Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
I like Rubin Report. He's a centrist.
I've made it 2/3rds through the Epstein interview. He seems like an earnest young man that has been exposed to Ayn Rand. Someone needs to inform him about R. Buckminster Fuller's Anticipatory Design Science, his ground-breaking articles in 1940 Fortune magazine, his World Game, 'metaphysically engendered materials', and so on and so forth. His mind would be receptive. And blown.
OTOH he insists 'fossil' fuels are life-based. He admits methane in Saturn's rings, but neglects carbonaceous asteroids and deep, hot abiotic processes.
His 'anti-nuclear argument' is specious. Energy is consumed and it's gone, but radiation has a long tail. Nobody got time for that.
He's right about fossil fuels being our 'free' energy period. Fracking isn't progress, it's declining return.
No love for Moon (tidal) power?
|
I appreciate Rubin's approach to seed the conversation and just let the guest speak uninterrupted. I also appreciate that he can be strongly opposed to an idea while still valuing the person who holds them. I'm of a similar personality, where no topics are out of bounds, and nothing said can make me hate.
As stated elsewhere, modern nuclear reactors need not have "waste" that lasts thousands of years. It's still a true statement to say that nuclear produces more MWh of energy per human life than any other source.
Fracking is progress since it allows us to extract more energy than what is invested. Sure, it's more costly, but all advances have diminishing returns.
I'm as excited to move away from fossil fuels as anyone (I saved weeks worth of allowance to buy an $8 photovoltaic cell from Radio Shack to experiment with), but until better alternatives get us there, we should not loath our own existence for having benefited from them.
In my view, Epstein's most profound comment is the insane view some hold that the less human ingenuity in a product, the better it is for humanity.