The Economist has a new debate in which they believe that the world would be better off without Nuclear power.
For philosophical and economical reasons, I have denounced their position as inhuman and irrational. Here’s my comment and please share yours in this important debate.
Dear Sir,
«Ecology as a social principle… condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.» Ayn Rand
Nuclear energy, as a social principle, created the cleanest and most efficient source of energy that Humanity has ever seen. To deny the facts of reality is environmentalists’ first step to condemn Humanity to times of darkness and subanimal life.
Filed under: Ayn Rand, Cambio Climático, Capitalism, Ethics, History, Nanny State, Philosophy, Science | Tagged: anti-human, antihuman, cities, clean energy, cleanest energy, coal, culture, ecologists, ecology, efficient, Energy, energy sources, environment, Environmentalism, fossil, fossil fuels, fuel, fuels, Fukushima, Fukushima-shi, global warming, humanity, industry, inhuman, innovations, invents, Japan, Japón, life, nature, Nuclear, nuclear accident, nuclear accidents, nuclear power, petroleum, Plant, power, progress, radiation levels, radioactive, radioactive levels, Radioactive material, radioactive materials, radioactivity, subanimals, Technology, terremoto, The Economist, tsunami | 7 Comments »
Capitalismo 