Damn right, I do.Marvell wrote:For an atheist, you have a pretty faith-based take on this
I have faith in human ingenuity when it comes to problem-solving. How does that clash with my atheism?
I disagree.Marvell wrote:...one that I'm not sure the historical record substantiates.
Civilizations come and go, but progress has never ceased, and in fact seems to be growing at an ever-more-rapid rate. And I mean that in the most general terms: Progress in science and technology, progress in human rights, progress in overall living conditions.
Valuable lessons, indeed. But I'm not entirely sure that, say, the fall of the Roman Empire is particularly analogous to the inevitable fall of the United States of America. Countries and empires no longer exist as isolated pockets in a hard-to-traverse world. I have no faith that the U.S. can continue indefinitely (although I think predictions of its demise anytime soon are unlikely to come true), but I have great faith that human civilization will, far, far into the future. And as I said above, progress has continued unabated since the dawn of civilization. I cannot imagine a scenario where the collapse of a single country spells doom to worldwide progress.Marvell wrote:See, for instance, the retrograde motion of civilization / technology that accompanied the collapse of pretty much every society that ever existed.
Not sure what I can do about that.Marvell wrote:And I both dispute and resent the implication that someone being skeptical about a plan based on 'future generations of clever engineers' is 'not looking at the big picture.'
What can I say? I'm an optimist when it comes to human ingenuity. And I base that optimism on my belief that in general, more people are better off today than at any other time in history.
Again: Our waste storage facilities are already overflowing. Some of them do pose potential threats to safety. Perhaps it was immoral and short-sighted to produce this waste in the first place, but it's kinda irrelevant now isn't it? I've already said I no longer advocate for more nuclear power until we figure this shit out, but I see no way around the idea that those who opposed Yucca Mountain were shortsighted. I can see fighting for a better solution once we've solved our short-term crisis (and yes, I think it's a crisis) -- and that's the big picture I'm talking about. Yucca Mountain may not have been safe enough forever and ever, but it sure-as-shit would have been safer than what we're currently doing, which is essentially nothing.