Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq OP wrote

Supporting nuclear means trusting authority not to mess things up. To not take shortcuts, to not wage war, to not dispose of waste in unsafe ways. You can't be an anarchist and support nuclear energy.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

I disagree. Sure I don't particularly like nuclear power and am extremely against large and government run nuclear power plants. But the reality is fusion reactors can be run by a single individual. Not practically speaking. I mean anarchism has quite a bit of allowance for people to possess dangerous objects such as guns, explosives, cars, Pollute massively and other such ills that nuclear power also causes. So while nuclear power just like bombs and pollution is inherently negative I don't see much need to be less accepting of nuclear power than other dangerous or polluting objects.

Nuclear power deserves the same anarchist critique of industrial products such as imperialist conquest, enabling imperialist conquest, environmental pollution ect. But I don't see much difference between it and other industrial products. I don't really care about nuclear power and I think due to it only being effective on a government scale I'm only against it. Tho I feel like your critique hangs more on who is doing the nuclear power than nuclear power itself.

For example I would agree completely if you said its not anarchist to support large organizations to do nuclear power.

4

fortmis wrote

But the reality is fusion reactors can be run by a single individual.

wouldn't that just concentrate the power even further? there's a significant difference between a single individual owning a gun or a car, and owning a nuclear power plant. not the least of it being that a car seats five, while a nuclear power plant can serve (and thus make reliant) a million people. and even if a reactor can be run by a single person, you're gunna need a team of say... a thousand doctors per nuclear plant to treat all the people getting fucked up from radiation.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

take for instance this theoretical hot tub sized nuclear power gen

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-perrys-vision-of-hot-tub-sized-nuclear-power-plants-isnt-so-far-fetched

it only makes about 25 Mega watts or 25,000 kwh. considering the average American uses about 10,000 kwh thats only 2.5 people.

I don't know enough about nuclear power but I'm sure it can be used irresponsibly and cause massive harm. Tho, people being reckless and hurting people isn't hierarchy or authority its just accidental force. Which is bad but still very compatible with anarchism.

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

nuclear power mishaps/attacks/waste/etc affect millions or even billions of people. that's authority. when you knowingly put other people's lives at risk, in fact entire ecosystems, so you can enjoy luxuries, that's not simple force

the anarchist force vs authority argument depends on the force being temporary, spur of the moment and not institutional. it can't be applied to constructed systems that affect millions of people

the same goes for any destructive technology or system. but nuclear specifically is impossible to implement without massive power hierarchy

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

I think this makes a lot of sense. I'll have to give it more time to think on but I think this is probably a fat better position to take than what I said.

4