To: letters@guardian.co.uk
Re: The "problem" with nuclear energy . . .  
Date: Wednesday 7 July 04

Dear Sir Madam,

 

The "problem" with nuclear energy, which Patrick Wintour and Paul Brown refer to in today's Guardian ("Blair reignites nuclear debate") is not "that it is both expensive and the industry takes a decade or more to find sites and get planning permissions", but that - in human hands - it is inherently dangerous and poses an unacceptable level of risk, not just to ourselves, but to coming generations for thousands of years to come. 

 

Certainly, "projected" energy demands cannot be met without it, but to take the nuclear path will be entering (or rather, re-entering and confirming) a pact with the Devil, which our descendents will surely curse us for.

 

We are at a cross-roads. Either we can carry on the way we are already heading, have been heading since the beginning of modern times, pursuing perpetual economic growth and ever-increasing material wealth for ever more people (including motor cars and frequent air travel for at least 6 times the number of people who "enjoy" them now), which is already placing a non-sustainable drain and strain on Earth's limited resources and finite carrying capacity and must inevitably lead to our downfall, OR we can begin a radical reappraisal of our situation and of the materialistic (more animal than human) values, attitudes and aspirations which got us into it, because on which our economy and lifestyles are based.

 

If we were worthy of our scientific name, Homo sapiens (wise man), I would have no fear of nuclear energy. However - and this is the essential point, about which most people, especially those at the top of their professions, are in denial - we are not worthy. Even the most cursory glance at our history or the current world situation, with all its manmade conflicts and madness, should make this blatantly obvious. That it doesn't is because we are in denial of it  ("No one is as blind as he who will not see"). It is always others - never ourselves - who are responsible, or co-responsible, for the madness.

 

A far more appropriate name for our species would be "Homo stupidus". 

 

Individual men and women can, of course, be very wise, at least from time to time, although the wiser among us know how stupid even we can often be. And unfortunately, it is our collective stupidity which dominates, far more than we realise, over our collective wisdom; again most people, especially the more clever and talented, are in denial of it. Understandably, we all like to focus on what we see as our successes, greatly playing down, if not downright denying, our short-comings and failures.

 

If only we can muster enough wisdom to recognise and accept that we are not yet wise enough (knowledgeable, intelligent, clever enough yes, but not wise enough, not by a long chalk), to make safe use of nuclear energy. Any use we do make of it should be kept to an absolute minimum, at least for the foreseeable future, until social and economic insanities, injustice, war, terrorism etc. have been banished and we are worthy of the name, Homo sapiens.