Categories
Cattolicesimo Cristianesimo Italiano

Anti-evoluzionismo al Vaticano

Particolarmente a Roma , piu’ di un pensatore Cattolico rivela poca saggezza, tentando di screditare la Teoria dell’Evoluzione, poiche’ limiterebbe Dio “ad accendere la miccia del Big Bang” (“Evoluzione e Religione – in principio”, The Economist, 19 aprile).

Inoltre, se la selezione naturale procede secondo cambiamenti casuali, secondo alcuni perdiamo il ruolo “unico nel regno animale” per la specie umana, un ruolo particolarmente favorito dal papa Benedetto XVI.

In realta’, il problema dell'”accendere la miccia” è mal posto. Anche se l’universo è stato generato per seguire leggi naturali quale l’Evoluzione, c’è abbastanza incertezza quale per esempio nella fisica quantistica, da permettere al creatore di agire secondo il suo gradimento.

E riguardo al “ruolo unico dell’uomo”… piuttosto promuoverei più umilta’… che significato puo’ mai avere il a difendere la sua condizione quando la controparte e’… Dio??

Categories
Climate Change Energy English Environment Politics UK

Nuclear Warming

Is this what months and months of Global Warming scares by the UK government were all about: building up a consensus towards the re-establishment of nuclear power stations?

Tony Blair’s very last contribution to the future of Britain may as well be this 343-page Energy White Paper, with all its customary “public consultation” that will inevitably result in confirming what was already written in the white paper. Check in fact what happens when the consulted people don’t provide the “right” answer: the Governments marches on regardless.

I am quite skeptical on the feasibility of large-scale nuclear power generation, and even more so when it is blatantly advertised as a way out of purported CO2-related disasters.

Shortly: it is not clear where the uranium will come from and how long it will be available; nuclear power stations are not built in a day, a month or a year, so we’ll be lucky to see any of them providing power before the middle of next decade; sizable pieces of land will be out of reach and contaminated for centuries to come; costs are way too high (if one takes them all into consideration, and not just the marginal costs as in the usual propaganda); there is no clear plan on where to safely stock radioactive waste for thousands and thousands of years; and finally, it can all very easily become a gif waste of time and money: all it will take will be another nuclear accident, and the mood against uranium power will be on the up again.

Are we sure we want to risk all of that just to protect ourselves from CO2?