Let us sum up the nuclear discussion, one of the most controversial issues to date.
Remember our discussions on the Middle Way where we learned that there is a point of truth between two extremes? On this issue as on all others there are extremes, but remember this. Finding the point of truth is not so easy as merely looking in the exact middle. The point is somewhere between the two extremes and it could be anywhere.
One way to recognize a far right or left who is a distance from the point of truth is that he will be unwilling to incorporate true and proven facts into his thinking, but instead will stick to his mindset with religious conviction.
The nuclear issue is perhaps the most emotionally charged one of our day and as such is a good separator from those who want to remain Piscean (emotional) conscious verses Aquarian (mental) conscious.
I've been a science buff all my life and studied some nuclear physics when I was younger. Since we are dealing with this subject I have been refreshing my learning on it and catching up on new developments.
As I have surveyed the whole situation as it exists in the present I see a large pull of Piscean Age thinking pulling on the emotional nature and has caused mankind to focus where the danger is not rather than where the danger is.
We have taken the side of nuclear power (which has a perfect record in the west, to the extent that not one death has occurred which can be attributed to radiation due to the functioning of a nuclear power plant) and made it look like we are sitting on top of a doomsday bomb.
On the other hand, there does definitely exist a real nuclear threat which is capable of blasting us back to the Stone Age - the atomic bomb. This is a real threat, yet for some off reason almost all the nuclear activists put their energy into shutting down nuclear power as a source of energy and little or none into the prevention of a nuclear war.
In the early 80's when nuclear activism first started I was encouraged and attempted to cooperate with them. Unfortunately, all the activists I met had as their main interest, protesting rather than putting forth a plan of action. It was not long before their attention seemed to shift completely away from nuclear weapons to nuclear power and has remained so unto this day. I discovered that most of those who were against nuclear power knew very little about it. They just seemed to be against it because it was the religious conviction of the group.
I had no desire to be in a group just to be against things, so I moved on seeking instead to be a positive force for change.
Unfortunately, very little good has happened in history by people who were merely against something, even if that something was a great evil. If there is no positive plan in place, that which is protested against us usually replaced by something even worse.
Many cite the Founding Fathers of the United States as an example positive protesting, but these men were reformers first and protesters second. In fact most of them merely acted in a positive direction rather than reacting through protest. Instead of making a protest as their main goal, or to bring the economy of England to a standstill, they instead merely sought to be left alone to implement their ideas.
If an individual, company or group has a track record of reasonable harmlessness then they should be free to pursue their goals.
I'm out of time for now. We will continue this shortly.
Copyright 2001 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved