I do not think this is the reasoning behind it. I personally believe that nuclear fusion may render all other power sources obsolete in our lifetime, but I do not think more nuclear powerplants with out current tecnology in the foreseeable future.
As far as I know and until I see sources that convice me otherwise, they are too costly, and that gets in the way of more cost-efficient green power generation - and even of nuclear research, depending on how you allocate the budget.
I am yet to see in the general debate someone trying to defend nuclear energy with the argument of accelerating technology development
VeevaHon
1d ago
If you know of a source that demonstrates that and contrasts with alternatives, I would be interested in reading
VeevaHon
1d ago
Absolutely that is an important factor for understanding how nuclear weighs against alternatives. I cannot say where we should draw the line between lawfare and necessary checks and rightful disputes, nor can I say what the actual political cost it is to have nuclear powerplants. But would be very interested in reading a source that makes a good case for nuclear power using uo to date data, and its nvironmental and economic effect under different scenarios
VeevaHon
1d ago
I do not mean to disqualify the argument. It does seem productive to me, however, to observe the correlated occurrence of seemingly contradicting positions within a group - a lesser regard for climate change, but defending nuclear power - and be extra cautious about potential interests in disguise inside the discussion.
The aspects you brought up are absolutely pertinent to investigate in order to establish a good judgement about the role nuclear should have in the energy transition, but ones that I seldom hear in the public debate. That's why I am out for good sources.
VeevaHon
1d ago
Seems to reinforce my impression that people who insist in this are either acting in bad faith, or echoing those who are.
I'm out for the serious actors who defend expanding nuclear programs, have palpable knowledge, and concern for climate change - if there is anyone who fits this description.
I understand solar and wind have their shortcomings when in comes to production stability, and that they may have hidden costs. But that it is long stretch from there to concluding nuclear power is generally a worthy complement to them, with aims at minimizing emissions.
As clean and safe and whatever else it may be, there is no way around the price. It consistently ranks among the most costly sources. And budget being the tightest constraint, I cannot imagine it being an important part of the strategy for energy transition - maybe some minor and localized cases, but not more than that.
For a curious layman like me, it is hard to tell serious speech from the noise. But just pointing out that something has a problem does not sell well that nuclear is the best solution.
VeevaHon
1d ago
About the hype around nuclear power generation among conservatives. Sorry, I do not have a well articulated text to defend here, this is more of probe into the subject, since I feel I am probably missing some fundamental logic here.
It seems to me the support for nuclear energy is a sort of pet cause for conservatives. Not because of the wonders of the technology, but for what it signals.
Given the financial cost of this type of energy source compared to other low emission energy sources, I am yet to find a defense of Nuclear as a feasible strategy for lowering CO2 emissions that comes across as based, good faith argument by someone with true concern about the issue, rather than an attempt at subverting the discussion around energy transition.
Or are there people who truly believe that nuclear energy is a part of energy transition strategy so meaningful it is worth joining forces with those raise the flag as a form of subversion? Any reading recommendation of up to date, nuanced, good faith arguments for nuclear energy?
Will skip most of the points here since we already have great comments and I don't have a lot more to add, but I feel a very important a very important aspect of it is often brushed off without much thought.
makes the ads being served to you dumber.
I don't know about you, but to me that alone sounds like an end in itself. I am not aware of any comprehensive study that dissects the impact of targeted ads on - at individual level - opinions, behavior, finances and mental health; and, by extention, at a societal level - social development, culture, economy and public health.
This ought to be better understood (recommendations for reading are welcome!), but given gargantuan size of targeted publicity businesses (including Big Tech names) it seems like the impact of targeted advertisement can hardly be overstated. And I do not - and neither should you - trust that private corporations should hold that power.
Of course, privacy hacks can only do so much in terms of protecting you from big baddie tech, whatever that means, and people who do that are already very likely savvy enough to block ads anyway. But as a policy, I think GDPR and other initiatives are a great step forward, although not so effective yet.
VeevaHon
1yr ago
I find your judgement very pertinent. In real life there is alway a unique set of conditions to be taken into consideration, and intuition is often better than a pre determined set of rules.
Still I find thought experiments of an ideal environment, while not applicable, are good to understand our own thoughts and values. Just have to be careful.
VeevaHon
1yr ago
That is an interesting case. But I am thinking there are benefits in her knowing it: there is a good chance she would find out later in a worse way, or that she could have been in danger, or that her knowing it could help bring about justice. Can't say for sure. But what if we could reasonably predict that none of these things would happen. Would it still be a good thing to tell her?
VeevaHon
1yr ago
Very consistent and straightforward approach - though some may call it controversial. Thanks for sharing your opinion
VeevaHon
1yr ago
Telling someone they are adopted would be true, probably not kind, and probably not necessary - it could be necessary in case their genetic history is relevant, or if there is a good risk they would find out in a more traumatic way. But assume a case where it is not reasonable to assume the necessity of it. Would it be ethical to hide that secret?
VeevaHon
1yr ago
That is a pretty straightforward way to put it, and probably a good approach. But I want to challenge it. Some people want to know things even when it does not lead to anything good - such as a cheating partner, or that they are adopted, or they were conceived by sexual violence. Their life may be worse after, but they do not wish they stayed ignorant instead. Is that a good reason to tell them?
VeevaHon
1yr ago
The being adopted case is an interesting one, we in general assume that it is not ethical to not tell someone they are adopted - maybe partly because we think the person will eventually find out anyway, so better tell them now.
VeevaHon
1yr ago
Suppose you know a secret about something.
And that secret would be profoundly distressing and traumatizing to a person if said person learned about it.
And there are no practical benefits to that person learning about it (ie learning about it would not incentivise said person to act in a way to protect themselves, or to do something beneficial in any way)
Do you think it would it be ethical to tell the secret to that person or not? What conditions are relevant in deciding whether to tell them or not?
VeevaHon
1yr ago
Can you give examples of what you call emotional salience, both in past feminism and in the presence?
VeevaHon
1yr ago
Sure, I agree with all you said. You further endorsed my point that the division of childcare and income earning is strongly (not exclusively) affected by external factors other than taste. Both for men and for women.
You can't attribute everything or most of what's wrong with gender roles to things men do
And I don't. If you think anything I said implies that I do think like that, I appreciate if you point out to me exactly where you got that impression, then I can work on making it more clear.
Sure, I don't disagree with what you said. I even think your anecdotes are actually representative of a trend.
If I read it correctly, you interpreted my text as an speculation about the specific examples you have from your personal surroundings, which it was not. I was questioning the general scenario. So I will not comment on them, as they neither prove nor disprove my claim that, in general, the division of childcare work is strongly (not exclusively) affected by external factors other than taste.
Btw, don't put words in my mouth; I don't think childcare is a lesser type of work, in fact I think it's under-appreciated compared to its importance (as are having children and families in general).
I did not put words in your mouth, in fact you seem to be the one doing it, because I never accused you of claiming that childcare is a lesser type of work. What I admonished you for doing, though, was providing anecdotal support to such claim first made by OP without also adding the criticism that I deem recommendable to include when in a debate with someone who lacks (or at least doesn't show) nuance like OP
1 Not that I know of
2 Children of Men (2006) fits the trope perfectly. Disney's Up (2009), Creed (2015) and Intouchables (2011) fit almost perfectly the trope, except the men do not die in the end
Biutiful (2010) also shares many of the same elements, except for most of the filme the main character does not act as a mentor, but rather as an abuser for ethnic minorities. He regrets and seeks redemption by leaving all his possessions to one of them before his death.
Me Before You (2016) and The Fault in Our Stars (2014) also have many of the same elements - with the dying-man mentor that gives everything they can to their intellectual protégé - however do not envolve ethical minorities - the low-self-steem-girl and the depressed-seriously-ill-girl do that role, respectively. Million Dollar Baby (2004) has similarities too.
3 The Green Mile (1999) sort of fulfills the trope. Except the saviour is disadvantaged in every way.
4 If the goal is to tell a story about the exchange between the two total opposite characters - the dying wise mentor's succession to the vulnerable one just starting their life - it is almost hard to tell it without picturing them as, well, opposites. And while ethnicity, age, gender or background do not necessarily have to be all different (few of the films have all the elements combined), the more the betterer! and you may end up with an accumulation of differences. Nothing can be more different than the old, grumpy, well settled white man and the young, vulnerable, foreign, optimistic, ethnic minority girl.
So, I don't think the way these stories are told is really a calculated effort to push an especific agenda. The characteristics of the characters are more of a necessary setting for the story to happen.
That is not to say that whether these stories are told is just as fortuitous, though. Maybe these scripts get a better chance of being produced in the first place, because these stories fit into a narrative of promoting said minorities and/or appealing to an audience who wants to see these groups more represented in films.
Fair enough.
This doesn't smell like a good starting point for a debate, though.
OP starts with the thesis that the men's "minimum deal" is worse than that of women's, illustrates with examples that are not part of the "minimum deal" package, presents some very controversial points (the "dating market advantage for women" being one of them. Typical redpill rhetoric), cherrypicks points that favor the view that men are disadvantaged (in his defense he makes some caveats, but thats all), overrepresents statistically unlikely outcomes, largely ignores the ways in which women are disadvantaged and does not acknowledge the role the men have in perpetuating these rules.
I would like to see where OP is going with this
VeevaHon
1yr ago
Do you think this tendency for mothers to maximize their time with childcare, while men don't, comes from mothers experiencing more satisfaction with childcare than with work?
Or could it be that mothers experience less satisfaction with employment (income included) than fathers do?
Or maybe a mix of both?
Because the way you put it, it is very easy to just attribute it to mothers having an innate taste for childcare that men don't have, maybe even a taste for childcare above anything else, and completely disregard other very important elements in that tendency - such as that the woman's income is lower than the man's, that her career opportunities have already been diminished anyway, that childcare is too expensive to outsource, that there is concern over whether another person would be sufficiently competent to take the task, that men often weaponise their incompetence in order to avoid childcare. Just to name a few.
Anyway, I don' t even know what the goal of this thread even is. I just don't like it when claims that childcare is a lesser type of work or that childcare is an easier work for women than for men are supported by examples like yours without due critical contextualization of the conditions that take women to take upon themselves the task of chidcare.
VeevaHon
1yr ago
I will not analyse the merit of the "who suffers more" discussion, at least for now. But I know this discussion hardly happens in a vacuum and I think some things should not be left unaddressed.
Is there a purpose in comparing the male and the female condition in terms of who gets the better "minimum deal"? Should any conclusions influence public policy, or individual behaviour? How?
Of course, there is nothing wrong with pure theoretical debate, but I am wary of how this one has been time and time again weaponised to influence culture and politics in less than fair ways.
I agree with you that the general opinions of "professional" bioethicists are very well up for questioning - I mentioned one particular instance of it but refrained from making any judgements about it, as it was not necessary for my exploration.
The way you illustrate this however doesn't seem very adequate as it derailed the debate, leading subsequent comments to the topic of death penalty.
I find that another interesting topic and would genuinely be interested in reading more and perhaps even participating if you create another thread.
Just wanted to give you a friendly advice for you to be more mindful about where to fit your takes, I think it would be more productive for both debates.
I am not defending that solar, hydro or wind power have always the lowest environmental impact, everywhere.
But environmental impact is hardly the only factor we look at when developing powerplants, and cost is often the main factor.
More options
Context Copy link