Susan, thank you so much for posting this and thanks to salyavin too for having 
some good discussion about it. I have been both anti nuclear and anti GMO but 
comments here are making me think, see another side of the issues, always a 
good process.

OTOH, there are as you say, terrible compromises to made. It's as if one option 
is 95% horrific and the other is 96% horrific. These are the kind of choices 
that gave executive monkeys ulcers in long ago research by Brady and Porter.

There are some in both spiritual and scientific communities who think that 
extinction of the human race is simply part of a larger cycle of evolution, a 
blip in the ever expanding universe. Humbling.  



________________________________
 From: Susan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: For Rick and others: Pro nuclear power documentary
 


  


--- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote:

> These pro nuclear environmentalists make me laugh, I think they
> come from a place where we absolutely *have* to keep consuming
> power at the insane rate we have for the last hundred years and
> that cutting back on consumption isn't a plausible option.

The docu mentions this problem.  It seems that the pro-nuclear 
environmentalists have become rather practical. First, they don't believe that 
cutting back is an option - that to think that our own Western populations will 
cut back is a pipe dream.  It might be smart and the right thing to do, but it 
won't happen.  And seond, for us to expect the developing nations to not have 
what we have - cars, unlimited energy - it not "fair" and also is not 
happening.  China and India and Brazil are moving full steam ahead and will use 
whatever energy source is around. Second, they feel that given that our demands 
for energy will not be dropping, we cannot just count on water, wind and solar 
sources. Anything that  helps is good, but those systems simply will not solve 
the problem anytime soon. We are running out of time, and to wait for other 
types of energy is wishful thinking for now.
snip

> But the real disaster is waste, I have heard of these fast breeder
> reactors but I'm not even sure they have been demonstrated to work very well 
> and they do still create a small amount of waste and it
> becomes much more toxic than the 11,000,000 barrels of stuff we
> have lying around the UK waiting to be buried. 

snip

Many of the same big environmentalists who have switched and are now pro 
nuclear are also now pro GMO food.  Same idea:  the world is going to run out 
food, and the way we raise food and animals for slaughter is incredibly 
polluting. We need to raise lots of food using less land and fewer chemicals.  
GMO's do that.  I hate that idea.  It feels like a terrible compromise to say 
that while we see the problems in nuclear or GMO food, we must go for a lesser 
evil or our planet is cooked. 

I am on the fence with both issues, but my mind is open to the possibility that 
huge compromises may need to be made.  I believe we are on the brink of 
disaster with global climate change, and it might already be too late for 
anything to make a difference.  The window of opportunity might be gone.  Maybe 
chaos and then a collapse of most civilizations will bring things to a halt and 
that is the way to go.  I just don't know.  But we have major difficulties 
ahead and continuing to think that we all have to reduce our energy demands and 
eat organic is ignoring reality.
>


 

Reply via email to