I remember an essay I read a long time ago, written by a PhD academic questioning the ethics of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. One of the issues studied in that essay was the increase of the demand in energy relative to the industrial development, relative to the potential hazard of an accident.
So, in 1910, the biggest industrial accident could cause, let's say, 10,000 acres of land to become uninhabitable. Accordingly, in 1940 an equivalent accident could cause 100,000 acres to become uninhabitable, in 1985 the area would increase to over 500,000 acres, in 2011 in a few million acres. The point is that I wouldn't moor my Vermaas on the Dai Ichi dock for a few thousand years from now, Plutonium sucks.
Apart from those major industrial accidents there are the more moderate ones which wouldn't probably cause the land to become totally uninhabitable, although they would very likely spread misery, and economic devastation to the loveliest landscapes of the globe.
Sometimes I stand on the deck of my Vermaas, playing squash table tennis and thinking that this planet cant really stand much more than 7 billion carnivore homos on its surface. And then I keep on playing squash.
60% of the agricultural commodities produced annually are consumed by livestock meant to be slaughtered and then chewed. Calculate for yourself the energy demand that this production requires and then, easily, measure your personal "reason coefficient" as a homo. And then I sail my sweet Vermaas to the next port of call.
