.</quote> Like I said, though, "environmental damage" doesn't really mean shit to most people. It's a question of visceral threat. Saying "this thing increases toxins in the environment, which can raise risk of cancer over the long term", is something that doesn't really impact most people on the visceral level. It's an intellectual threat rather than an emotional terror. Similar to the metaphor with the frog in the boiling pot, it's too easy to say "Yeah, but that's Future Me's problem" (and that's a documented facet of human psychology - we're MUCH more likely to view problems we have to deal with in the future as someone else's problem, because our brains actually think of "Future Us" as if they were different people). Add in bits of "Ehh, that's someone else's problem" or "Ehh, it's not so bad" or "Well, you have to take the good with the bad" or even "Well, we'll figure out a way to fix it eventually if it gets too bad", and it becomes super-easy to dismiss. It's part of why most discussions about climate change hit such a solid wall of apathy. And why no one really cares about things like massive swathes of microplastic in the middle of the ocean or Kessler Syndrome eventually fucking us all. It's not immediate, so it's not worth caring about it. Especially if we're being asked to sacrifice in some way to fix it. Conversely, a nuclear plant down the road from my house could explode tomorrow, doing direct, irreparable harm to my life and health almost immediately. THAT'S something worth worrying about. And again, it doesn't even matter if the fear is realistic - what matters is people's perception of it. People fear nuclear power because it can (and has) cause(d) immediate damage, and therefore might again. Coal pollution and hydroelectric power do less obvious damage over a much longer period of time, so it's far easier to ignore the consequences and risks. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1