The problem with humans

If you had to narrow it down, the problem with human beings is this: we are notoriously short-sighted in our thinking.  We just can't think in large enough spans of time.  Ask us to think about any given concept over the span of oh, say, 50 years from now is a stretch.  100 is really asking a lot.  500?  Forget it.  At the same time our technological know-how has sky-rocketed so now we can do things, design things, build things, implement things --BIG things-- that certainly have those sorts of life-spans with the potential to still be affecting the world far off in the future. A friend of mine adds, "we can also break things, move things, change things on a big/long scale. Mountaintops.  Underwater background noise.  The ozone layer. Bazillions of barrels of oil."

And nuclear waste. Know what the half life of uranium 235 (the stuff in spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors) is? 704 million years. Here's a good fact sheet on it from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.  Know how many nuclear reactors the world has?  Over 400 in operation. 

What do we going to do with all this stuff?  According to Environment Canada, “true walkaway disposal methods are unlikely to be possible, given the long time periods (a minimum of 250,000 years) for which the longer-lived radionuclides would have to be isolated from the soil, air, and water." Source: Canada vs. the OECD: An Environmental Comparison.  Lord, have mercy!

All this I've said before. But another aspect of it struck me the other day.  George Lakoff --you know that guy who's so good at explaining the differences in how liberals and conservatives think and wrote that book, Don't think of an Elephant-- recently wrote a guest post on 538.com.  It's a great post, you should go read the whole thing; he's talking about "seven crucial intellectual moves that [he] believe[s] are historically, practically, and cognitively appropriate, as well as politically astute" but for now check out #6: systemic causation and systemic risk.  He says:

Conservatives tend to think in terms of direct causation. The overwhelming moral value of individual, not social, responsibility requires that causation be local and direct. For each individual to be entirely responsible for the consequences of his or her actions, those actions must be the direct causes of those consequences

They don't think about systemic causes (if they did, they'd be called "liberals") but what are the two most pressing problems facing our generation right now?  The global economic meltdown and global warming!   These things are systemic.  You can't think of them as a product of any one process; by their very nature they are systemic problems.  Lakoff says this causes some serious conundrums for conservatives but there's also this: what if --just what if-- having to deal with these two huge, systemic problems gets us humans to finally start thinking about the consequences of our actions in a larger time frame?  What if these two crises fundamentally change the way we think?  Wow!  How cool would that be?  That is, if we survive.

Comments

[Nicole]

Hey,

I only had a chance to briefly skim over this post, but I wanted to point out a couple of (relatively) positive things about nuclear waste when compared to that which comes from fossil fuel plants. Even though it stays dangerous for a very long time, nuclear waste is much more compact than the stuff from coal plants-- and, of course, better regulated because of its radioactivity. (I assume you heard about the big toxic coal ash mudslide thing in Tenesse? -shudders-) Also, if you reprocess the nuclear fuel (as they do in France) you can reuse something like 90% of the waste and further reduce the quantities that need to go into long term storage. Finally, nuclear plants have no green house gas emissions-- especially the newer ones with passive safety features that don't require back-up generators to kick in.

I'm not advocating exclusively nuclear power, but in terms of efficacy of the technology we currently have I think it's an essential part of the picture of a green future-- renewable energy sources simply cannot shoulder the weight of the power grid alone, at least for the moment.

Aside from that, I agree with your post's message quite a lot-- foresight is definitely something that humankind, especially the government, needs a better handle on.

I've got links/sources for my information, if you're really curious; I'm currently doing a school project on nuclear power in France.

Thanks,
Nicole

[MarcyWebb]

The thing that gets me is that we're still debating abortion and gay marriage, but, for me, more pressing are genetically engineered food and harmful chemicals in everyday products. We as humans have our heads screwed on backwards -at least those of us here in the U.S. But, as Maureen Dowd said, real men like carbon monoxide in the air, and arsenic in the water.

[Damian]

Great article!

Damian

gaytraveller.com.au