The whole rise of Lego creepsters and now it is an actual subject in higher education. Plastic, fixed, and you can't build anything using any other material. Game theory exactly the same. They set the the limits, provide the sad little tools you get to use and it is all just like the recycling circle they show you, the WEF circle, so many of these PR images are circular and no off ramps for thinking outside their box.
Hi NoName, I just read your original comment that was sent to my email before the edits. Very interesting points you are making, I can email you directly to talk more about it or just write my thoughts here. As for this docu series, we are not trying to promote nuclear energy above all other energy sources. Natural gas is most definitely the best source of energy for most countries in the world, and will be for the next few decades. The reason being is that nuclear takes longer to build but once online will supply reliable energy for many decades. So we are pro natural gas and I will take what you said under consideration when working on the last video of this series to make that point more clear.
As for nuclear, you mentioning that you worked in the energy sector, I would think that how things were handled and dealt with in the west concerning nuclear was clearly to scale down to 0 and never allow it to succeed, a decision that was made decades ago. So the way the nuclear sector has been handled in the west is by no means a role model of how it should and could be handled by those who do not actually wish to sabotage nuclear energy. In fact there is evidence that the three mile island nuclear disaster was due to sabotage. https://spacecommune.substack.com/p/was-three-mile-island-an-inside-job
There is also the game changer of nuclear fusion. I would agree that this might seem far fetched if we only had the west to rely upon for this (who have not been friendly to nuclear energy for decades) but we do see China most notably working to make this a reality. I think that that is why there is also a bit of a scramble right now in turning their narrative around on nuclear, hence the U2 change of signaling (btw I agree with you that they are a Tavistockian product). This is all due to competition with China. The original plan was for them to scale down and have energy societal classes but this has been hit by the fact that they cannot have their envisioned HG Wellsian utopia of a scientific caste system while China is also at the forefront of making nuclear fusion possible which is going to create such a scientific boom that there is no putting that genie back in the bottle.
As for your points on the water boiling around nuclear plants and fish dying and that there is not way to decommission them, if you could send me some material on this I will look into it and get back to you. From my understanding, and I have talked to people who work in the nuclear sector, there are no major setbacks to nuclear energy if the nuclear plant is managed responsibly. Lastly, if you have material I can look at for what you were referencing to Microsoft and about the British role in screwing over France's nuclear sector, I would be interested to read more on this. I would not be surprised if that is the case concerning Britain. But keep in mind, that with any energy source that will be heavily relied upon, including natural gas, there is always a certain vulnerability to sabotage. All we have to do is remind ourselves of Nord Stream 2. Unfortunately it appears security has to go along with these relied upon energy sources, and pipelines are much more challenging to provide security for.
So again, to summarise, I am most certainly pro-natural gas and agree with you that presently this is the best energy source we have available in the quantities we need in the world. And we should never do away with these energy sources, including oil in my opinion. I think every country would be smart to rely on not just one energy source, if possible, and different energy sources have different benefits for different uses. I again will make this more clear in the last video of this series. However, as for the projects that will require massive energy input, including industrialisation, nuclear fission energy is the best, and nuclear fusion will have truly nothing that compares with it when it is online. Nuclear energy is essential for city building. There are also small nuclear reactors that are available that can power a large building for instance, though, I am not sure how great of an idea it is, it is true that it will rely less on centralisation but there are pros and cons to that. I think the cons are higher.
I hope that clarifies our position more clearly and I do look forward to you sending me some reading material on the subjects you mentioned in your original message. If you would like to continue this discussion via email just let me know and I will contact you.
Thanks NoName for your thoughtful response. It is really unfortunate how much we have to be guarded, that a good idea is not misused in the wrong hands which applies to almost everything that has potential for significant change. Your points on having a sector over-reliant on electric vs a combination of electric and gas is very interesting and I will think more about this question. Thanks for the resources you have included in this, I will most definitely look into this before working on anything for the docu series. It is always good to hear from the audience as we work on these sort of projects so that we address everything as responsibly and as clearly as we can since we are by no means specialists in any field that we are discussing, so constructive input is always welcome. And no worries NoName, I did not interpret your response as trying to hinder anything. We do unfortunately live in a world where anything that offers a large potential for the good can always be abused towards something oppressive. So it is good to be aware of these avenues for abuse most certainly.
The whole rise of Lego creepsters and now it is an actual subject in higher education. Plastic, fixed, and you can't build anything using any other material. Game theory exactly the same. They set the the limits, provide the sad little tools you get to use and it is all just like the recycling circle they show you, the WEF circle, so many of these PR images are circular and no off ramps for thinking outside their box.
looks awesome…….. or is it frightening?
Hi NoName, I just read your original comment that was sent to my email before the edits. Very interesting points you are making, I can email you directly to talk more about it or just write my thoughts here. As for this docu series, we are not trying to promote nuclear energy above all other energy sources. Natural gas is most definitely the best source of energy for most countries in the world, and will be for the next few decades. The reason being is that nuclear takes longer to build but once online will supply reliable energy for many decades. So we are pro natural gas and I will take what you said under consideration when working on the last video of this series to make that point more clear.
As for nuclear, you mentioning that you worked in the energy sector, I would think that how things were handled and dealt with in the west concerning nuclear was clearly to scale down to 0 and never allow it to succeed, a decision that was made decades ago. So the way the nuclear sector has been handled in the west is by no means a role model of how it should and could be handled by those who do not actually wish to sabotage nuclear energy. In fact there is evidence that the three mile island nuclear disaster was due to sabotage. https://spacecommune.substack.com/p/was-three-mile-island-an-inside-job
There is also the game changer of nuclear fusion. I would agree that this might seem far fetched if we only had the west to rely upon for this (who have not been friendly to nuclear energy for decades) but we do see China most notably working to make this a reality. I think that that is why there is also a bit of a scramble right now in turning their narrative around on nuclear, hence the U2 change of signaling (btw I agree with you that they are a Tavistockian product). This is all due to competition with China. The original plan was for them to scale down and have energy societal classes but this has been hit by the fact that they cannot have their envisioned HG Wellsian utopia of a scientific caste system while China is also at the forefront of making nuclear fusion possible which is going to create such a scientific boom that there is no putting that genie back in the bottle.
As for your points on the water boiling around nuclear plants and fish dying and that there is not way to decommission them, if you could send me some material on this I will look into it and get back to you. From my understanding, and I have talked to people who work in the nuclear sector, there are no major setbacks to nuclear energy if the nuclear plant is managed responsibly. Lastly, if you have material I can look at for what you were referencing to Microsoft and about the British role in screwing over France's nuclear sector, I would be interested to read more on this. I would not be surprised if that is the case concerning Britain. But keep in mind, that with any energy source that will be heavily relied upon, including natural gas, there is always a certain vulnerability to sabotage. All we have to do is remind ourselves of Nord Stream 2. Unfortunately it appears security has to go along with these relied upon energy sources, and pipelines are much more challenging to provide security for.
So again, to summarise, I am most certainly pro-natural gas and agree with you that presently this is the best energy source we have available in the quantities we need in the world. And we should never do away with these energy sources, including oil in my opinion. I think every country would be smart to rely on not just one energy source, if possible, and different energy sources have different benefits for different uses. I again will make this more clear in the last video of this series. However, as for the projects that will require massive energy input, including industrialisation, nuclear fission energy is the best, and nuclear fusion will have truly nothing that compares with it when it is online. Nuclear energy is essential for city building. There are also small nuclear reactors that are available that can power a large building for instance, though, I am not sure how great of an idea it is, it is true that it will rely less on centralisation but there are pros and cons to that. I think the cons are higher.
I hope that clarifies our position more clearly and I do look forward to you sending me some reading material on the subjects you mentioned in your original message. If you would like to continue this discussion via email just let me know and I will contact you.
Thanks NoName for your thoughtful response. It is really unfortunate how much we have to be guarded, that a good idea is not misused in the wrong hands which applies to almost everything that has potential for significant change. Your points on having a sector over-reliant on electric vs a combination of electric and gas is very interesting and I will think more about this question. Thanks for the resources you have included in this, I will most definitely look into this before working on anything for the docu series. It is always good to hear from the audience as we work on these sort of projects so that we address everything as responsibly and as clearly as we can since we are by no means specialists in any field that we are discussing, so constructive input is always welcome. And no worries NoName, I did not interpret your response as trying to hinder anything. We do unfortunately live in a world where anything that offers a large potential for the good can always be abused towards something oppressive. So it is good to be aware of these avenues for abuse most certainly.