[13thLetter]

"Several. Just to be clear, I'm not simply holding nuclear to this standard.

Population, energy systems, resource utilisation, topsoil and water use, environmental contamination."

Okay, I apologize for being a bit unfair. That being said...

You can't optimize all those things at the same time. If you're concerned about carbon dioxide emissions from power generation leading to the most catastrophic possible greenhouse effect, that's far more damaging than a small amount of nuclear waste buried in a mountain somewhere, and the possibility that some small number of people in a nation or culture that doesn't even exist today may be foolish enough to dig it up a thousand years from now. Such a tradeoff would be well worth it -- even to those folks a thousand years from now, because a modern-day Earth that doesn't have to deal with an environmental catastrophe is going to be wealthier and better-ordered a thousand years from now than one that does.

[dredmorbius]

You can't optimize all those things at the same time.

Also to be clear: I see total throughput, itself a function of population and affluence, as the fundamental challenge. It's not a question of optimisation, but of living within the possibility envelope.

And the harder you push up against that envelope the greater your systemic risk.

There are also nonsystemic risks: asteroid impact, nearby supernova or gamma-ray burst, etc. But as I see it now, the biggest risks humans face are systemic and self-induced.

As my earlier nuclear comments have made clear: I'm not anti nuke, but I see substantial problems, enough to wonder if they're worth the trouble.