Well said. I think you’re right. Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 12, 2022, at 09:14, Chris Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Agreed. > > Data change. Knowledge is gained. To be frozen in an I-will-never-flip-flop > position is dangerous, on multiple levels. > > My current changing perspective, due to the morphing of a virus and our > collective knowledge-gain of the last couple of years, is that COVID is > something we need to learn to accept as part of the long-term future. > Attempts to banish it forever through draconian lockdowns are not going to > work. I agree with the earlier lockdown strategies, but now that we have > vaccines and hopeful antiviral drugs, I think that it is time to figure out > how to live with the virus as we have learned to live with the flu and colds. > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Centroids > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:32 AM > To: Centroids Discussions <[email protected]> > Subject: [RC] The fun way to create a civil society > > > > Fall in love with the thrill of accepting the better argument – in contrast > to mere social pressure – and you'll help pave the path to that better world. > Not through grand solutions, but through better trade offs. > > > > The thrill of changing your mind > https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-thrill-of-changing-your-mind-88ff9063 > (via Instapaper) > > I've changed my mind on a lot of topics over the last few years, and it's > frankly been exhilarating. Especially if the topic had been one left > unquestioned for a long time. To me, it feels similar to the rush of solving > a hard problem. When the pieces suddenly fit into place, and an elegant > solution emerges, you can't help but smile. > > Take nuclear power. I vividly remember the stickers from the 80s opposing it. > Even looking them today, it brings warm and fuzzy memories. Together with > that era's activism, like the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior. And fundraising as > a kid for the Brazilian rain forest. > > Further more, it seemed like a settled question: The future of energy is wind > and solar! Of course it is. Renewables with no downsides, right? Wrong. > Michael Shellenberger's exposition of energy sources in Apocalypse Never was > as argumentatively piercing as it was intellectually compelling. It goes > something like this: > > Wind and solar are unreliable sources of energy. The sun doesn't always > shine, the wind doesn't always blow. But electrical grids need dependable > sources of power to perform reliably and cheaply. > Batteries can't solve the problem at scale. The sheer footprint needed to > bridge the gap in production from renewables is enormous and unrealistic with > present-day technology. > When wind and solar fails to deliver the power needed, you need on-demand > backup sources. Most of these sources today are extra dirty emitters like > coal power plants. > Thus, if you over-invest in wind and solar, you may end up with a power grid > that's simultaneously expensive, unreliable, dirty, and without sovereignty. > The case study is Germany, which is now at the mercy of Russian natural gas, > after spending billions over the years chasing wind and solar. > Besides, wind in particular is not without its own ecological drawbacks. Wind > parks can wreck havoc on the migration paths of certain bird species. They > take up a lot of space. (And they're a blight for the people who have to live > right next to them.) Solar has a serious waste problem. Panels recycle > poorly, are full of toxic materials, and often end up in 3rd world landfills. > That doesn't mean wind and solar can't be or shouldn't be part of the answer > for dealing with climate change. But it does mean that betting on them > exclusively is a bad idea. And that their use is not without its own problems. > > Enter nuclear power. An energy source that also emits no earth-heating > gasses, provides an abundance of predictable power, and has done so for > decades. Countries like France already get 70% of their power from nuclear. > The nuclear waste generated can be stored on-site, and the waste needed for a > single person's lifetime energy consumption can fit in a coke can. > > But what about Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? Fukushima? Shellenberger > examines all these well-known accidents in detail, and compellingly concludes > that the total number of deaths associated is but a pittance compared to all > these other energy sources we're using on the daily. Their impact has largely > been drawn from the spectacle of disaster. And as a result been massively > overstated (even if the consequences are very real). > > It's that contrast I found particularly compelling. That when we weigh the > trade offs objectively, nuclear emerges as shining star. Not because there > are no risks, but because they are far less than the alternatives. Like > comparing flying and driving. Flying is much safer, but when a plane goes > down, it's world news, and it freaks some people out. Meanwhile, 35,000 died > in car accidents in the US last year. Few people fret about that. > > It seems that Shellenberger isn't the only one coming to this conclusion. > That nuclear power appears to be one of our very best chances at countering > climate change, and the historical opposition from environmentalists now > looks like a catastrophic error in hindsight. The EU just announced that > nuclear can be counted as a green energy source going forward, which means > its expanded use can be used to fulfill the international pledges for > transitioning off green-house gas emitting energy sources. Nice. > > But this goes further than just nuclear. To make progress on a range of > topics, we have to be able to change our minds. To revisit our assumptions > when the data changes or when a new way of looking at it emerges. This is > true whether we talk about energy, vaccines, economics, or politics in > general. Fall in love with the thrill of accepting the better argument – in > contrast to mere social pressure – and you'll help pave the path to that > better world. Not through grand solutions, but through better trade offs. > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/66EF895C-642A-42BE-893F-4BD84F4A4C7B%40radicalcentrism.org. > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/000001d807d7%24ce65f0e0%246b31d2a0%24%402chahn.com. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/6DBC4A2E-D4BF-4023-95F6-C60DE06307F8%40radicalcentrism.org.
