• 0 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 8 个月前
cake
Cake day: 2024年10月29日

help-circle

  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzAnon questions our energy sector
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    8 个月前

    Notice how pro-nuclear people always point towards a bunch of fictional technology as the solution? Oh, we just need fusion, or breeder reactors, or a bunch of other shit that doesn’t exist. No, bro, we just need to build renewables and proper energy grids. It’s really not that complicated. If it’s not sunny where you live, then you just get electricity from where it is sunny. It’s really really simple

    Nuclear energy is a solution looking for a problem. Total tech bro bullshit. Like crypto.




  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzAnon questions our energy sector
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 个月前

    I can’t, sorry - I blocked him for being a pro-nuclear shill. Rather than link to a specific study, because there are dozens at this point, I’ll instead just link you to a Wikipedia article that has plenty of references for you to explore - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

    If you want to find studies, you can find them - there are actually quite a lot of 100% renewable energy feasibility studies that all seem to come to the conclusion that 100% renewable energy economy is completely achievable and viable with current technology. Many of them consider nuclear power to be a fossil fuel.

    Ask a pro-nuclear guy to provide any source that doesn’t come from somewhere funded by the nuclear lobby and watch as they flail around ineffectually and then link you to some pro-nuclear lobby group anyways. It’s quite funny




  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzAnon questions our energy sector
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    8 个月前

    There is a huge lobby of pro-nuclear think tanks who try to astroturf pro-nuclear shit onto social media. We, scientifically literate, rational people, need to counteract these harmful narratives with some facts.

    FACT: Renewable sources of energy are as cheap or cheaper per kwh than nuclear.

    FACT: Renewables are faster to provision than nuclear.

    FACT: Renewables are as clean, or cleaner, than nuclear.

    FACT: Renewables are much more flexible and responsive to energy fluctuations than nuclear.

    FACT: Renewables will only get cheaper. Nuclear will only get more expensive, because uranium mining will get harder and harder as we deplete easily accessible sources.




  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzAnon questions our energy sector
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    8 个月前

    When energy storage and transmission methods are also not up to the task, nuclear becomes the best answer.

    Obviously, the best answer is to improve energy storage and transmission infrastructure. Why would we waste hundreds of millions on a stupid toy power plant when we could spend 10% of that money on just running decent underground cables.







  • If you want to stop climate change, the only thing we can that has any hope of working is a peaceful revolution.

    To start with, join a union or learn how to unionise your workplace. If you can, look into setting up co-operatives. The IWW has some great resources. Anyone can start a union, you don’t need any sort of special qualifications or knowledge. Join the IWW, they have some great free trainings you can join to learn how to make real change at your workplace.

    Once enough people are unionised, we can start building a coalition of unions, all of which can work together to tackle larger and larger issues. If we have strong union efforts in each industry then we can protect the working class against the negative effects of striking - for example, if there are unions in the food production industry, then people striking don’t need to worry about going hungry.

    This is how a true people’s revolution happens. With the least amount of violence possible, a bottom-up, people-led movement.

    If you believe in this in any way, please, join the IWW. I know it seems like a long journey, but it begins with a single step, and that single step is joining the IWW.


  • I’m not sure I really understand who you’re referring to when you write “OP”, but either way, I think that that with the additional context I explained above, the comment reply of “women do not exist for you to have sex” is quite understandable - I personally don’t feel that it is fair to describe it as a non-sequitur.

    Honestly, I find it kind of weird that the top level comment (as written by Lightor) is more about how the movement would affect him, and I think that it probably demonstrates that he isn’t really the ally he seems to think he is. In my opinion, if he really was “one of the good guys”, he wouldn’t have written his comment the way he did.

    Anyways, I think I’ve said all I have to say - thanks again for the respectful conversation, and I hope you have a great day, much love and solidarity!


  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneepic ratio rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 个月前

    Again, I totally get your point, and I think it’s a worthwhile conversation to have, but that’s not really what I’m here to talk about - I’m just trying to explain what happened in the comment thread, why people got upset, and how we can avoid that so that we can have open and productive conversations about these really sensitive topics without upsetting people.

    The reality is that women so often have to deal with men trying to control their sexuality, so when we’re talking about these topics in good faith, we really need to be extra cautious that we’re handling these topics delicately and respectfully.


  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneepic ratio rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 个月前

    Thanks again for the reply - I think I understand your point, which I think is genuinely interesting and worthy of discussion, but there is just something about the phrasing that feels off to me, and just to be clear, I’m sure it’s unintentional. I’m sure we can both agree that we would always want to make everyone feel safe, respected and valued, but sometimes we can accidentally say (or write) things in a way that come across in a way that we don’t intend.

    In my opinion, talking about women ‘withholding’ sex as a ‘punishment’ implies a certain level of expectation or entitlement, like men are entitled to have sex with women and if they don’t have sex then they’re punishing men. This is something that I think a lot of us sort of struggle to recognise as harmful, because we all are human and we know that we all have a need for sex, both men and women - but historically, this kind of framing, that men are entitled to sex with women. has been used to excuse violent sexual crimes

    There’s totally a valid conversation to be had about how effective this movement could be, but I think that it’s really important that men like myself need to start from a place of recognising that our behaviour can be really hurtful to women, even when we don’t intend it to be, and that we listen to them when they tell us that we can make really simple small changes to protect their humanity, make them feel safe and valued, and recognise the part that we all play - consciously and unconsciously - in the system that has mistreated women for longer than we can possibly fathom.