[Marxism] Future of Nuclear Power and John Holdren
suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Dec 21 22:21:05 MST 2008
Thanks for the detailed reply.
You've, however, missed the "central point" made in
this particular post.
Though Holdren does not acknowledge, it comes out
ringing loud and clear from his interview that human
civilisation with its huge reliance on energy and
emissions of toxic substances (and implicitly
consumption of natural resources) just can't go on.
We have got to evolve a solution far more fundamental.
Or perish, along with the planet's ecology.
As regards your central point - under Obama nuclear
power would gain a new lease of life, I'd keep my
fingers crossed. I also hold that the future, on the
short and medium terms, are far from pre-determined.
So a lot would depend on how the interplay of various
forces develops. I'd assume that the "activists" - as
distinct form "lobbies" - would find larger space
available to them as compared to the situation of the
last eight years, in particular. To what extent they
(can) make use of that also depends on them. The
Transition Team is actively interacting with various
Both Chu and Hodren, to my understanding, are sort of
"agnostics" - not ideologically (as strongly)
To me that's a welcome development.
Then, there is the question of nuclear weapons.
To be sure, there are very strong contradictory
signals. But then, things cannot but be better than
what it had been under Bush. Bush, to be sure, was
much worse than Clinton. A comparison between the
outcomes of the 2000 and 2005 NPT Review Conference
would clearly bring that out. Obama is on record
having taken a position clearly more positive as
compared to Clinton. But questions and doubts - and
strong ones at that - persist. Again a lot would
depend on how the "activists" intervene.
But let me come back to the central issue that I had
The present pattern of development is just
unsustainable. It surely does not bypass but goes well
beyond "capitalism" vs. "socialism".
More information about the Marxism