Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
...to change his or her mind on a subject so fraught with mysticism as energy is in our culture is a very worthy person, particularly if one is not a scientist.
I changed my mind more than thirty years ago, because the events at Chernobyl answered with finality - by an unfortunate and tragic experiment - what the worst case would be, and the worst case was nothing like what I had allowed myself to be trained to believe. To my mind, this demanded rethinking. The best case for dangerous fossil fuels is indescribably worse than the worst case for nuclear power. Hell, nuclear power isn't even as dangerous as the invention of the automobile was.
This said, my mind was far more flexible when I was younger, although it must be said that may have been a function of not knowing very much.
For the record, my oldest son is an artist, and also recently - somewhat to my surprise, - developing a strong interest in becoming a scientific autodidact and doing quite well at it. I'm rather impressed, in awe actually, at how hard artists work, as artists, with or without scientific knowledge, and how deep they go, and what they must know and feel to succeed. I am very proud of the fact that his recent work involves evocation of the dire state of our environment. I'm biased of course, but it strikes me as an important approach to seeing what's actually happening.
I've always loved art, but never understood exactly except in an abstract way how much effort and struggle went into it.
Your evocation of the guy in the Fiery Furnace struck me as a wonderful metaphor when I read it, worthy of someone with a well developed artistic sense.
Thanks again.
= new reply since forum marked as read
