tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post7824587867781735289..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Nuclear Energy and National Identity Part V: Against National Stereotypingeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-32560574725691610592011-06-15T23:49:24.489+02:002011-06-15T23:49:24.489+02:00hey dude, it's not "unvershaemt", it...hey dude, it's not "unvershaemt", it's "unverschämt" with an s! And, even worse, it's not "Deutch geboren", it's "Deutsch"! Too funny to be deleted, sorry. Next time, I promise!Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-612065372824457042011-06-11T03:00:29.819+02:002011-06-11T03:00:29.819+02:00Werner @27 might "unvershaemt" describe ...Werner @27 might "unvershaemt" describe your attitude. The Washington times has the following "Indeed, in the past two years, two public safety stories have dominated global news headlines - an explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and a nuclear power plant meltdown in Japan. Yet in the recent German organic-food-disease outbreak, nearly twice as many people already have died as in the two other industrial disasters combined.<br /><br />In response to the oil spill, countries all over the world have stopped or curtailed deep-water oil drilling as new safety and environmental regulations are designed and implemented. And ground hasn’t been broken on any new nuclear power plant in Europe or the United States since news of the Japanese meltdown broke. Germany is developing plans to mothball its whole nuclear industry.<br /><br />Yet, 23 deaths and more than 1,000 hospitalizations caused by an industrial accident at an organic farm in northern Germany have caused no such newfound caution toward the expansion of that industry. It is easy to understand why. Organic farming has a reputation for being the domain of small-scale family businesses focused on caring for the Earth more than profits. Every organic-produce customer I interviewed at three supermarkets since the German outbreak began have cited better health as a key reason for buying organic food."<br />Is there not something naive and sefserving about green supporters most of whom have no technical qualifications and understand nothing about the complexity of nature.<br />Deutch geborenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28818121626668492272011-06-10T11:02:38.877+02:002011-06-10T11:02:38.877+02:00Love the link about German nudity. It is true as w...Love the link about German nudity. It is true as well! My nanny is German with an English/Irish boyfriend and last summer she dragged him to a nudist beach in Germany. He was mortified for months after. :o)Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786488141172477857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58329125188752458912011-06-09T17:48:09.556+02:002011-06-09T17:48:09.556+02:00Excellent link; a case for participant observation...Excellent link; a case for participant observation! This finally makes you an honorary anthropologist! Congratulations!Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61444829765938907942011-06-09T17:42:29.875+02:002011-06-09T17:42:29.875+02:00my sudden interest in culture ????? So ungerecht. ...my sudden interest in culture ????? So ungerecht. ich lese die Bild jeden Tag seit Jahrzehnten.<br /><br />to celebrate agreement here is an <a href="http://www.slowtravelberlin.com/2011/06/07/naked-in-berlin/" rel="nofollow">interesting link</a> about German cultural traitseduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-23766474570841925522011-06-09T17:20:53.518+02:002011-06-09T17:20:53.518+02:00@eduardo
please, read again my comment #39 to Geo...@eduardo<br /><br />please, read again my comment #39 to Georg. <br />My objections were <br />towards the "how" of cultural analysis, to the methodology. "German angst" etc. do not serve well as analytical tools. <br /><br />Furthermore, I was suspicious to the motivation behind your sudden interest in culture. This interest only comes up in natural science when things run contrary to scientists' intentions or wishes. Suddenly a political decision (nuclear - non nuclear) is transformed into a decision between rational (science) and cultural (irrational). This attitude is not a good start for cultural analysis, because it has a blind spot. Only the others are cultural, but not the observer. Which is wrong.<br /><br />I am glad that we finally agree.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-49476367080923642792011-06-09T16:51:05.032+02:002011-06-09T16:51:05.032+02:00Werner,
of course it makes sense to me. That is w...Werner,<br /><br />of course it makes sense to me. That is what I have been arguing all the time (! ). That this decision, and others can be explained by the cultural background in Germany. by the same token that similar decisions in France and Spain can be explained by their respective cultural backgrounds. <br /><br />Now I am really totally confused :-)eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-1338387148101812092011-06-09T16:42:54.768+02:002011-06-09T16:42:54.768+02:00@Eduardo
sorry for the confusion:
"Could it ...@Eduardo<br /><br />sorry for the confusion:<br />"Could it be purely rational decision by physicist chancellor and a highly educated population?"<br /><br />No, I only wanted to say that chancellor and electorate are educated people who know what they do (and not a bunch of angst driven Germans). Frau Merkel is not a layperson in things energy; let's assume that she can even legitimate her (policy driven) decision scientifically. I did not intend to say that the decision is purely "rational" or "science based". My fault, sorry.<br /><br />nuclear - coal: it's not about votes. Georg and you had the purely rational (and maybe correct) argument, that many more people die in coal mines than by nuclear plants. Correct. I just wanted to point out another aspect: coal mining is a cultural technique with a long history. It is part of the everyday culture in many countries. On the other hand, nuclear plants never really became part of everyday cultures. Coal mining is related to the making, the exploitation and emancipation of the working classes, for example. There is nothing comparable with nuclear energy, except the protest cultures against it and the association with nuclear bombs (lots of deaths, by the way). So nuclear energy is not seen by too many as a natural candidate to substitute coal. It doesn't fit in; quite the contrary, kicking it out strengthens the sense of (counter-) culture. (in Germany; in France, it might be different).<br />Does that make sense?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-70672445067339816372011-06-09T16:19:22.158+02:002011-06-09T16:19:22.158+02:00Werner,
mm. I am now totally confused by your com...Werner,<br /><br />mm. I am now totally confused by your comment. You first asked whether ' <br /><br />Could it be purely rational decision by physicist chancellor and a highly educated population?'<br /><br />I interpret that you suggest that it could be so.<br /><br />But later you write:<br /><br />By the way, counting death rates does not help much when we agree that all big decisions are deeply rooted in culture. No doubt mining produces many more deaths; but mining is deeply entrenched in our cultures, while nuclear energy obviously is not. There is not really a nuclear lifestyle, but the Ruhrgebiet or the British coal mines are indeed a (dark) national heritage.<br /><br /><br />Isnt it contradictory? If the decision to phase-out nuclear energy, instead of coal-fired plants, is based on entrenched culture - I interpret here many more votes from coal mining regions - it cannot be based on scientific grounds. The government can take that decision, of course. It is however based on electoral calculus and not on scientific reasoning. The fact that this has been a long claim of the Green movement just underlies its political motives.<br /><br /><br />To your questions about France. Totally agree, those questions can be posed as well. France has not taken that decision now, thats why we discuss the German decision. If France had decided now to move into nuclear power we would be discussing its cultural background as welleduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15912360977085557072011-06-09T12:21:54.457+02:002011-06-09T12:21:54.457+02:00@Georg
no objections, Georg, as long as you take ...@Georg<br /><br />no objections, Georg, as long as you take my above caveats into account. I never doubted that there is a lot of work to do for a cultural scientist; instead, this decision is indeed historical and deserves to be analyzed. I only had some methodological implications concerning the use of national characteristics, national stereotypes, and ideological biases as analytical tools.<br /><br />Thus, I considered none of the analyses in the articles I posted (Telegraph, Die Zeit, NYT) as really helpful for understanding the German decision. They are all busily constructing a national identity for polemic purposes instead of helping to understand a political decision. Thus, these articles (and the use of these stereotypes) do NOT serve as a template for cultural research.<br /><br />By the way, counting death rates does not help much when we agree that all big decisions are deeply rooted in culture. No doubt mining produces many more deaths; but mining is deeply entrenched in our cultures, while nuclear energy obviously is not. There is not really a nuclear lifestyle, but the Ruhrgebiet or the British coal mines are indeed a (dark) national heritage. Nuclear cultural traditions or lifestyles mostly exist in the negative, as anti-nukes (except those towns near power plants which were well paid by the nuclear industry). <br /><br />I totally agree with you, national histories (in the European, colonial etc context) absolutely matter. This indeed differs in each country, while there are many mutual dependencies (such as Euroatom).<br /><br />Furthermore, quitting nuclear energy does not necessarily mean forgetting the greenhouse gas problem (it's already discussed a lot in German TV, for example). There are many ways to carbon friendly societies (and many possibilities to fail miserably). I am sure you will remind folks that there indeed is a problem...<br /><br />You see, no objections anymore.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14254275433397786602011-06-09T10:58:15.727+02:002011-06-09T10:58:15.727+02:00@Werner
"So I, a cultural anthropologist, get...@Werner<br />"So I, a cultural anthropologist, get educated by natural scientists about the use of talking to people, about the existence of cultural differences and the insights cultural history can offer."<br /><br />Why not? You are also explaining scientific questions as completely open for whatever conclusion. "Some say this and others say that. So its a postnormal situation"<br /><br />"For example, why not ask: Why is France still so stubbornly nuclear?"<br /><br />1) The question was asked and I tend to be convinced by the answer (see the text by Radanne). <br /><br />2) Right now the question about the German decision is more interesting since a) no other nation took this decision b) it has major consequences for both german and european CO2 emissions c) with the slightly changed words of Wilhem II:<br />I dont know political parties, I only know anti-nuclear convictions. There is actually no other nation where the anti-nuclear power movement became a sort of constitutional conviction no longer disputed between the political players. Quite unique and for the moment no other real political issue comes to my mind which stepped completely out of the political domain and became a sort of core belief of the nation.<br /><br />So that's why it's worth looking for national culture and particularities to understand the german decision.<br /><br />Could it be purely rational decision by physicist chancellor and a highly educated population?<br />I dont think so.<br />Other methods to produce energy are more dangerous (www.leonardo-energy.org/repository/Library/Papers/incidents.pdf). To a large extent Germany will replace nuclear power by coal burning with longterm consequences (cc) and short term risks (accidents) higher than the running german nuclear power plants. A discussion about that takes not place. So I think there is actually some work to do for a cultural scientist.Georghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07807390701146588135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-18324090403737997042011-06-08T22:03:33.430+02:002011-06-08T22:03:33.430+02:00One of my former teachers said that Germans are a ...One of my former teachers said that Germans are a nation of people tending to extreme reactions: extreme nationalistic (WWII), extreme anti-nuclear, extreme anti-salad (Ehec). Frenchmen are more unorganized, and a collective hysteria wave is damped by an inborn refusal of authority. This makes sudden nation-wide mood-changes more moot, less probable to be directed by a common agreed Zeitgeist. That the radical nuclear Ausstieg is a healthy democratic decision must be proven during the coming years. If Germany refuses to import large quantities of nuclear electricity from its French and Czech neighbors, does not return to fossil coal and gas plants and manages to keep it's metal-smelters, ok, than I agree that this was an intelligent nationwide reaction and not a collective hysteria triggered by a far away accident.fmassenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074824121358348249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47486530589585248062011-06-08T08:16:48.115+02:002011-06-08T08:16:48.115+02:00So I, a cultural anthropologist, get educated by n...So I, a cultural anthropologist, get educated by natural scientists about the use of talking to people, about the existence of cultural differences and the insights cultural history can offer.<br />How come?<br /><br />Obviously, Eduardo and Georg search for an explanation. Why does Germany / the German government phase out nuclear energy? Why does Germany not follow their advice? There must be something culturally wrong. Maybe it's the "German angst"? Or German irrationalism? Or even something related to German antisemitism, as the Daily Telegraph suggested? <br /><br />I suggest to explain this political decision differently. The decision to phase out is as scientifically sound as is the opposite. If there is a postnormal situation, then it is the nuclear debate. There are experts on both sides. There re values in play. The stakes are high. And the topic is hot.<br /><br />It is a political question whether we use nuclear energy or not. There is no "Sachzwang"; instead, there is an option. Politics opted against nuclear energy. Look at the recent history of social movements and at the political landscape of the past 40 years in Germany: the phase out does NOT come as a total surprise.<br /><br />That's why I think the sudden interest in cultural history is not completely innocent. I don't deny the use of looking into cultural concepts. But when doing so we should have a self-reflective and critical view at the questions we pose. <br /><br />For example, why not ask: Why is France still so stubbornly nuclear? Is the trauma of collaboration during occupation that hinders them to follow the German example and to phase out? Or is the postcolonial trauma of a formerly influential nation, that makes them stick to nuclear power fantasies? Or is it an unconscious expression of the prevailing sexism - the atom bomb as the ultimate sexual fantasy? Or is it the result of brainwashing propaganda in a centralized nation?<br /><br />You think these questions are ridiculous? Are they more ridiculous than "German irrationalism", "German angst", "German romanticism" or, as the Daily Telegraph suggested, even something related to "German anti-semitism"?<br /><br />In my previous posts, I displayed journalistic examples of such a highly speculative and apolitical approach - by both sides, pro (Die Zeit) and contra (Daily Telegraph, NYT). Instead of soul searching, why not acknowledge that a nation with a physicist as a chancellor and a highly educated electorate made a decision in a case with two valid options. It is important to judge; but first we should respect those who we want to understand. It is the cultural anthropologist who has to learn, not the other way round.<br /><br />Of course, as an anthropologist, I totally agree that cultural history and the history of cultural differences are highly important topics. Both the history of natural science as well as the history of the European Union are closely linked to nuclear power. My suggestion, as cultural anthropologist, is to see the phase out first and foremost in the context of post-war (nuclear) history. In the context of klimazwiebel, this debate also can serve as an example for a truly postnormal situation and a case study of postnormal science.<br /> <br />In cultural disciplines it is, maybe other than in natural sciences, extremely important to be self-reflexive. This is also true in respect to your research questions. Otherwise, you will find in history or everyday conversations only what you wanted to find.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19921035738008163022011-06-08T03:11:14.726+02:002011-06-08T03:11:14.726+02:00My definition of "German Angst": Wishing...My definition of "German Angst": Wishing not to be free from fear.<br /><br />To understand this it is necessary to differentiate between "real dangers" ( a car accident) and "potential risks" (nuclear energy). Therefore the two topics "speed limit" and "nuclear phase out" are not comparable. Germans do not fear dangers, they are obsessed to find risks.<br /><br />The growing number of deaths in car accidents until the 1970s has not led to a speed limit, but to the development of safer cars and infrastructures. This is one reason (not the only one) for the strength of the German automotive industry. And second this solves the problem: We simply do not need a speed limit anymore to make traffic safer. The argument for the speed limit now (since the 1990s) is not safety, it is emission reduction. The danger has been replaced by a risk (climate change). And if the reds and greens will win the next elections and form a government together, the speed limit will be implemented. Again the German Angst will win.<br /><br />(By the way: Seen from a scientific point of view the only reason for a speed limit can be boosting the capacity of the streets - but this has never been discussed in Germany in the public.) <br /><br />Some remarks to this very interesting discussion:<br /><br />@ Eduardo:<br />The Atlantic ocean is smaller and easier to cross than the Pacific. Therefore the Europeans were able to discover the Americas and to settle there, and not the people from Asia. This means new markets for trade and the expected outcome of satisfying them leads to more efficient production processes. This ignites the Industrial Revolution (in Great Britain as the leading sea power). It is a question of geography, trade and innovation, not one of social aspects.<br /><br />@ Ghost:<br />"We have to (re-)build an uranium industry, we have to build huge nuclear waste deposits. To do that, we need a huge amount of money and we have to convince 70-80% of the population."<br />Accepting the dangers (the destructive potential) of nuclear energy as such and not seeking for risks (the operational safety) would lead to the rational answer: Shut down the old facilities and build new ones without the identified destructive potential. All we need is to build up a thorium industry, then we do not need any nuclear waste deposits anymore (the "waste" will be an origin of new resources then). We need 10% of the population backing this solution and not willing to change their minds. Then this might be a future for our electricity production. <br /><br />@ all:<br />That the shutdown of the nuclear plants in Germany is combined with the ending of basic and applied research in this technology is one of the most important aspects of the plan of our government which is commonly not noticed and not discussed. Ignoring the technological realities and opportunities is a typical result of German Angst.Peter Hellerhttp://www.science-skeptical.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80792677125814325812011-06-07T14:58:25.261+02:002011-06-07T14:58:25.261+02:00George, actually, come to think of it, it might ve...George, actually, come to think of it, it might very well just be Danes coming along for a bit of demonstration and discussion. We like that. I always maintain that the only thing a Dane do without discussion is dying…. and that only after having discussed how to die :o) <br />Anyway, it strikes me how we are all products of what is coded into our “software” in terms of past experiences and education etc. When I see “race, age, nationality and sex” I think “protected characteristics” because I am an employment solicitor who has had quite a few cases dealing with discrimination. When reading Werner’s comments about the “German angst” I was reminded of a case where an employee successfully claimed race (nationality) discrimination because her boss had said something ending with “unless you are married off before” (she was Indian). Similarly I reckon that a German, as an employee, would have a fair shot of claiming nationality discrimination if he was asked to do something which he declined saying that he didn’t feel comfortable doing so as he didn’t think it safe and he was then told to shut up and not give in to his “German angst”:o) The reason we protect against race, age, nationality, sex and sexual orientation discrimination is that any nation on Earth contain multitudes and therefore it doesn’t really make sense, in general, to speak of “German angst” or “Scandinavian gloominess” etc. My comment above about the Danes is, of course, the exception ;o) <br />Last week I went to a conversation with the writer V.S. Naipaul who managed to be controversial (the newspapers in the UK picked it up) by saying that no female writer is “equal” to him. The reason being that they ALL write “sentimental toss” because “a woman is never the master in the house”. Personally I just thought he had lost it a bit. It would have been perfectly fine to say that it is difficult to compare male and female writers (there is a big distinction to be made between things not being “equal” and things being “different”) or he could had said that Jane Austen wrote sentimental toss. Others might not agree but he is entitled to that opinion. By saying that “all women write sentimental toss” he totally undermined himself. A bit of the same thing here in my opinion. It is perfectly fine to say that the decision to close nuclear down in Germany is “angst based” or not a rational decision (if that happen to be your opinion) but to talk of a general “German angst” sort of undermines the argument, in my opinion, because of its generality. Gosh, I really gotta do some work now :o)Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786488141172477857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43046343462038599282011-06-07T14:11:37.804+02:002011-06-07T14:11:37.804+02:00Hello,
I'm commenter n° 20 an forgot to menti...Hello,<br /><br />I'm commenter n° 20 an forgot to mention my name again. I never thought I would ever agree with Georg, but he's not all that wrong this time.<br /><br />The first thing I learned in my life about germans was "arrogance". Many people still were a little bit angry because the germans did invade our (political neutral) country some 20 years before I was born. <br /><br />What about a cultural identity when we speak about the holocaust?<br /><br />Well many people I knew in my life were good friends and they were germans, but even many of them told me they thought that germans were arrogant (at that time).<br /><br />What I learned later on to like about germans was their openness, their green movement, their Krautrock usw.<br /><br />They became less and less arrogant and hated their own conservative behaviour of the past.<br /><br />The first time I was confronted with a similar kind of arrogance again was during the "climate wars" of the last decades and one person behaved like the quintessence of this "old german behaviour". And now he is posting here and I agree with him on some points. <br /><br />That's a real revolution, a clash of cultures. And even if my beloved Krautrockers now still call for photovoltaic and wind energy and protest against nukes, I know how much I miss them .<br /><br /><br />Yeph <br /><br />;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71966600007926156402011-06-07T14:01:23.943+02:002011-06-07T14:01:23.943+02:00Werner,
since I am not an anthropologist I may not...Werner,<br />since I am not an anthropologist I may not be using the right terminology. I am not suggesting any cultural determinisms of the sort 'Germans are like this, they have been always been and they will be always be. Let me illustrate it with an example instead of using misleading concepts. The industrial revolution emerge in Britain in the 18th century. why there and then and not in China in the 19th century or in Spain in the 15th century. There must be an explanation for this. I gather that this explanation does not involve any DNA or race superiority of any king. I assume that it will involve a combination of physical, but also societal, circumstances. For instance, a societal milieus supporting risk taking, or profit making or any other, that was not present in the other societies. This does not mean the the British society has been and will be leading the world - obviously an absurd idea. By the same token, Germany now displays some characteristics that are not found in France or Britain, which may disappear in the future and which did not exist in the past. This happens for all cultures. Perhaps that is what you call 'politics' and I call cultural dynamics, for instance. <br /><br />There are many minor examples of these differences: Springer once tried to launch the Bild Zeitung in Spain, and it failed. Spaniards do not seem to like that type of journals. It doesnt mean that Spaniards are more intellectual, because on the other hand Spanish television is full of gossip and reality tv programs that would ashame most German spectator. In the US it seems very difficult to impose a ban on the right to carry weapons, which is unthinkable in Europe. Why? Political, cultural, anthropological ? you name it, I am not the expert. I surmise that on a larger scale, an explanation could be found as to why there is a powerful Green party in Germany and not in France. <br /><br />Autobahn-Angst. Indeed, Germany does not seem to be afraid of Autobahnen, and therefore the translation of Angst as fear is not correct. It must be something more profound. If it were true it would not be a problem to impose in Germany a speed limit, which as it has been shown this year in Spain has reduced the number of car-crash deaths by 10%. A simple, cheaply implemented measure that on top of saving lives, saves energy (5% of petrol consumption in Spain).A speed limits was discussed in Germany already in 1990, if not earlier. I would have two questions. One is the cultural one: why it is so difficult in Germany and apparently very easy in all other countries ?. The second is the political one: What is the reason not to impose a speed limit on German Autobahnen ? Perhaps because one would lose voters ? <br /><br />__________<br />To your second question:<br />Why not shut down coal plants instead of nuclear plants? <br />Well, why not end hunger? Why not make all people happy? It would be so easy....<br /><br />I think you are weaseling out here..eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53542679730512651372011-06-07T13:14:45.757+02:002011-06-07T13:14:45.757+02:00@Georg
There is a sum X which is right now investe...@Georg<br />There is a sum X which is right now invested in Germany to modernise the german energy sector. So you have to decide between nuclear energy or coal. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />or Renewable Energies or Gas. <br /><br />Cool... I always think like that. The Problem is the "Wende". Change is always risky, expensive, but also full of possibilities. If we point to nuclear energy, we have to built 40, 50 new reactors in the next 30-40 years in Germany. Either to replace old reactors or coal power plants. We have to (re-)build an uranium industry, we have to build huge nuclear waste deposits. To do that, we need a huge amount of money and we have to convince 70-80% of the population. I think, extending the running time of nuclear power plants is different than building new plants, "Wiederaufbereitungsanlagen", research plant, new final deposits, etc. <br /><br />Is this possible? Is this affordable? <br /><br />Comparison France Germany and Chernobyl. (arte biased ;))<br /><br />French people are the ones who believed that because of a High above France and a Low over Italy the Chernobyl cloud stopped in Italy and southern Germany. Who is more idiotic? We Germans or the French? I do not want to decide. It was so simple: just handle carefully or avoid fresh milk and fresh salad in the first weeks after Chernobyl, especially for young children. German government decided to report faithfully, young mothers were really upset and unsettled. French government decided to lie, French people were happier, weren't they? Probably, apart of the little girl in Korsika who ate every day a lot of milk with sugar in the small cheese business of her parents: thyroid cancer. This girl said now: just honesty would have been enough. <br /><br />What is better: Germany or France?<br /><br />PS: thyroid cancer and radioactive Iodine is quite sure connected.ghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47894596713531520992011-06-07T13:13:48.116+02:002011-06-07T13:13:48.116+02:00@Hannah
Just participate in whatever anti nuclear ...@Hannah<br />Just participate in whatever anti nuclear power demonstration in Germany and then ask the people who are wearing the stickers the whys and wherefroms. My guess is that it looks international? No idea.Georghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07807390701146588135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22100998428296436102011-06-07T12:52:30.071+02:002011-06-07T12:52:30.071+02:00Sadly I have to work right now so the rather long ...Sadly I have to work right now so the rather long comment that is building up will have to wait. However, quickly:<br />George, why would the Germans (or the French) say “Nej tak” to anything? It is Danish for “No thanks” (we all grew up saying “Nej tak til Barsebäck” but I don’t recall us sending stickers to Germany). Am I missing something terribly clever? Otherwise it is “Atomkraft? Nein, Danke!”<br />With regard to the "anonymous" couldn’t people just sign off with something that makes it possible to distinguish them from each other? @20 and @24 is either two different people or one person in the UK with insomnia……(no alcohol and camomile tea seems to work for me).Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786488141172477857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-76786261903489764612011-06-07T12:21:49.670+02:002011-06-07T12:21:49.670+02:00@Werner
"yes, talking to people is a good sta...@Werner<br />"yes, talking to people is a good start. As far as I remember, they add some additional methodologies, theories, fieldwork practice etc during the ten plus x semesters at university :"<br /><br />So it might be that all these frenchmen I spoke to who told me that they are not afraid at all by nuclear energy and that they trust in the security of the french nuclear power plants that at the end a psychologist/anthropologists with all his/her years of study finds out that in reality theses frenchies are scared to death?<br />Interesting.<br />Could it also be the contrary? I mean all these germans who are convinced that any birth defect on this planet is due to Chernobyl and who demonstrate since 30 years with the same nej tak stickers are in reality firth believers in the absolute security of nuclear energy. Werner, you are right. I need a lot of phsychological training to read correctly a man/womans mind.<br /><br />"Why not shut down coal plants instead of nuclear plants?<br />Well, why not end hunger? Why not make all people happy? It would be so easy...."<br />More rhetorical foam is hardly possible. There is a sum X which is right now invested in Germany to modernise the german energy sector. So you have to decide between nuclear energy or coal. It's as simple as that. The happiness of all people will be decided tomorrow.Georghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07807390701146588135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-49323292085288177532011-06-07T10:01:41.924+02:002011-06-07T10:01:41.924+02:00@ anonymous #24
I think to sign with "anonym...@ anonymous #24<br /><br />I think to sign with "anonymous" fits perfectly to the content of your post!Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-38894508534868761782011-06-07T09:57:50.429+02:002011-06-07T09:57:50.429+02:00@Eduardo #23
"and therefore it seems natural...@Eduardo #23<br /><br />"and therefore it seems natural to try to explain decisions like the nuclear phase-out in terms of those cultural backgrounds."<br /><br />And why not explain these decisions in political terms? Why de-politicize political decisions?<br /><br />In cultural anthropology, explanatory concepts like "cultural traits", "national characters" or the unity of "territory, nation, and culture" are completely obsolete. They have no explanatory value at all; instead, in the hand of nationalist movements they can turn into powerful weapons. Just think of the use of these concepts in German history, or recently in the nation building process in former Yugoslavia. <br /><br />This does not mean that cultural differences do not exist. But when talking about national differences, the context of the talk is as important as the message. Why does somebody suddenly make use of the national characteristic argument? <br />Why does a scientist, who is known for being absolutely rational, suddenly use highly speculative cultural arguments? <br />The situation, the context is important. Cultural "characteristics" are not like natural facts; instead, they are dependent on speech situations. They are only real when you make use of them. Thus, it is impossible to "objectify" them. Once you do objectify them, you already make a political statement. National folklore studies did so; eugenics; climate science when being deterministic; and there are many more examples when science (innocently or not) contributed to bloodshed, racism, nationalism etc.<br /><br />So I strongly urge to be careful with the use of these concepts. I think we learn much more about the German nuclear phase out, when we study the last forty years of debate about nuclear energy in Germany. When we study the role of science, of industry, of social movements and their interplay. <br /><br />Remember, for example, how concerned we are about regaining public trust in climate science after climategate? Why not discuss why nuclear science never again regained public trust in Germany? This would be a much less speculative approach to the nuclear phase out than reasoning about "German angst". <br /><br />To your second question:<br />Why not shut down coal plants instead of nuclear plants? <br />Well, why not end hunger? Why not make all people happy? It would be so easy....Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-74373661343530319202011-06-07T09:06:33.299+02:002011-06-07T09:06:33.299+02:00œReiner #21
Because in the series of articles I po...œReiner #21<br />Because in the series of articles I posted here, so-called German characteristics are used to de-politicize politics. The nuclear phase out is an eminently political process, which is presented in these articles as a kind of cultural defect. 40 years of Anti-nukes movement, the history of the green party etc etc are subsumed under the term "German angst" or German "irrationalism" etc. This is a perfect example for "essentializing" something that is eminently political. I use DNA here as a metaphor for this process, and I think it fits well.<br /><br />You don't have to agree with my interpretation, but it would be interesting to learn something about your opinion, too.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-55863003414386923882011-06-07T03:35:09.456+02:002011-06-07T03:35:09.456+02:00It seems that German organically grown bean sprout...It seems that German organically grown bean sprouts are more dangerous than larger than designed nautural incidents at Nuclear Power plants (E-Coli 18 deaths so far vs Earthquake & Tsunami zero deaths) at Fukushima see here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/03/fukushima_iaea_preliminary_report/<br />I note that the Spanish are turning away from greens & socialists. When will the Germans admit they are again (but in a different way to Hitler- remember he was elected) being lead down the wrong path.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com