Nuclear restrictions were instituted by beurocratic means, not democratic means.

It depends on the country. In many, there were actual rounds of dedicated votes.

In Austria we put it to a vote. Right after building the first fission plant. We never switched it on after a narrow defeat. At least in our narrow case, the restrictions were exclusively democratic.

Yes and who made up these bureaucrats and what regulations are they following? Who wrote those regulations? Who advocated for them? Who voted for them into law?

Sorry but we still live in a democratic society, as much as Sam Altman would convince you otherwise. The buck stops at failing to convince those we entrust with power to make pro-nuclear regulations.

Learn to organize better or continue failing at influencing society.

It’s 10x easier to destroy things and block stuff than it is to build anything.

As witnessed by the US inability to build anything for a generation or two. It’s all NIMBY (or worse) all the time.

Anti-anything is fighting a nearly unwinnable asymmetric political fight these days. Eventually times will get hard enough where this flips, but we are nowhere close to that yet.

> people who don't agree with you to do things.

the problem is that those people who don't agree with me are also not taking the externalized cost of non-action.

That's fine but as someone whose side hobby is literally politics, it's not hard to convince people that disagree with you to join your side. This is what organizing is, please note I am not talking about discussing things online (advocacy). Online advocacy is by far the worse form of politics, albeit the most popular, where you will rarely, if ever, convince anyone of anything.

You're going to have to go out and speak with people that disagree with you person to person to try to convince them to join your cause.

If you can't do this, you won't succeed.