Waste, the nuclear nightmare, a show to see ...

[jonule]

alright ahmed, I am used to read your wise words and be very sure that we will not be confused in the same bag.

to answer your questions, yes of course it is second degree (my answer is the first degree =). but if it is not by deontology that the mines were closed by the state to hide the sad reality of modern comfort, then explain to me your way of explaining things;

no it was not you who asked for a vote I agree, maybe you did not have time to see the answer of "sen-no-sen":

You is right, indeed the nuclear escapes the public debate because the civil nuclear is only the offspring of the nuclear weapons that are indivisible two areas.
It is therefore not surprising that the subject escapes the citizens, even if civilians must pay the piper at great cost billions.

that is why I proposed to him himself to make the vote of which he regrets the presence. you want, you do! simple.
If you don't believe in voting and debate, it will be difficult to debate and vote I agree. However, know that "if you don't take care of politics, politics takes care of you" yes I know but it is so;
if people get involved and stand up against this lobby because their minds make them say "no, it's too stupid", we must not reduce them and react by saying "yes but we don't know anything about it so we prefer to look back TV is on nuclear power ". you just have to look at the abstention rate of the last elections. I am sorry, but apart from the distressing aspect of what we are being offered, I still believe that it is done on purpose. I take for example the "big" political choice of 2002, which will undoubtedly come back earlier than expected with this kind of behavior vis-a-vis its responsibilities, its rights as well as its duties as a voter.

but let's move on;

In fact, the technical explanation of this technology may be disgusting to more than one. I imagine that, like many of you, you do not want to get into the exact understanding of the problem in order to understand the real ins and outs, at both the human and the industrial levels.
it is indeed a real task that is not easy to do.
since I am not given the choice, I want to understand how the human being got there, and we have to go through learning.
also know that all the information exists on the ent, you can also follow my links.
you can not have conifance in me, believe that I am an anti-nuclear who does not think of anything else, that I try to sell something (what?) or just trust me if you can read with attention and insight certainly the content of my remarks.

however, the etchnic aspect allows you to make your choice, you do it for everything, you would not do it for nuclear? I do not find that very fair, and your point is precisely to say "let the specialists do it": you thus encourage this attitude, undoubtedly unconsciously I do not know.

also let politic politics and return to learning the technique:

Do not you see that it would be easy for this to be learned automatically at school? What did you learn at school about nuclear energy, do you remember?

me the only thing that comes back to me is "alpha particles are stopped by a simple sheet of paper" ...
naive, when we know that these nanoparticles are breathable and that they enter directly into the body. no doubt will I know + after studies on nanoparticles, in 20 years?


this lobby is lying to us all. to put myself in the same basket tends to conspiracy theory, ridiculous: they are simply shameless and irresponsible industrialists, that's all.

good to you.

[Aumicron]

+ this kind of info will be known and + the public will be notified and VOTER against

As Christophe regularly points out, people have the power to vote at any time through their purchases. And unfortunately, I do not know the figures of the evolution of the electrical consumption, but it seems to me that the people vote of + in + for the nuclear energy by the purchase of too many electrical devices and the waste of this energy by a lack of rigor in its use.

People are very unaware of the generation of waste when you turn on a light bulb.

[jonule]

it is sure that when you see bricomerdo you can buy an electric heating blowing 2000W for 10 € baston price, it cuts short any subject of reflection ... it should be forbidden, but one swims in full consumption, which n ' has nothing to do with responsibility.

but it is necessary to constantly inform, so that in the minds of the people, as and when, rekindles this notion of common sense.

[Christophe]

+ 1! Jonule, I saw 2500W at 6.90 € !! 0.00276 euro Watts ... I'm sure we can still find better!

Pffff ... it's not won

Aumicron there is "everything" here (for France):
https://www.econologie.com/electricite-s ... -4028.html
https://www.econologie.com/electricite-s ... -4029.html

and in particular a ... beautiful curve of annual load:


https://www.econologie.com/forums/consommati ... t7053.html

With the development of various and varied PAC, it is a safe bet that the summer / winter écard is still hollow!

But will make people understand that the blackout is possible when the ADEME (... mastery of energy) is advertising at the larigot for PAC ... which, like electric heating, should be used only in APPOINT... (see air-air from Maloche to 500 euros in addition to fuel oil and profitable in less than 2 years)

People are very unaware of the generation of waste when you turn on a light bulb.

Exact, I had the idea to make a cup mug with a message in this sense (the heating of this cup consumed ... x microgr of uranium ... Y grams for Z years!) For our shop but it never happened: I keep the idea for the asso!

[Aumicron]

I must emphasize to return to this report, as to all of the genre, it can play an opposite role in reassuring the public.

In particular, the debate that followed the broadcast. Arte, who must consider that the report is dependent, feels obliged on 4 guests, to have a representative of AREVA, one of EDF and one of the ANDRA against a single anti nuke speaking in German. Morality, the pro nuke reassure by their hyper-prepared speeches and the interventions of the poor German do not wear.

In the end, the basic viewer goes to bed with a renewed sense of confidence over the nuclear and interesting questions asked by some anonymous members of the assembly have not been answered because PPDA has not done its job only reluctantly raising secondary questions.

[Ahmed]

Sorry, Jonule, I don't quite understand what you mean by "deontology" in this context.

You're absolutely right about politics, but politics is not necessarily about putting a ballot in a ballot box at different intervals.

You write :

to put myself in the same basket tends to conspiracy theory

There must be confusion: at no time did I question you.

To return to the question of debate (in general), it must be understood that when it occurs on this forum between sincere stakeholders, the exchange can allow everyone to confront his arguments to those of others and thus change his own perception of things.
It is quite different from a public debate where the stake is only for the initiator, under the cover of a neutral exchange, to convince the public of the merits of his positions. In this case the debate serves only to spread propaganda better, it is nothing more than a form of commercial action.

Back to the nuclear, as I said, if the speech of the opponents does not relate to the technique, it is inaudible, but if it carries it becomes impossible since in cantilever and easy to disassemble.

I do not want to become a nuclear specialist ** (even without the difficulty) because I think that whatever its level, it is not the role of a scientist to tell me that this technique is good for me: by doing so he leaves the scientific field and is on an equal footing with me: two citizens who discuss what is good and desirable for the whole of society according to an explicit project.
And, it is on this last point that the rub: not wanting to take the risk of imagining a possible future common leaders (who deserve in this so little name) prefer to entrust science to decide in their place and place.
Science thus becomes, by a sleight of hand, the ultimate refuge of a pseudo-objectivity and a so-called truth ***, which would relieve us of the painful task of deciding and, ultimately, of thinking .
It is to forget that science itself has its a priori, its subjectivity and its partisan interests: danger all the more dangerous because it is camouflaged.
From the moment when one abandons any choice before the techno science, the only project (must one qualify it thus?) That can subsist it is the abandonment of the company with the excesses of the market and the ideology tautological growth for growth.

Aumicron judiciously underlines the well-established scenario of these shows. The weakness of a "hard" totalitarianism is that it cannot bear the slightest criticism, on the other hand a "soft" totalitarianism, not only accommodates itself to it, but it is strengthened by it!


* where my signature ...

* Naturally, this does not mean that we must cultivate ignorance about it, but we must realize that it is a terribly complex field, where the most eminent scientists master only a part of the whole: it would therefore be very pretentious to claim an exhaustive knowledge.

** Scientific truth is of a nature other than truth in the philosophical sense, since science is by definition in construction, it can only be appreciated in relation to the principle of incompleteness.

[Remundo]

Interesting as Ahmed reasoning,

Having said that, how can we judge what is good for society without any scientific reference?

If science does not deliver absolute truth, it can at least avoid the grossest errors: there is the modest but ambitious goal of a good scientist

On nuclear, the population is 300% uninformed:
- at the beginning: ignorance because no significant teaching in the school system, even in science up to bac + 2, or more ...
- then the double misinformation : nuke lobby and antinukes.

But when it comes to nuclear energy, any unscientific debate is futile. Better a little incompleteness than the confrontation of two pervasive obscurantisms: that of the uneducated and the "knowing too much" subservient to certain lobbies.

What we can get out of it and explain in clear terms to all is that nuclear energy provides as much energy as its waste is unmanageable at the time scale of our civilizations.

What can also be said is that the true sustainable energy is of thermonuclear origin, puts 8 minutes to arrive on earth. It is the solar and its derivative forms that must be captured.

[Ahmed]

If science does not deliver absolute truth, it can at least avoid the grossest errors: there is the modest but ambitious goal of a good scientist.

It does not matter the errors of science as long as it is confined to its domain: always push the limits of the knowledge of the world. Science is a dialectical process capable of criticizing its theories and correcting its errors.

What is serious is that science, as its increasing effectiveness in acting on the real, has been arrested by the technique and the economy and the least we can say is that that she does not come out of it.
Leaving aside her vocation as a pure search for the understanding of the world, she is summoned to devote herself exclusively to operative reason, while at the same time serving as an intellectual guarantee for the surrounding economics.
Science, then, is strictly speaking no longer totally involved, but the damage done by it and on its behalf is of an intolerable magnitude. From this legitimate anxiety arises a deep distrust and a symptom is the disaffection of young people for scientific studies. Disaffection that I deplore as much as you.

Having said that, "how can we judge what is good for society without any scientific benchmarks?"
It is not to belittle the science, quite the contrary, to limit it to its field of competence. It would seem interesting to have objective criteria, unfortunately, and fortunately It is not possible.

The problem you pose, that of value or meaning, is the central question of philosophy since its inception, forgive me if I can not provide a complete answer!

I'll tell you a short story. Thomas MORE, in his Utopia described an ideal society of perfectly moral, selfless and happy people. I pass on the details: for me this society ** is perfectly abominable; Why ? Because the ideal driving and the sense that was the cause of this conduct was given. From then on, even perfect, these men were nothing more than private puppets of all humanity. Humanity can only result from a voluntary choice, from a tension of subjectivity towards a never fully conquered good.
I think it is Heidegger who claimed that the object of science is what he calls being the ; the being is unknowable to him. And the man is the only one being to wonder about his essence, about his being.
That does not answer the question, will you say to me: if I can not rely on an objective, solid criterion, how can I trust my only subjectivity?
There are 2 extreme possible attitudes towards this issue. To affirm the impossibility of making a choice and therefore to renounce it: that is what the skeptic or the cynic proclaims. On the other hand, a total choice and without nuance, excluding the least doubt, is the fact of the fanatic.
It is quite easy to show that the first position is not tenable, but the second is much stronger in that it is not accessible to reason because it constitutes a pathological form.
Condemned to make choices in unstable equilibrium on a narrow ridge, with only reason-guard, this is how the concept of freedom expresses itself. Imagine for a moment a firm support and immediately you suppress the humanity of the individual to subject it to a determinism (since its choice becomes mandatory).

In practice, it is not so dramatic that our conscious choices escape science and, to a large extent, reason. Let us take an example: the development of scientific knowledge supposes two prior postulates: 1- that the world is intelligible for human reason; 2- that it is desirable to access this knowledge.
These two choices are undecidable neither by science nor by reason, only a bet can engage in such a project.
We all operate with this kind of a priori, the important thing is that they are aware and therefore open to criticism. It is the "Know yourself" of Socrates...

* Moreover, even considered in isolation, science can be pure objectivity since implemented by men with their presuppositions, their irrationality, their a priori irreducible.
This is how we can find fashions in science, a race for the whole genetic or transgenic, thermonuclear fusion, artificial fertilization ...
In the technical fields which are sometimes confused with science because of their cohabitation, these modes are even more numerous, but they, too, appear imperturbably and unduly under the attributes of rigor and cold objectivity.
** Utopia must in fact be judged backwards, as a criticism of English society.

[Remundo]

Thank you Ahmed for this beautiful philosophical argumentation.

that's eco-culture.

I conclude that science, despite being misused by the abuses of the Present of Men, remains if it is well conducted a small light illuminating the penumbra of the Future of Man.

@+

[Ahmed]

Science is one of the lights, among others. It would regain its original intensity and its capacity to project itself into the future if it gave up its subordination to the economy and, abandoning the operative reason, revived speculative reason.

However, we must not hide that the danger, here proven, of a changeover is always possible; This was understood by other civilizations that had made the choice, not to renounce science, but to control its technical applications very closely (this is the case, notably, of ancient China).
Besides its destructive effects, techno-science is the typical example of evolution towards an intolerant religion (it would be better to speak of idolatry), taking refuge behind its ayatollahs to slay those who dare to formulate the slightest criticism. Quick to launch anathemas and take refuge behind liturgical formulas: "We cannot stop progress!".

Any institution tends to be sclerotic, fortunately, by positive feedback this sclerosis generates its own internal criticism (which is usually the most effective). Science also has its heretics who develop on the margins of the institution original ideas: it was soEinstein in his early days, and a long time later, his ideas met with great resistance among his colleagues.

It is true that at that time it was only a tension on the established dogmas, today the conflict is much harder when the economic interests at stake are as we know them and the challenge henceforth less on scientific theory than on the institution itself: sarcasms succeed excommunication. That's what happened to Christian VélotEg.

Will science succeed in reforming itself? The weight of the economy weighs heavy on one side, on the other a public opinion continues to express legitimate concerns. The debate is, to this day, at a standstill, hope that the scientific caste is accessible to a little humility.
This is the condition for the opposition to radicalize itself into two opposite anti-rationalisms, each one as sterile as the other.

PS I just learned of the death, last Saturday, of Levi Strauss, an immense scholar and a true humanist. Recently browsing his famous "Tristes tropiques", which I had promised myself to read for a long time, I was struck by the depth and intelligence of his analyzes on, for example, the meanings of the passage from oral language to written language, on the ambiguous place of the ethnologist in relation to the societies which are the objects of his study and his own society; there is even a rather premonitory reflection (the book appeared in 1935) on the unfortunate evolution of our desire to destroy reality, compared to the solutions of peoples probably not so primitive: in short, to read.