Among the few absolute certainties confronting the human race is the growing need for energy. As the world's population approaches 7 billion, with no end in sight, it is perfectly obvious that mankind must find ways of generating more and more energy to fuel both human and technological growth.
In the 20th century, the solution to the problem was oil. Increasingly across the decades, it ran our cars, operated our factories and provided the motive power for all sorts of indispensable human activities. Today, a technologically sophisticated society would be unimaginable without it.
And yet, the world's supply of oil is far from unlimited. Already we are being forced to look ever further afield for it, and the cost of finding and exploiting new deposits of oil -- most recently, under the world's oceans -- is rising inexorably. It doesn't take a soothsayer to foresee that oil, as our principal energy resource, is a fast-diminishing asset.
What is the alternative? There are shockingly few. Mining and burning more coal obviously isn't the answer. Solar power is theoretically attractive, but harnessing it is technologically difficult and prohibitively expensive. Exotic alternatives like wind power are for all practical purposes out of the question.
Fortunately, there has been available for more than half a century a form of energy that is substantially infinite, ecologically inoffensive and readily available. It is nuclear power, and it is the obvious -- indeed, the only -- solution to mankind's problem of producing more energy.
It was nuclear power's misfortune to first be developed as a weapon -- the atomic bomb, which brought a swift end to World War II when two of them were dropped on Japan. The human race was taught to regard nuclear power as an evil -- indeed, a literally poisonous -- substance: tasteless, odorless, invisible, yet capable of condemning thousands of people to a painful death. The fact that it could easily be produced in facilities that were perfectly safe, and which could generate virtually limitless supplies of precious energy, was summarily disregarded. The human race, by and large, simply rejected nuclear power as an acceptable solution to the energy problem. (The environmentalists, of course, made matters infinitely worse by falsely depicting nuclear power as somehow inherently dangerous.)
The rejection was not total. France and Taiwan, two great economic powers that lack ready access to coal and oil, today depend on nuclear power for the vast majority of their energy needs. And nuclear power plants exist elsewhere in the world, including in the United States, although not nearly to the extent that economic common sense would prescribe.
William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and author of How to Win Arguments .
Be the first to read William Rusher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Josh Earnest: Democrats Might Not Be Doing Very Well Because Obama Hasn't Fundraised Enough | Katie Pavlich
DHS Issues New Travel Restrictions For Ebola Stricken Countries, Ban Still Off the Table | Katie Pavlich