Technology is a tool not without consequence, something scientists don't understand but engineers do
@lunarised Seems climate scientists understand very well, but are ignored. Wonder why the focus on scientists and engineers, maybe you want to talk about some aspect i didn't get from the toot?
@lunarised Ah, more of a "can know" thing: engineers work with established technology, scientists also bring upon new technology. So it's not a failing of scientists, but the nature of things.
Yeah, that is another aspect, glad i asked.
@lunarised Hmm. With irresponsible use of new technology widespread, one could argue that nothing new should be made, since humanity is not mature enough to handle it. But that makes no sense as long as the immature entity has no mature entity to parent.
I think my point is it's a process that is inevitable
Physicist discovers something seemingly new but a bit useless
Chemist finds a niche use
Engineer builds something productive for society
Powers that be coerce engineers to build morally bad thing
It's unfortunately a thing where the only time you realize the danger in a technology, it's too late not to weaponise it
@lunarised What i had been holding back is the emphasis on the last line, but now that you brought it up... "powers that be" are more dangerous to us than any technology.
I think it becomes obvious with fossil fuel usage: people are often positive about adapting alternatives, but it is not something individuals can do well. A concentration of power is displaying its reluctance to do what is known to be necessary for humanitys survival. The technology would not have been a problem, had it been abandoned when the dangers became clear and alternatives were feasible.
I make no secret that I hate nuclear power. Its very clean in some manners, but also creates pretty bad byproducts.
If we all swapped to more renewable sources 10 years ago, it'd all be good, but the upfront cost to switch, both monetary and labor-migratory will always put it off. Only when maintaining a plant costs more than shutting it down and making renewables, will we see a shift.
Governments need to incentivise green energy and stop with the EV shit as a "we care and are trying gesture"
@lunarised Well, nuclear is problematic in multiple ways, and since wind/solar seem pretty practical, it would be irresponsible to use it now. The waste that we find no way to deal with, the security concerns that are neglected... not to speak about nuclear weapons. And i hear it is pretty expensive per power generated.
But what i am doubting is that it is the cost of switching. As far as i understand, it is that fossil power infrastructure can net more profits to owners, and switching would prevent them from milking what they already have. So it is important to distinguish between cost to humanity and loss of profits for some few. Not to forget the externalization of costs, as the masses usually suffer more from the ecological damage than the owners.
I generally think oppression (sometimes indirectly and hard to see) is more of an issue than the technology itself.
