| mrstickball said: I was actually thinking about the similarity of this with the activists in America that hate nuclear power, despite the fact it's one of the most environmentally-friendly power sources available. My point is that many of these activists will oppose something not based on logic, but merely on passion. |
Can't argue with that. Logic doesn't motivate like passion does. Environmentalists, animal rights activists, tea-baggers... they all have some valid points to make, but reason and compromise take a back seat because it's the simplicity of strident radicalism that grabs headlines and puts boots on the protest line.
I wonder which is a bigger factor in turning people away from the process: The tedium of a reasoned debate or the divisiveness of a radical shouting match. Seems like there's no way to win there.
@ JaggedSac
If you accept the idea of anthropogenic global warming, the risk of a couple Chernobyls pales in comparison to the risk of worldwide climate change. The idea of civilization giving up on cheap energy altogether just isn't going to happen at this point, so I'll take the one that doesn't have a chance of provoking a global mass extinction event or massive starvation and geopolitical unrest. Nuclear might not be the best solution, but it's a compromise that reduces risks and I don't think stalling for a better deal is pragmatic.
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
