News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected by Goety on Sunday October 31, 2021 @11:30AM (#29057668)
>Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish.

Energy is needed for basic modern services.

Humans have survived a long time without electricity. It could be simpler to 'go without' or 'find a workaround' for a lot of conveniences if we were serious at combating climate change.

Re:All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected by nitrogen on Sunday October 31, 2021 @01:02PM (#29058394)
Not for eight billion people. Just look at what happens when we stop loading trucks for a little while. Now imagine if you expanded all that "going without" to everything that uses energy. You'd have days at most before mass chaos.
Re:All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected by Goety on Sunday October 31, 2021 @04:48PM (#29060274)
Can we engineer a human backbone behind these services to be resistant to corruption and complacency for security sake?

We did an ok job with nuclear weapons but only just.

Re:All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected by enaaem on Sunday October 31, 2021 @05:57PM (#29060841)
Before electricity we would burn wood to not die in winter. We don’t have any forests left to do that.
Re:All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected by adrianN on Monday November 01, 2021 @01:42PM (#29070156)
Luckily nowadays we have clean sources of energy, so there is no need to go back to burning wood.
Re:All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected by varajelle on Sunday October 31, 2021 @03:16PM (#29059505)
In what condition? Without the energy of the fossil fuel, lots of the energy came from human labor. Without it, we wouldn't have gotten rid of slavery. Most people were doing a manual labor, which is also more discriminatory to the weaker ones (e.g. woman)

So your just suggesting we go back to the middle ages? No, thank you.

Re:All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected by Goety on Sunday October 31, 2021 @04:10PM (#29059952)
>In what condition?

Well that's the question right? Without nuclear there may not be a middle ground as an option for a lot of people.

>So your just suggesting we go back to the middle ages? No, thank you.

I'm not suggesting anything, simply declaring it an option.