Why I, and the Greens, reject nuclear energy

1st Post

"Green parties have rarely got more than 5% of the vote, precisely because they campaign on the basis of a single, overriding set of concerns", writes Anthony Giddens.

Nonsense! The reason the Green party has rarely got more than 5% of the vote is because of our politicians' sense of that core "British" value of fairness that we are so rightly mocked for: our unjust and undemocratic, first-passed-the-post voting system, which makes any vote cast for the Green Party a wasted vote.

Also, because the Green Party has no prospect of obtaining political power, capable individuals (potential Green politicians) are hardly going to waste their time with it.

2nd Post

I've just learned from Anthony Giddens' profile that he is an eminent "sociologist" and former director of the London School of "Economics". In case he is reading through these posts, I'd just like to point out to him that the social sciences, particularly politics, sociology, history and economics, "traditionally" neglect the most important implications of what Charles Darwin taught us about human origins: a socio-economic order deeply rooted in and dependent on mankind's animal nature, which free-market capitalism has developed and more recently been honed to take full (and thus such effective) advantage of.

This is why we persist in giving priority to economics (the household of man in the artificial socio-economic environment) instead of to ecology (the household of our planet and the natural environment) when it is obvious (were we not blinded by familiarity and dependency) that medium and long-term human survival demands the opposite.

Many Greens, I suspect, have a gut sense, if not an intellectual understanding, of this, and are thus rightly skeptical of proposed mainstream economic, scientific or technological solutions to global climate change and, more generally, to the "Sustainability Problem".

3rd Post

Nich76, What do you mean, "You can't blame the voting system"? Even with just 7 percent of the vote, the Green Party should be represented with more than 40 MPs in Parliament. That would have had a huge impact on British politics. Why do you think the Germans are so much further ahead on environmental issues than we are in Britain? Because, thanks to their system of Proportional Representation, the German Green Party has had real political power and influence.

4th Post

I reject the nuclear option, and consider Germany's rejection of it their Green Party's greatest achievement (notwithstanding that the present German government may well reverse that decision), because human beings are behaviourally far too immature to handle it responsibly. I don't deny the usefulness of matches, but you shouldn't allow a 4 year old child to play with them in a house where everywhere there are flammable materials.

We have already had a few nasty "incidences", and in the 100's - or rather, 1000's - of years ahead there are bound to be many more (most threateningly as a result of terrorism, war, or some other act of "human madness", which history is largely the story of), and who knows (or cares?) whether those living in the future will be in a position to deal with such "incidences" at all. How anyone who knows anything about human nature, history and behaviour can contemplate the large scale use of nuclear energy even for a moment amazes and depresses me. How can we (especially the more intelligent and well-educated amongst us) be so blind and stupid?

Which brings me back to my second post, above (at 16:20 yesterday): civilisation and the socio-economic framework within which human being behave and interact are deeply rooted in and dependent upon mankind's "blind" animal nature - obviously, one would have thought, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins, but, like Christian fundamentalists, this is something we too have yet to face up to.

Good advice has been around for a long time (like the inscription above the temple door at Delphi: Man, know thy self!). If we recognized just how blind and stupid we are (rather than "guilty" from original sin), we would proceed in all things (especially the application of science and technology) with far more caution. But our animal nature is driving us forward, in the rat race (the struggle for survival and advantage, i.e. money, in the socio-economic environment) to oblivion.

http://www.spaceship-earth.org

Link to Anthony Giddens' article , plus all comments at The Guardian.

To: Comment at the Guardian Re: In response to the Guardian article,"We should ditch the Greens", by Anthony Giddens Date: Friday 3 November 06

1st Post "Green parties have rarely got more than 5% of the vote, precisely because they campaign on the basis of a single, overriding set of concerns", writes Anthony Giddens. Nonsense! The reason the Green party has rarely got more than 5% of the vote is because of our politicians' sense of that core "British" value of fairness that we are so rightly mocked for: our unjust and undemocratic, first-passed-the-post voting system, which makes any vote cast for the Green Party a wasted vote. Also, because the Green Party has no prospect of obtaining political power, capable individuals (potential Green politicians) are hardly going to waste their time with it. 2nd Post I've just learned from Anthony Giddens' profile that he is an eminent "sociologist" and former director of the London School of "Economics". In case he is reading through these posts, I'd just like to point out to him that the social sciences, particularly politics, sociology, history and economics, "traditionally" neglect the most important implications of what Charles Darwin taught us about human origins: a socio-economic order deeply rooted in and dependent on mankind's animal nature, which free-market capitalism has developed and more recently been honed to take full (and thus such effective) advantage of. This is why we persist in giving priority to economics (the household of man in the artificial socio-economic environment) instead of to ecology (the household of our planet and the natural environment) when it is obvious (were we not blinded by familiarity and dependency) that medium and long-term human survival demands the opposite. Many Greens, I suspect, have a gut sense, if not an intellectual understanding, of this, and are thus rightly skeptical of proposed mainstream economic, scientific or technological solutions to global climate change and, more generally, to the "Sustainability Problem". 3rd Post Nich76, What do you mean, "You can't blame the voting system"? Even with just 7 percent of the vote, the Green Party should be represented with more than 40 MPs in Parliament. That would have had a huge impact on British politics. Why do you think the Germans are so much further ahead on environmental issues than we are in Britain? Because, thanks to their system of Proportional Representation, the German Green Party has had real political power and influence. 4th Post I reject the nuclear option, and consider Germany's rejection of it their Green Party's greatest achievement (notwithstanding that the present German government may well reverse that decision), because human beings are behaviourally far too immature to handle it responsibly. I don't deny the usefulness of matches, but you shouldn't allow a 4 year old child to play with them in a house where everywhere there are flammable materials. We have already had a few nasty "incidences", and in the 100's - or rather, 1000's - of years ahead there are bound to be many more (most threateningly as a result of terrorism, war, or some other act of "human madness", which history is largely the story of), and who knows (or cares?) whether those living in the future will be in a position to deal with such "incidences" at all. How anyone who knows anything about human nature, history and behaviour can contemplate the large scale use of nuclear energy even for a moment amazes and depresses me. How can we (especially the more intelligent and well-educated amongst us) be so blind and stupid? Which brings me back to my second post, above (at 16:20 yesterday): civilisation and the socio-economic framework within which human being behave and interact are deeply rooted in and dependent upon mankind's "blind" animal nature - obviously, one would have thought, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins, but, like Christian fundamentalists, this is something we too have yet to face up to. Good advice has been around for a long time (like the inscription above the temple door at Delphi: Man, know thy self!). If we recognized just how blind and stupid we are (rather than "guilty" from original sin), we would proceed in all things (especially the application of science and technology) with far more caution. But our animal nature is driving us forward, in the rat race (the struggle for survival and advantage, i.e. money, in the socio-economic environment) to oblivion. http://www.spaceship-earth.org Link to Anthony Giddens' article , plus all comments at The Guardian.