Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmerich
It is a valid assumption because the only way for consumption to go down OVERALL is for the per capita consumption to drop at a greater rate that the population is growing. With a growing and expanding economy, consumption will ALWAYS go up. The bottom line is as technology goes forward, you have to pay for it somehow, both in resource consumption and other ways.
Nuclear is the only viable alternative on a scale big enough to make a difference. The effects of TMI are irrelevant, more people die from aspirin each year than ever dies due to nuclear issues.
|
1. The population on the planet is arguably unsustainable and should shrink, as difficult as that would be for capitalism to deal with. (This does not mean that I believe there is a better system, but I recognize that capitalism really only works when there is growth.)
2. I don't accept that a growing economy necessarily means growing consumption. As an example, the economy could easily grow even if every automobile achieved 40+ MPG, which is entirely practical.
3. It is hard to accept the argument about annual deaths from nuclear issues when every bit of nuclear waste created this year will be a potential lethal threat for... what, about 1200 generations to come?
If it weren't for the pesky problem of nuclear waste being forever (in all practical terms), I'd be a reluctant supporter. Reluctant because nothing is foolproof, but I do believe the risks of accidents can be managed. I do not believe the risks of 25,000 years of storage can be managed.