schabaschablusa

I'm from Germany. We have elections coming up and there is not a single party for expanding nuclear energy. Probably the sentiment in the general public is too much anti-nuclear that no politician wants to take the risk.

Also there are the following two scenarios

1. everything keeps going as it it, thousands on people will die due to effects of global warming (e.g. floods) but it's not directly seen as anybody's fault
2. the government builds nuclear plants, an accident happens and the government who made the decision is in deep shit

The likelihood of scenario 2 (nuclear catastrophe) is extremely low, however people absolutely will die if we keep on burning coal and dinosaur juice. But because of the responsibility problem we will never switch to nuclear.

The green party somehow seems to believe that everything will be fine as long as we go back to nature and that technology is somehow dangerous and harmful. The alternatives are conservative parties who think that everything should stay the way it is. Why is there no radical technocrat party?

Edit: Adding some more. It think the underlying psychological reason for this distorted risk perception is similar to why people believe that shark accidents are by far more likely than they actually are. If a nuclear plant explodes the news coverage is much higher compared to "yet another flood / wildfire / hurricane", therefore the risk is also perceived as much higher than appropriate.

Pols and bureaucrats are indeed worried about "concentrated blame" so it's much easier to allow for "diffused ruin".

Yes these are perfect words to describe what I mean. Preventive measures that come with inconvenience are hard to sell and when they pay off there is no gratitude.

try scihub

I read somewhere that the projected ocean collapse is around 2050, is that true?

First of all, I hope you recover soon!

My question: Are the hospitals already trying out drugs to treat COVID-19?