Well, those deer and antelope, as you put it, and the bacteria and grasshoppers as well, are just as important as any and all humans. If you don't care whether you die tomorrow or next week, it doesn't matter much. Global climate change effects take place over decades. Nuclear screwups can mortally injure billions in a matter of days. If you truly don't care whether your offspring, and theirs, survive, then, perhaps it's worth the risk to you.

Nuclear plants can't be built to operate within tolerable limits of safety in the U.S. because of the culture of corruption. Elsewhere, well, maybe, but not here.

If you have two guys building something, it's possible, not certain, but possible, since they can watch one another, that it will be done properly. If you have 10 people working on a nuclear plant, it's nearly certain someone will screw up. If you have 100 people working on the plant, it's nearly certain someone will cut a corner somewhere that will cause, no, not MAY cause, but will, absolutely, cause a problem, in order to save a dime. No, not a dime per kWH, but a dime, total. If you have 10000 people working on the plant, it's a virtual certainty that someone will compromise the safety of the facility to save someone a few bucks and to secure a bribe or cover up his own error.

BTW, the only ones who need to be brainwashed are the ones who otherwise wouldn't use their brains for anything at all. They think that someone will clean up after them. Well, their Mom isn't going to do it anymore. Man passed the threshold at which nature can keep up some 100 years ago. A thinking man knows he has to clean up his own mess.


Perhaps, but MAN should make himself as invisible, retroactively to the discovery of fire, as possible.



That's complete nonsense! It applies only to cases where increased volume allows for increased economies of scale. Once the infrastructure is in place, power distribution costs are pretty well fixed and, if anything, an increase in volume costs the supplier more rather than less.

Further, electric power is a scarce commodity. Why would users willing to economize want to pay more than users not willing to do that? Why should the office building down the road, where they leave all the lights on at night and run the climate controls whether the building is occupied or not, pay less for power during peak hours while your power is turned off due to scarcity? That's what they do in CA during the summer.

XCEL Energy was, last year, pushing a contol system that allows them to turn off your AC so the buildings downtown can use theirs, even though their building occupancy is down to 10% after close of business. As a consequence, you get to come home, at 6 in the evening, to a house at 90+ degrees so the guys downtown who pay way less than half what you pay for your power can waste theirs.



The obvious solution to the problem of restoring the condition of the planet to a state prior to the existence of industrialized man, is to remove industrialized man and his activities. Better yet, of course, would be simply to remove MAN from the equation. MAN isn't willing to plan for the future, and he's not willing to suffer any inconvenience, no matter how small, e.g. saving a bit of money rather than going headlong into debt, in order to increase the survival chances of his offspring. You can't "let George do it" because there's no George who's willing, and there isn't going to be one that's capable. It's the old and and grasshopper thing again.

RE