Hmm:

A 1965 Harris poll showed 57 percent of Americans believed money would be better spent on a less literal moonshot: new water desalination systems. A few years later, in 1967, only 43 percent of the public supported landing a man on the moon, according to another Harris poll. It was popularly referred to as a “moondoggle.”

From “Bernie Sanders Would Have Voted Against the Moon Landing”

If you’re trying to promote progress and abundance, you need to figure out how. What’s the roadmap from here to utopia?

Sarah Constantin on her aims with her new blog: “In Search of Opportunity”

Tomas Puyeo on “Why Germany Won’t Keep Its Nuclear Plants Open”:

The document explaining Germany’s nuclear position reads as a long list of excuses of why it would be inconvenient to keep nuclear reactors open, forget about reopening old ones.

What is even more interesting is not what’s there, but what’s not there. This is not a cost-benefit analysis. It doesn’t explain the benefits of reopening the reactors, how much money would be saved, how much safer Germany would be, how much more it could defend its neighbors.

When you only pay attention to something’s costs, it means you simply don’t want to do it.

Nuclear going mainstream? https://​​twitter.com/​​CBSMornings/​​status/​​1516036558876553222

Experts and environmentalists say the U.S. will need to turn to nuclear power, which creates no planet-warming emissions, to replace fossil fuels.

“Nuclear power will be a reliable, stable fuel source for many, many years to come,” says one power company official.

This looks interesting: “Funding for long-term-oriented people and projects”

https://​​www.futurefundinglist.com