On LM Re: Fidel vs LM
CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Aug 26 10:51:40 MDT 1999
>>> Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan at qut.edu.au> 08/25/99 11:30P
For example I would suggest that all the scientific evidence suggests
strongly that we will never be able to render nuclear waste safe. That is
a natural limit on us. To ignore this is not to do science but to practise
ideology. think anyway of the odds. Is it not wiser to act on the
assumption that nuclear waste is permanently dangerous and so to limit its
production, rather than as present simply pile it up by the tonne in the
belief that one day science will fix the problem.
Similarly with global warning. If LM are correct and there is no danger
then we can always cut down the whole Amazon forest. But if they are wrong
and we proceed with its destruction then we are in deep trouble.
Charles: I recall early in my encounter with Jim Heartfield's presentation of the LM
positions on these lists making this point. Since we are talking about the absolutely
most vital concerns of the human species, why not err on the side of caution ? To
just have a "let her rip" attitude toward capitalist science is the most insane
recklessness in the history of humanity given evidence which gives us probable cause
to believe there may be profound destruction of our living space, the only one we
have. We can afford to just stop most projects that raise probable cause.
More information about the Marxism