I’d like to thank Sovietologist for bringing to my attention this article about how “nuclear is not necessary” if we as humans completely restructure our society into one based on local economics, simpler technologies and a general move toward more modest, subsistence living which does not rely on large amounts of energy. This is one of the final arguments of the “Green” side, after having seen that nuclear energy is capable of filling human needs for energy and doing so safely and economically the new argument is “Well lets get rid of our need for energy and then we don’t even need to worry about nuclear because we won’t need it.” Of course this is fantasy and this continued idiocy is getting more laughable all the time. It sounds strangely familiar to me.
Here’s little taste of the stupid…
Other environmental activists arenâ€™t so sure. They say that long-term sustainability â€“ a vision that doesnâ€™t include radioactive waste stored for hundreds of generations â€“ will require some deeper changes. If we want to preserve the climate without relying on atomic energy, we will need to re-think many of lifestyle assumptions â€“ our modes of transportation, our ways of eating, the size of our houses, and the generation and distribution of our energy.
Energy Justice Network organizer Reitman agrees. â€œI think we are going to have to face some kind of cultural shift,â€� he says. â€œI think the culture we have created for ourselves, a society based on a lot of excess and consumerism, really has let a lot of people down. I think the prospect of getting together in a serious way as a country [to stop climate change] is a great opportunity to get back to the roots of what it means to be an American, which is to be neighborly. Itâ€™s a great way to re-energize our culture, as well as our economy and our power grid.â€�
That kind of vision makes nuclear power irrelevant. If we can reach a societal consensus that what we desire is a slower and smaller way of living, a re-conceived notion of success, then we can fundamentally reformulate our energy system. In any discussion involving a redefinition of â€œprogress,â€� nuclear power is not simply dangerous or dirty â€“ itâ€™s pointless. Thatâ€™s a conversation the nuclear industry is unlikely to win.
â€œIf weâ€™re going to make it safely into the future,â€� Taylor says, â€œwe want to reclaim the vision of energy production and of an economy that is primarily rooted locally….
So what we have here is basically “Okay so the problem really isn’t nuclear energy it’s the fact that our society depends too much on energy and technology and big houses and all that other evil stuff so we need to eliminate that and then nuclear won’t be necessary and neither will big coal plants or any other major pollution.” Aside from reducing millennium of human progress to a return to mud huts, this reminds me a real lot of some stuff I heard back in the 1990′s from someone else. To his credit he did demonstrate that it is possible to live a rather simple life in a cabin. Here’s some of what he had to say:
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the break-down of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down.
I would suggest taking a look at Mr Kaczynski’s “manifesto” which is surprisingly similar in theme to the arguments of the “Green” and “Environmental” groups. Actually, to the point of being scary. He didn’t do as well in getting a following, however. Not having a major PR outfit he resorted to blowing people up, which garnered about as much respect and following as it should. Too bad people don’t see through groups like Greenpeace as easily.
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 am and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, History, Nuclear, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions