@Zervo By high wages, I mean high wages for lower-skill jobs -- that is, restricting automation in such a manner that demand for labor is kept high enough to increase wages -- will help cushion the blow of a smaller workforce. As the workforce shrinks, one can automate slowly as a measure against runaway inflation. And of course, as we automate, we can reap the benefits of people being more geared towards non-menial and more creative/designing work.
I am a strong proponent of nuclear power as a baseload and renewables as competitors that can slowly replace it over time as they become baseload-applicable. I don't understand what environmentalists have against nuclear power. After all -- its a measure of the "least bad" option right now. Coal needs to be replaced NOW to fight global warming -- not later. Coal is used for baseload power, which solar/wind cannot reliably do. So it comes down to oil vs. natural gas vs. nuclear. The "free market" answer is natural gas, which is over 50% cleaner than coal -- but still not great. The best answer to preserve the environment is nuclear. The one we will get is oil -- because our multinational corporate rulers will make it so.
What makes me very nervous is countries like Germany ending their nuclear power programs and subsequently switching back to coal -- which, by the way, is both more radioactive and carcinogenic than uranium -- because fossil fuel industries have been waging a fearmongering campaign against nuclear since the 70's.
27
@Zervo By high wages, I mean high wages for lower-skill jobs -- that is, restricting automation in such a manner that demand for labor is kept high enough to increase wages -- will help cushion the blow of a smaller workforce. As the workforce shrinks, one can automate slowly as a measure against runaway inflation. And of course, as we automate, we can reap the benefits of people being more geared towards non-menial and more creative/designing work.
I am a strong proponent of nuclear power as a baseload and renewables as competitors that can slowly replace it over time as they become baseload-applicable. I don't understand what environmentalists have against nuclear power. After all -- its a measure of the "least bad" option right now. Coal needs to be replaced NOW to fight global warming -- not later. Coal is used for baseload power, which solar/wind cannot reliably do. So it comes down to oil vs. natural gas vs. nuclear. The "free market" answer is natural gas, which is over 50% cleaner than coal -- but still not great. The best answer to preserve the environment is nuclear. The one we will get is oil -- because our multinational corporate rulers will make it so.
What makes me very nervous is countries like Germany ending their nuclear power programs and subsequently switching back to coal -- which, by the way, is both more radioactive and carcinogenic than uranium -- because fossil fuel industries have been waging a fearmongering campaign against nuclear since the 70's.