Nuclear Energy

                I was talking with Jamie Samowitz about nuclear power’s energetic costs and benefits for humanity and the planet, and I began to reflect more about this topic. Jamie was working on a thirty minute presentation for her Master’s of Science in Environmental Studies, and she was having difficulty in finding unbiased articles on the pros and cons of nuclear energy production. It seems that scientists and politicians are in conflict about what has the right to be called “clean energy”.

                Today researchers and governments are incessantly searching for a source of energy that attends to our needs and doesn’t negatively impact the environment. Nuclear energy proposes a source of energy that is apparently clean and long-lasting, but in reality it puts life on this planet at risk. Any error has the chance of provoking global catastrophes that could prove to be irreparable, not to mention that its waste takes thousands of years before it is no longer radioactive. However, the quantity of energy that this technology can produce is so large that scientists and governments are choosing to take the risk.

                Another possible ‘technology’ is living in harmony with nature and creating new tools and daily rituals. In my opinion, I would call this a regression. I know that in the context of capitalist development the word ‘regression’ appears negative, but my perspective is a bit different. Not all that man invents is a step forward, and when it’s not we need to create new ways or return to old ways that do function. When I say ‘regression’, it’s the regression to contact with nature and understanding ourselves as part of her.

                 This ‘new’ technology, based on a primitive form of living and co-existing with the planet and its natural systems, is called by some ‘permaculture’. It is now being used as a rational, didactic teaching for future generations. Permaculture is fantastic and necessary. But some final questions remain: how much time is it going to take for a majority of the world to accept this way of thinking and how much of the planet is going to remain after the feast of capitalist consumption ends?

                  These are my observations about two technologies amongst many others that we will have to chose between in the upcoming decades. These choices will say much about the survival of our planet, or in other words, the viability of our own existence.

(translation by Jamie Samowitz)