Architectural Upgrade 2026-03-30: Modular Emacs, org-gtd v4.0, and PSF Phase 1

notes/2009-09-25-nuclear-argument.org

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:ID: 6b99a749-f954-422b-9cb9-73b9dcd0b1d3
+:CREATED: [2009-09-25 Fri 18:43]
+:MODIFIED: [2009-09-25 Fri 18:55]
+:IMPORTED: [2023-02-08 Wed 19:22]
+:END:
+#+title: Nuclear argument
+
+Alright, my usual rant about nuclear power/arms. Any reasonable person for nukes needs to argue for the following:
+
+1. Earth has enough nuclear fuel to upscale production to good percentage of world consumption, that we won't burn all fuel in a few years and have to go back to fossil and renewables
+
+2. Nuclear power is cheaper than mass scale renewables, even discounting nuclear environmental cost. Trends: Which energies are growing cheaper, and which more expensive?
+
+3. That it is better if we destroy the entire world that if they do. Nuclear war damage is the only thing to outlast a 370 ppm Climate Change damage
+
+4. That's no argument for proliferation. Math proves nuclear weapons encourage their use. Is better if 'we' destroy the entire world that if they do (Do not count me in)
+
+Some sense of scale and urgency as well: Nuclear war damage is the only thing to outlast a 370 ppm Climate Change damage