Nuclear energy without the state - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1796768
Without states colluding to keep nuclear technology under tight control, what happens with nuclear energy?

Most people will jump on the notion of small groups developing nuclear weapons and doing terrible things with them, but I think a far greater threat is from the nature of fission reactors to utterly fuck you and everybody around you if you don't treat them with the utmost care and skill.

What is to replace the state, as a means of controlling complex technology, that can provide the level of safety required to employ nuclear power without killing people on purpose or by accident? If you think nuclear power has no place in an anarchist society, how do you propose to stop people without a state?
By Kon
#1842936
What you appear don't understand about Anarchism is that is doesn't work on the same framework as our current society does, it is of course highly theoretical in nature; however, I will try my best to answer your questions.

If we look at it simply it is not, in fact, the state that controls nuclear power; but rather the workers in nuclear power plants who do so. If these workers were to collectivize and democratically self manage they would not only be able to train others to act with "utmost care and skill" but the standards of safety would also start to mean even more when their mistakes have implications on every level. In an Anarchist society everyone would hold equal responsibility and in theory everyone would look out for their comrades.
User avatar
By Cheesecake_Marmalade
#1843104
Adding to that, there is generally the idea of civilian task forces that work to prevent crime, and I doubt they'd allow people to house nuclear weaponry.
By Kon
#1843439
Not so much a civilian taskforce; but rather the power of collective opinion. I think it is not illogical to say that the vast majority of people would oppose a member of their collective housing nuclear technology with no training, or for the purpose of use as weaponry.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#1850578
Without states colluding to keep nuclear technology under tight control, what happens with nuclear energy?

Most people will jump on the notion of small groups developing nuclear weapons and doing terrible things with them, but I think a far greater threat is from the nature of fission reactors to utterly fuck you and everybody around you if you don't treat them with the utmost care and skill.

What is to replace the state, as a means of controlling complex technology, that can provide the level of safety required to employ nuclear power without killing people on purpose or by accident? If you think nuclear power has no place in an anarchist society, how do you propose to stop people without a state?


Come on, you can pick a better example than that... there are two basic fuels for a nuclear power plant, Uranium 235 & Uranium 238. 235 is inheritely stable, 238 is inherently unstable. Considering nobody in any society wants their plant to explode and kill hundreds, thousands of people, it's safe to say most people would go with the U-235 plant. now, ironicqally, Soviet Russia chose U-238 because it was cheaper and the byproducts were better for making bombs, and we all know where that got 'em.
By SpiderMonkey
#1855458
Adding to that, there is generally the idea of civilian task forces that work to prevent crime, and I doubt they'd allow people to house nuclear weaponry.


Why would private citizens build and maintain nukes? They have no use in interpersonal disputes, and are dangerous and difficult to use. I think a person insane enough to serious want to use a nuke privately would be too far gone to be able to do it.

Come on, you can pick a better example than that... there are two basic fuels for a nuclear power plant, Uranium 235 & Uranium 238. 235 is inheritely stable, 238 is inherently unstable. Considering nobody in any society wants their plant to explode and kill hundreds, thousands of people, it's safe to say most people would go with the U-235 plant. now, ironicqally, Soviet Russia chose U-238 because it was cheaper and the byproducts were better for making bombs, and we all know where that got 'em.


Your science is all wrong. Neither isotope is stable - but if you mean fissile you have them the wrong way round U-235 is highly fissile but U-238 is hardly at all. Safety isn't about 'stability', and it isn't really about isotopes either. Yes, you can choose your isotopes to make proliferation less likely (although you generally do that by making fission fuel that is too radioactive to transport and handle safely) but the chance of a reactor exploding tends to rest on its design rather than its fuel.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#1877747
Spider, the design of the plant rests on the fuel. Because 238 relies on fast neutrons for fission, it requires a moderator which will produce more the hotter the plant gets; 235 relies on thermal neutrons, which allows for a self-regulating plant design. I should've explain what I meant better in the first post.
User avatar
By Meslocusist
#1885986
I happen to have some knowledge on this topic, and I can tell you that U-238 isn't fissile at all. Excuse my language, but your understanding of nuclear tech is somewhat ****ed up. All fissile isotopes are dangerous, and plant design doesn't rely very much on which one you use, since they all have similar properties. It's plant design that affects safety, choice of isotopes is not relevant whatsoever.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#1886068
I suggest you look at the resonance frequencies of the two isotopes, then.
By canadiancapitalist
#1886217
Why is the state - an organization that exists entirely of violence, that murders tens of million in warfare every year (talking about all states here) and is the only organization to have used nuclear weapons against humans such a safe place to keep the most dangerous weapons?

What is it, in your view, that makes government so safe and perfect? This seems to fly in the face of recorded human history.
By SpiderMonkey
#1886277
I suggest you look at the resonance frequencies of the two isotopes, then.


Now you are just grabbing stuff from star trek. U-238 is not (under the conditions you would find in a realistic reactor design) fissile. U-235 is. There is no real 'choice' if you want fission. The only two uses for U-238 are making dense bullets and breeding Pu-239, which is quite fissile.

Why is the state - an organization that exists entirely of violence, that murders tens of million in warfare every year (talking about all states here) and is the only organization to have used nuclear weapons against humans such a safe place to keep the most dangerous weapons?

What is it, in your view, that makes government so safe and perfect? This seems to fly in the face of recorded human history.


You misinterpret me; whilst the state isn't the ideal entity to control nuclear energy, some alternative must be proposed if you want to suggest nuclear energy without a state.
By canadiancapitalist
#1888176
You misinterpret me; whilst the state isn't the ideal entity to control nuclear energy, some alternative must be proposed if you want to suggest nuclear energy without a state.


I do not believe this to be true. It is fruitless for me to speculate as to the solutions individuals will work out absent coercion, that is in the truly voluntary society. I do not know the future. What concerns me are questions relating to human action, and proposals thereof. What concerns me are the moral questions. I do not have a broad outline of what the society I advocate would look like. I would not dare to plan society! That is not my place. Nor yours. And if I could provide this sketch to you it would be a good argument against my theories - after all, if I can plan so well, perhaps I should plan society!

I do not "suggest nuclear energy without a state" at any rate. What I suggest, nay demand, is the immediate dismantling of the state apparatus. Whether individuals choose to use nuclear energy or not is not my decision. But implicit in your question is this assumption which was challenged eloquently many years ago by a man named Bastiat - and I believe his words can do more to shatter your misconceptions then my own. And I quote

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

The question I pose is "can we trust the state with nuclear power" and the answer, in my view, is clearly no. In the brief lifespan of nuclear power - less then the blink of an eye in the broad scope of human history and prehistory - the state has already used nuclear power to kill hundreds of thousands.
By Antihero
#1901298
In reality, we don't need it. It's our urges for more power that do. And if anarchist society will be achieved there won't be any need for nuclear power. It's part of the scientific system that kills everything on this planet.
By SpiderMonkey
#1901742
LOL primitivism

We don't need power because of some evil capitalist conspiracy - we need power because industrial agriculture is energy intensive and because industrial agriculture is keeping billions of people from starvation right now.

Science is not a conspiracy, or a tool of the ruling classes. Science can be made to work for everybody, and only requires that those who wish to take full advantage of it without being exploited, actually put in the effort to understand it.
By Antihero
#1901796
SpiderMonkey wrote:LOL primitivism

We don't need power because of some evil capitalist conspiracy - we need power because industrial agriculture is energy intensive and because industrial agriculture is keeping billions of people from starvation right now.

Science is not a conspiracy, or a tool of the ruling classes. Science can be made to work for everybody, and only requires that those who wish to take full advantage of it without being exploited, actually put in the effort to understand it.

Just curious, how are you going to maintain the whole nuclear industry without the corporations and the state? With all of the cooperation it will be completely destroyed in couple of years. Besides, what are you going to do with all those engineers and scientists, how are you planning to teach new ones?
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#1902192
Antihero wrote:Just curious, how are you going to maintain the whole nuclear industry without the corporations and the state? With all of the cooperation it will be completely destroyed in couple of years. Besides, what are you going to do with all those engineers and scientists, how are you planning to teach new ones?


Oh my! And if they can't run a nuclear power plant without a corporation or state... how are they gonna run wind power plant? How could they train more automechanics? What are they gonna do with all the political scientists? My god... it'd be Anarchy! :eek:
By Antihero
#1903906
Figlio de gli moros wrote:Oh my! And if they can't run a nuclear power plant without a corporation or state... how are they gonna run wind power plant? How could they train more automechanics? What are they gonna do with all the political scientists? My god... it'd be Anarchy! :eek:

Exactly! No need to maintain nuclear plants and such.
By SpiderMonkey
#1904567
Just curious, how are you going to maintain the whole nuclear industry without the corporations and the state? With all of the cooperation it will be completely destroyed in couple of years. Besides, what are you going to do with all those engineers and scientists, how are you planning to teach new ones?


Maintain it? I'm a physicist. If I were to gather together a group of like minded physicists and engineers and didn't face any restrictions on our pursuit of the technology, we could assemble a reactor to provide energy for ourselves and others. Corporations and state not required. We would then teach the next generation to maintain our reactor and build new ones.

If you think that a society based on mutual cooperation would eliminate nuclear power then you should sit down with a group of scientists some time.
By Antihero
#1904682
SpiderMonkey wrote:Maintain it? I'm a physicist. If I were to gather together a group of like minded physicists and engineers and didn't face any restrictions on our pursuit of the technology, we could assemble a reactor to provide energy for ourselves and others. Corporations and state not required. We would then teach the next generation to maintain our reactor and build new ones.

If you think that a society based on mutual cooperation would eliminate nuclear power then you should sit down with a group of scientists some time.


So you might build a reactor. Where you going to get the materials from? Where you gonna get the Uranium(or Plutonium I can't remember which element is used.)? It means that you will have to maintain the whole system.
By SpiderMonkey
#1904704
Where are you going to get food from? Clothing? If you can imagine cooperative structures for supplying those things in quantity with minimal labour, then those same structures can run a nuclear industry. The only different is, that failures in food and clothing production don't affect other people. Taking on nuclear power means taking on responsibility for the safety of everybody in your vicinity.

Anarcho-primitivism is retarded. The amount of energy input required to keep the human race alive and fed means that your thoughtless demolition of technology would amount to nothing more than genocide.

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]