Slashdot Mirror
Forget Hashtag Activism: a Millennial's Guide To Nuclear Weapons Realism
Lasrick writes: Matthew Costlow is frustrated with his generation's tendency of "hashtag activism" and would like Millennials instead to get real on the issue of nuclear weapons. He writes: "Allow me to suggest a radical new mindset for my generation as it confronts the issues of nuclear disarmament, Russian and Chinese aggression, and nuclear proliferation: extreme humility. Instead of 'boldly' proclaiming the need to raise awareness, let's utilize our generation's greatest asset—access to data—and truly understand the issues before trying to solve anything. Instead of proposing 'fresh ideas' for their own sake, let's recognize that we are not the first generation to deal with these issues and probably will not be the last. Instead of studiously avoiding specifics or hard choices, let's face a messy reality and not simplify an increasingly complex world to bumper-sticker activism."
That will help.
Great Idea! +1 Like
#nomorehashtags
is to "nuke them from space" Ha Ha!!
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
Data driven politics has a name. No need to reinvent it. Unfortunately, it's always struggled to get a strong following.
-Chris
As near as I can tell, hashtag activism occurs in cyberspace. REAL activism occurs in meatspace. My advice to millennial "activists"? Step away from the internet and do something real.
(don't do it on my lawn)
An article and summary using buzzwords and hashtag activism to suggest people should stop using buzzwords and hashtag activism about nuclear issues - just to make the OP feel like they did something more than using buzzwords and hashtag activism.
P.S. Hashtag activism.
On the internet no one can tell you're a Millennial, or from any other group, for that matter. I voted this article down as stupid, but it got through anyway. I'm sorry, but I'm not part of the echo chamber that âoeboldlyâ proclaims the need to raise awareness, nor do I assume such an echo chamber contains only Millennials.
Guess what, those old people milling about in Congress and running around Iowa trying to become President, when they were young they didn't trust anyone over 30. They were the generation of Rock N Roll and psychedelic drugs. They were so special that they were going to change the world forever and usher in a new utopian age.
Now they're just old fogeys and the world still has war and poverty and nuclear weapons.
Studying the history, reading and evaluating the various pundits, activists, experts and talking heads output is hard. Sure; any one of normal intelligence and education should be able (and willing) to do this, but it is human nature to take the easy way out if possible. How many people, even in political organizations, really pay attention to what the other guy is saying, attempt to understand what is being said and why?
It is the real world equivalent of reading all the foot notes and reading all the citations mentioned in the bibliography. It's tedious and time consuming, even people whose job it is to actually do all of that due diligence stuff tend to skimp and cut corners if they can. Only Russell's teapot knows how many student essays and theses, how many scientific papers, how many campaign and floor speeches reference totally bogus or inapplicable bullshit, counting on the audience to not bother following up on them. I am convinced however, that it is a large number.
This is just human nature, and I've come to simply accept it for what it is. So; rather than ranting on about how people should be doing X or Y, I try to ask myself Why don't> people do X or Y, How can I make X or Y the more desirable/rewarding choice than what the people are already doing?
Why don't more people do this? Obviously because doing that is also hard compared to just ranting about what people should be doing. Frankly; I consider myself a smart person, but I haven't been clever enough to figure out a way to make active, diligent participation in the democratic process more desirable/rewarding than just sitting at home complaining about the politicians.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
Thank you for offering a great example of what Costlow says is wrong with Millennials. Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions. The only thing keeping it from being a perfect example is the use of actual hashtags.
Bravo!
Really what kind of idiot wants to dismantle a system that has kept the world peaceful for 70 years.
So, if WE get rid of our nukes, that'll ensure that North Korea never uses a nuke? Interesting theory. Got any evidence it'll work?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What specific actions would free humanity from the threat of nuclear catastrophe?
1) nuclear disarmament is a start.
That's like saying, in response to a question on how to solve world hunger, that "coming up with a magical device that just produces free food for everyone is a start". I mean, yes, it technically is, but you haven't made anything clearer.
2) advancing our nuclear technology to use thorium would eat up nuclear waste and not produce plutonium.
That's one valid point. Of course, it doesn't really solve the problem that states want to produce plutonium, because they want to have nukes. Until you address that part, the rest is immaterial.
nuclear disarmament has been going on for a LONG time!
Yes, except that it, for the most part, hasn't been unilateral (in cases where some countries did unilaterally dispose of their nuclear programs and/or arsenals, there was always an implicit assumption that they have a bigger ally who'll step in for them for MAD purposes).
Furthermore, that process, despite going for a long time, has not really resulted in disarmament. There has been a significant reduction of stocks compared to the height of Cold War, but it basically went down to the level that's necessary for MAD and then stopped. If you want full disarmament, past experience is not necessarily helpful. And it's not even a given that the present configuration is stable, in light of the recent developments in world politics...
it will take time and money to fully develop and the public has been conditioned to be terrified of nuclear anything.
How much time? How much money? Where do we get those resources from? How do we recondition the public?
politics
Politics is one of the major factors in the development of human society - indeed, any coherent plan you might have for making things better is by definition also "politics". The question you should be asking is, how to rally people [who make decisions] behind your politics. If they aren't there already, it's either because they don't know about it (in which case, how can you make them be aware?), or because they perceive it to be conflicting with some of their other interests (in which case, how can you make it not conflict, or convince them that this is more important?), or because they don't think the plan will work (in which case, is it perhaps because there are some objective flaws in the plan, and how to address them?).
* How would unilateral nuclear reductions enhance our security?
It would ensure that these dangerous weapons are not used on humans.
Yes. A unilateral nuclear disarmament (especially complete) would indeed ensure that these dangerous weapons won't be used on humans. It will be some other dangerous weapons, of a country that did not disarm, that will be sued.
So... can we do those
Who is "we"?
Millenial is completely wrong, and I RTFA and verified that they in fact spelled it correctly there, so what was written here wasn't copy/pasted. Whoever wrote this intentionally mispelled it. WTF Slashdot
The following irony scares the crap out of me:
Hollywood has exaggerated every explosion or fireball effect that they have ever tried to use in an action film to the point it no longer resembles reality. The opposite is true with every nuclear weapon that Hollywood has ever tried to use in a film.
My limited knowledge of movies confessed, I can only think of two movies that are even close: Godzilla 1998 has a fantastic opening sequence of nuclear tests, however their accuracy is only there because the footage is of real American nuclear tests. The other movie, where the effects were surprisingly well captured, was (don't laugh) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though the realistic effects of the blast were completely undone in my mind when Indy's lead lined refrigerator was thrown several miles to safety when it should have been crushed like a tin can by the compression force of the shockwave. Don't get me started on the 4MT bomb that was detonated a full minute (by hovercraft velocity mind you) off of Gotham's coast in the latest batman. The heat damage from that would have melted glass and given 3rd degree burns to anyone exposing bare skin only seconds before the shockwave would have leveled most skyscrapers. Instead, Hollywood gave us a mushroom cloud clipart in the distance that could at best rival Hiroshima (keep in mind a yield difference factor of 200).
This lack of appreciation for the true power of nuclear weapons is a huge problem with any real effort in nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation. I'm not sure if this is a problem of public ignorance, or if the scale shear scale of the destructive power of thermonuclear weapons is beyond the grasp of most humans. I would guess a combination of both. My recommendation to anyone who wants to get a true feel for their power is to watch the documentary titled 'Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie'.
I would actually like to see a live action movie where effort is made into the accuracy of the effects of nuclear weapons. Why do people fear the radiation released by nuclear blasts far more than the damn blast itself? If you are caught in a nuclear blast, there's at least 5 likely causes of death that I can think of that would kill you long before the effects of any radioactive fallout are even noticed.
rant over
How many people did the Chinese leadership murder? Somewhere north of 50 million?
Murder implies intent. Most of those millions died through economic incompetence. The leadership of China did not intend to kill them.
Also, keep in mind that the people running China today, are the political descendants of the people that opposed the excesses of the past.
If you know a better way of making more virgins, I'd like to hear it.
Studying the history, reading and evaluating the various ... experts.... output is hard.
It's also really, really fun, once you get the hang of it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What do we want!
Evidence-based policy making!
When do we want it!
After a thorough examination of all the available data!