Here's one primitivist's answer to the nuclear question

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 7 2004 13:12
bigdave wrote:
Don't rockets use a binary explosive as fuel? Surely the only place they use Hydrogen and Oxygen is in sciece fiction?

LOL grin

no gurrier's post is right

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Oct 7 2004 13:16

Primitivism seems a very strange idea. I also don't see how you go from "here" to "there", even supposing it was a workable concept. The Lifestylists just seem to be doing something decent - boycotting, eating less/no meat, trying to consume less - salving their conscience without wanting to bring about serious change either. And I've already tried to say how the mass media is used to control the population so the "Anarchists" with the tv switched on and the Sun by their chair beside their slippers don't seem to have much desire for change either.

Somebody, at some point, has to work out how to make actual progress rather than just jerking off.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 7 2004 13:21
Ceannairc wrote:
One sec here, if we can launch the hubble space telescope out of orbit, we can launch nuclear waste too.

Oh please please please tell me you're joking!!

The Hubble telescope is quite small, and even that took a few trips. And also if a shuttle carrying it blew up it wouldn't wipe out 500 million people.

Don't people remember a couple of years back when NASA launched a plutonium-powered probe into space and there was a huge uproar from environmentalists (and rightly so), cos even tho there was only about a kilo of the stuff it could have killed millions if it'd gone wrong?

And now you, an "environmentalist" wants to fire up thousands of tonnes of the stuff?

Quote:
I have to admit that I don't know enough about primitivism or indeed nuclear waste to be able to comment, but surely the only option would be to dump the stuff in space and get rid of it once and for all. Not big, not clever and not dignified, but would probably do the job.

Not wanting to sound arrogant, I do know a fair bit about it. And it ain't gonna work for the forseeably future. Like Lazlo says the best bet will probably be to make GM bacteria who eat it and turn it into tuna or something.

john

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 7 2004 13:25

hydrogen still takes more energy (fossil fuel based) to produce than you get out from it, so it would be true that the procedure would be very resource intensive.

...or so i've read... tongue

JoeBlack
Offline
Joined: 28-10-03
Oct 7 2004 14:19
JDMF wrote:
hydrogen still takes more energy (fossil fuel based) to produce than you get out from it, so it would be true that the procedure would be very resource intensive.

...or so i've read... tongue

Yeah the hydrogen cell is basically just a very good battery with no harmful byproducts. But like any 'battery' it has to be charged first so you need an energy source for that.

The hoo ha is because

1. For propelling vehicles its more efficent to take power from a power station, store it in a hydrogen cell and then use this to move rather than to burn petrol/oil in an internal compustion engine. So it should reduce the total energy use.

2. The power station might still be generating energy from oil/gas/coal but it could also be wind/wave/hydro/solar so in effect the hydrogen cell gives you a wave powered car. Something you can't do directly!

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 7 2004 14:32
bigdave wrote:
Primitivism seems a very strange idea. I also don't see how you go from "here" to "there", even supposing it was a workable concept. The Lifestylists just seem to be doing something decent - boycotting, eating less/no meat, trying to consume less - salving their conscience without wanting to bring about serious change either.

That's because most lifestyle primitivists expect industrial society to come collapsing down without their input -- so they concentrate on working out how to survive it's fall. To me, this is a survivalist ideology that has more in common with the US right-wing millitias than with anarchism.

Anarcho-primitivists want things to hcange in the way all anarchists want change -- trhough direct action and people taking over their own lives. For me, community power, workplace power neccessarily means the end of 'civilization' because production for our own needs would probably mean the junking of most industry in favour of human-sized craft production. If there was no compulsion to do alienating work, most industry would collapse, and that's the end of civilisation as we know it. We'd still keep production of essentials -- water purification, alcohol brewing, etc -- but these would, under pressure of people's desire for fun, become more and more entwined with play activity, until there's no division between 'work' and 'leisure' at all.

I've no guarantee that this is who popular workers'/consumers' control would go, but direct democracy is the best way to try for it -- and to keep ourselves going in case my ideas turn out to be crap Mr. T

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 7 2004 15:38
JoeBlack wrote:
Yeah the hydrogen cell is basically just a very good battery with no harmful byproducts. But like any 'battery' it has to be charged first so you need an energy source for that.

Yo sorry we were talking about hydrogen as rocket fuel - not fuel cells, but still smile

Lazlo - don't most primmies mean a society using agriculture as "civilisation"? And that'll still remain no?

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Oct 7 2004 16:38
Steven. wrote:
Like Lazlo says the best bet will probably be to make GM bacteria who eat it and turn it into tuna or something.

Nope, sorry. I happen to know quite a bit about GM bacteria, and that's just silly. You can do molecular changes with biology, but not nuclear ones. If it goes in as plutonium, it'll come out as plutonium. Maybe plutonium stuck to some protein or something, but still plutonium.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 7 2004 16:59
Steven. wrote:

Lazlo - don't most primmies mean a society using agriculture as "civilisation"? And that'll still remain no?

yes, but from what i've been reading now in the past few weeks that distinction is arbitrary, just because historians put start of civilisation there primmies seem to have gone with it. Not for any kind of rational reason, exept the hatred of the concept of "civilisation".

I wonder when primitivist movement will split and the hardliners won't even use fire or language grin

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Oct 7 2004 17:40

even if you could make a reliable rocket to fire nuclear waste into space, the amount of calculations needed to make sure it went somewhere it wouldn't come back from a little while later due to an asteroid knocking the container off course would be infinite or some idiot primmie who can't even differentiate functions of more than one variable let alone do complex calculations for rockets (symbolic thought you see) would make a mistake because he refused to let someone who knew what they were doing do it (specialisation see), so the whole idea is unworkable.

and i've never really seen a deffinition of civilisation from primmitivists. i mean, if you use it to mean a society based around large cities, then i'm against civilisation, because having grown up in a small village i think it's a nicer way to live, as long as they're not too far apart and it's easy to get to and communicate with other villages, otherwise we could have some gene pool problems developing... i mean, i'm against present hierarchial civilisation as all anarchists are, but i've never seen the advantage in saying that you're against civilisation rather than just hierarchial society.

also green anarchy advocates attacking the infrastructure, which isn't exactly just waiting for everything to collapse! obviously this appeals to my imagination, but outside the context of creating cool science fiction movies or great epics set in the ruins of new york, and moved into whether it would be beneficial to humanity, it's a bit barmy. but yeah, not all primitivists are complete nutters like we seem to keep getting here, and the main difference is just how they personally hope things will go. if only all the loons would piss off and form a tribe like they we should, i'd have nothing against them.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 7 2004 19:47
Steven. wrote:
Lazlo - don't most primmies mean a society using agriculture as "civilisation"? And that'll still remain no?

Many primmies are against agriculture -- especially the domination of animal and human labour that it has involved. However, there's also a strong pro-permaculture strand that sees 'forest gardens' (created integrated ecosystems using fruiting trees and bushes) asaviableway to support ourselves.

I'm not planning to starve while we work it out -- communist agriculture for me in the short term.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 7 2004 21:14

one thing i think i need to address here is that i wouldn't be against knowledgeable people using whatever means necessary to do this job. if sending nuclear waste into space was safe, then i wouldn't require scientists to use pine cones and pine straw.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Oct 7 2004 21:53
Quote:
one thing i think i need to address here is that i wouldn't be against knowledgeable people using whatever means necessary to do this job. if sending nuclear waste into space was safe, then i wouldn't require scientists to use pine cones and pine straw.

You objectively counter-revolutionary, undeniably revisionist, reformist running dog

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 8 2004 00:48
Garner wrote:
Steven. wrote:
Like Lazlo says the best bet will probably be to make GM bacteria who eat it and turn it into tuna or something.

Nope, sorry. I happen to know quite a bit about GM bacteria, and that's just silly. You can do molecular changes with biology, but not nuclear ones. If it goes in as plutonium, it'll come out as plutonium. Maybe plutonium stuck to some protein or something, but still plutonium.

Er I was joking - sorry if that wasn't clear, even with the tuna comment tongue

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Oct 8 2004 16:07

D'oh! embarrassed

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Oct 11 2004 12:46
Steven. wrote:

Don't people remember a couple of years back when NASA launched a plutonium-powered probe into space and there was a huge uproar from environmentalists (and rightly so), cos even tho there was only about a kilo of the stuff it could have killed millions if it'd gone wrong?

To be fair, I did actually mention that as a likely problem. I'm wasn't saying necessarily that this should happen, just that it's the only way that primmos could deal with nuclear waste if they wanted to get rid of technology. That's all I was saying...

Quote:
Not wanting to sound arrogant, I do know a fair bit about it. And it ain't gonna work for the forseeably future. Like Lazlo says the best bet will probably be to make GM bacteria who eat it and turn it into tuna or something.

fair enough. thanks for enlightening us... smile

steve999000
Offline
Joined: 31-10-04
Oct 31 2004 23:46

why do primitivists always think they can convince everyone to "leave" civilization, when they cant convinve one syndicalist.

anyway. facts.

1) native americans warred against each other, raping, mass murdering, and even cannibalising.

2) Nuke material does indeed last HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years. longer than our species has been around, 30 000 years, poss. however, bland restatements of Zerzans on "humanity" being 2 million years will not alter this fact.

3) durign the pertrol strike, there was no food left on the shelf after about 4 days. what happens then? we eat each other?

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Oct 31 2004 23:55
Quote:
Nuke material does indeed last HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years. longer than our species has been around, 30 000 years, poss. however, bland restatements of Zerzans on "humanity" being 2 million years will not alter this fact.

er, i don't think it's just zerzan who thinks humanity's been around for 2million years, a load of scientists and suchlike think that too. 30 000 years is hardly anytime in terms of cultural evolution and colonising considering the level of technology of most of humanity for most of it's existence. unless you think god made the world in seven days of course, in which case it's going to be very hard to debate with you.

steve999000
Offline
Joined: 31-10-04
Nov 1 2004 13:21

what im saying is, its a matter of debate, not fact. various paleaontologists take different dates. it depends what you define as "human". saying as its based on about 5 fossils, one of which at least has parts missing that mean it cant even be determined whether it was bipedal, it seems odd to refer to this as "humanity" as zerzan does. there is no definitive way to say whether they were a different species, and certainly, they may have vastly different social life to the "primitve" peoples he selectively chooses to emphasies his points.

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Nov 2 2004 16:19

Anatomically modern Homo sapiens have been around for something like 50-200,000 years, based on mtDNA as well as fossil evidence. If you include other species of Homo (habilis and erectus, mostly) then you get to about 2-3 million years.

I guess Zerzan wants us to revert to the cultural level of Homo erectus, which just proves what a complete fucking nutjob he is.

stilllooney
Offline
Joined: 6-01-06
Jan 6 2006 21:16

Well well well. Never even heard of this discussion board before. Accidently came accross this thread were I am being quoted. Nice to be famous. I am not exactly a Liberatarian although I do post on a discussion board made up predominatly of liberatarians (with a small L).

I like the way you guys try to ridicule my response yet not a one of you has come up with a viable sollution too the question of what to do with nuclear waste.

I especially got a kick out of the suggestion to put into space. Some of you already touched on my answer to that stupid Idea.

You guys do understand that depleted uranium and plutonium are the easier items to get rid of. First off stop creating more. Then once depleted rebury them in containment in the same mines that they were taken out of.

Its the coolant that is the real problem with no viable long term solution. There is thousands of tons of water that gets run through nuclear plants every year. It is used to cool the cores down so they don't go critical and have a meltdown like Chernoble.

After a while the water becomes radio active and stays to hot to be an effective coolant. You then have waste that unlike normal toxic waste is "Hot" for thousands of years. Unlike depleted uranium which in itself is no more toxic then other heavy metals (when pulverised at the tip of a missile its unother issue for another topic) Heavy water is a liquid and will leak out of the best containment at some point if not constantly maintained.

The best bet is to send it to were they sometimes already send it. Relatively stable ground wthout much of a water table in the salt flats out in Utah and Idaho. It still has to be contained as best as possible and possibly a good absorbant should be used to keep potential leakage to a minimum.

Unfortanatly metals would errode over time and plastics would melt from the radiation. Some type of ceramics (similar to the technology used on the space shuttles heat shields) would be best suited for containment.

We would still need to keep people in the area with knowlege on what to do in case of leaks and for general maintannce. Also it would have to be hidden and have leathal protections (a-la indiana jones) to keep out those in some post technology civilization who would want to abuse what is in there.