Focusing on stopping progress, barring new power plants, dismantling chemical facilities, mobilizing against Israel, and other reactionary pursuits, Ivy institutions are pursuing the fancies of a declining intellectual and business elite, full of chemophobic nags and luddite lame-ducks quacking away on their miasmic pools of old money as the world whirls past them.
George Gilder, Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy
Would that it were so.
I whole heartedly agree with The New Republic’s associate editor Eric Armstrong when he writes that…
[‘And even though,’] he continues,
https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really
Most of the critics (“deniers”) of man-caused climate change that I know about are in favor of nuclear energy, which, ironically, would mitigate carbon emissions faster and cheaper than any other alternative form of energy. Furthermore, disasters like Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl would have completely been avoided if modern fail-safe designs and technology been available and/or in use. (They actually were available at the time of Fukushima.) We currently have about four hundred fifty nuclear reactors in use worldwide. If we want nuclear energy to be safer (it’s already very safe) we need to be replacing those plants with the new designs. But if the technology is a safe as has been demonstrated why not double or triple the number of nuclear power plants. If you are concerned about climate change isn’t that the logical way to go?
That’s the surprising conclusion that this recent episode of Nova comes to:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/t.....ption.html