Joe writes, "Third, the experts and advocates who have tried to shape and implement responsible nuclear policies in this century must confront our collective failure."
Thank you for writing that Joe. Appreciated.
One way to look at that collective failure can be to propose that the primary tool chosen by experts and advocates, reason and information, just isn't adequate for the task at hand. If that's true, then what might work?
Leverage. We could be asking, who in our society has the leverage over both the public and policy makers to, let's be plain about it, peacefully FORCE a change in the failed nuclear weapons status quo?
The best answer I can come up with here is the scientific community.
The science community is the source of so many of the goodies that the public is addicted to (like the Internet for example) and the source of so many of the powers society's elites depend upon for their elevated status. It seems it would be in the interest of the science community to start delivering a message something like this....
"We're not going to keep working so hard to improve life for our fellow citizens if you people are just going to blow up all our work!"
I mean, really, what is the point of science curing cancer if we in the public are going to continue to calmly accept that all the miracles science has delivered can be destroyed in an hour??
So that's a nice theory, but I haven't the slightest idea how to implement it. I'm in no way an expert, but so far, I don't see the slightest evidence that the science community is willing to apply any form of pressure other than mailing open letters which they know in advance will be ignored. They get to claim to be concerned, while risking absolutely nothing.
But, let's hope I'm totally wrong. That would be great! Even the briefest strike by the science community, a single day where they don't show up for work in protest, would be a huge story, and perhaps the most effective form of activism ever undertaken.
Joe, you seem to have put your finger on what may be our only cause for hope when you wrote...
"During these decades there were global events that stirred publics to action - and encouraged governments to more urgently pursue limitations on the most deadly weapons ever invented. "
What should be clear to us at this point is that we're not going to escape the nuclear threat through the processes of reason alone. However, reason is not the only way we learn. Most human learning is actually inspired by pain. And, the "good" news is that, pain is coming.
Sooner or later the next detonation will occur. The media will feast on that event in a manner that will make 9/11 coverage look like a small local story. Nuclear weapons imagery and analysis will be shoved down the public's throat to a degree not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis. If we're lucky, as we've often been, the next detonation will be a limited event, ideally a nuclear weapons accident. And then an opportunity for real change will emerge.
It seems this will be a challenging time for nuclear weapons experts and activists, because their stock in trade, consciousness raising, will no longer be necessary. The expert and activist community will have to find some new way to make their contributions. The best time to be preparing for that challenge would seem to be ahead of time, like now. How can experts and activists make the best possible use of the historic opportunity that is coming?
And just as we should be preparing for the hopeful opportunity that is coming, it would also seem wise to prepare for failure. What if nothing works, and we blunder our way in to the final global catastrophe?
Our fear of nuclear weapons is built upon the foundation of our relationship with death. We typically assume that the death of an individual, or great masses of individuals especially, is the worst possible outcome. While this is a very understandable human assumption, it seems useful to reflect upon the fact that there is actually no proof at all that life is better than death. We typically think we know what death is, but actually we don't.
Given that there is no proof of any theory on the matter, it seems each of us are liberated to design our own relationship with death, and reason suggests that the more positive that relationship is, the healthier our living may be.
If our death story is sad, then we spend our lives awaiting the final disaster. If our death story is some version of happy, then some of the burden is lifted. Such story editing is not a waste of time, because if we don't die from nukes, it's slam dunk 100% guaranteed that we're going to die of something.
Joe writes, "Third, the experts and advocates who have tried to shape and implement responsible nuclear policies in this century must confront our collective failure."
Thank you for writing that Joe. Appreciated.
One way to look at that collective failure can be to propose that the primary tool chosen by experts and advocates, reason and information, just isn't adequate for the task at hand. If that's true, then what might work?
Leverage. We could be asking, who in our society has the leverage over both the public and policy makers to, let's be plain about it, peacefully FORCE a change in the failed nuclear weapons status quo?
The best answer I can come up with here is the scientific community.
The science community is the source of so many of the goodies that the public is addicted to (like the Internet for example) and the source of so many of the powers society's elites depend upon for their elevated status. It seems it would be in the interest of the science community to start delivering a message something like this....
"We're not going to keep working so hard to improve life for our fellow citizens if you people are just going to blow up all our work!"
I mean, really, what is the point of science curing cancer if we in the public are going to continue to calmly accept that all the miracles science has delivered can be destroyed in an hour??
So that's a nice theory, but I haven't the slightest idea how to implement it. I'm in no way an expert, but so far, I don't see the slightest evidence that the science community is willing to apply any form of pressure other than mailing open letters which they know in advance will be ignored. They get to claim to be concerned, while risking absolutely nothing.
But, let's hope I'm totally wrong. That would be great! Even the briefest strike by the science community, a single day where they don't show up for work in protest, would be a huge story, and perhaps the most effective form of activism ever undertaken.
Scientists have children too, right?
Joe, you seem to have put your finger on what may be our only cause for hope when you wrote...
"During these decades there were global events that stirred publics to action - and encouraged governments to more urgently pursue limitations on the most deadly weapons ever invented. "
What should be clear to us at this point is that we're not going to escape the nuclear threat through the processes of reason alone. However, reason is not the only way we learn. Most human learning is actually inspired by pain. And, the "good" news is that, pain is coming.
Sooner or later the next detonation will occur. The media will feast on that event in a manner that will make 9/11 coverage look like a small local story. Nuclear weapons imagery and analysis will be shoved down the public's throat to a degree not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis. If we're lucky, as we've often been, the next detonation will be a limited event, ideally a nuclear weapons accident. And then an opportunity for real change will emerge.
It seems this will be a challenging time for nuclear weapons experts and activists, because their stock in trade, consciousness raising, will no longer be necessary. The expert and activist community will have to find some new way to make their contributions. The best time to be preparing for that challenge would seem to be ahead of time, like now. How can experts and activists make the best possible use of the historic opportunity that is coming?
And just as we should be preparing for the hopeful opportunity that is coming, it would also seem wise to prepare for failure. What if nothing works, and we blunder our way in to the final global catastrophe?
Our fear of nuclear weapons is built upon the foundation of our relationship with death. We typically assume that the death of an individual, or great masses of individuals especially, is the worst possible outcome. While this is a very understandable human assumption, it seems useful to reflect upon the fact that there is actually no proof at all that life is better than death. We typically think we know what death is, but actually we don't.
Given that there is no proof of any theory on the matter, it seems each of us are liberated to design our own relationship with death, and reason suggests that the more positive that relationship is, the healthier our living may be.
If our death story is sad, then we spend our lives awaiting the final disaster. If our death story is some version of happy, then some of the burden is lifted. Such story editing is not a waste of time, because if we don't die from nukes, it's slam dunk 100% guaranteed that we're going to die of something.