Well you have to be full of the exact right kind of BS, with lightly understated confidence, and mostly certainty about what your social-peers proper place in society is.
Visiting the US from Europe in 1986 for the first time, it felt like a vibrant place, well ahead. New York was amazing.
In 2006 I was shocked when visiting family on the east coast to hear that acquaintances there expected me to obviously want to immigrate, get a green card, etc.
At the time the US from my POV was already an extremely iffy broken place.
In 2016, and that is, before the elections, nobody was assuming this anymore.
It takes 6 minutes for a fighter jet to cross the whole of the longest possible stretch of Swiss territory. How many defense missiles for the price of one F35?
Well no, building a dam fully destroys a valley's ecosystem. A point of comparison: Chernobyl also has a new ecosystem around it, where re-adaptation has occurred. We know the radioactivity is too high around it for a 21st century's human lifespan of ~80 years.
Boars and birds are having a ball. Does it not follow that your accepting the environmental damage from a dam means also that you accept the environmental damage from an early generation fission clusterfuck?
Very informative thank you. From this rebuttal I see that the movie probably packages true information, some of it outdated, in a provocative way.
The only fully scientific rebuttal is to run the experiment: run the whole economy without fossil fuels or nuclear, and see how much it looks like the middle-ages, how much it looks like utopia. My guess is 80/20 on the middle-ages side, but who know.