What Fukushima Nuclear Accident Shows Us
12 years after the disaster, I have re-explored how to face this issue.
1. Man is a foolish creature
Humans have made numerous mistakes in the past. Whether in the age of religion or in the age of science, we have always repeated the same behavior. The humanities are now attracting the most attention among the general public in an era of uncertain prospects, because they want to learn about universal human nature and live wisely so as not to repeat the same mistakes. It’s not the mistakes that make us humans, but the way we reflect on them. It is important not to renounce the consequences of what happened, but to introspect the causes.
Here is an example. In the Sanriku area where tsunamis are endemic (on the Pacific coast spanning Miyagi, Iwate, and Aomori prefectures), a massive tsunami hits once every few decades, killing all the villagers. After a while, people migrate from other areas back to the same places. Then, a few decades later, they are wiped out by another tsunami. The book “Tsunami and Villages” by Yaichiro Yamaguchi, who studied the reasons for such phenomena before World War II, was forgotten until the Great East Japan Earthquake, but the disaster has brought it back into the spotlight. Unless we have an attitude of introspection about such human tendencies as the tendency to make shortsighted value judgments that prioritize immediate profit over life and to quickly forget history, disastrous disasters, discrimination, and wars will surely reoccur.
2. Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident
This accident simply exposed the fact that people are not smart enough to have nuclear power plants. In other words, in order for us to learn from the Fukushima nuclear accident, we must not dismiss it as a symbol of an accidental tragedy. We need to place this accident in the context of human history and turn our skepticism toward ourselves.
I discuss the nuclear issue as a kind of enlightenment movement that urges us to face up to the folly of mankind. It is the opposite of the Enlightenment that gave birth to the French Revolution, which placed excessive expectations on human reason.
3. We cannot run a nuclear power plant democratically
Many organizations have investigated the Fukushima accident and have concluded that the root cause of the accident was a “structural disaster” due to the irresponsibility of the organizations that fell prey to group thinking. The current level of maturity of the public means that it is impossible to manage an organization democratically enough to guarantee the scientific safety of nuclear power plants and the public’s confidence in them on a sustained basis.
When human beings assemble in groups, they easily stop thinking and show a shallowness that they could not do when making individual decisions. In Japan in particular, the habit of burying the “individual” by conforming to one’s surroundings rather than being proactive has been ingrained in us from childhood, and we have a strong sense of horizontal alignment. No matter how talented the group of human resources or how noble the ideals of the organization, people become rigid in their attempts to maintain their own position and relationships.
In addition, it can be pointed out that the unique nature of nuclear power does not lend itself to democratic control, but requires centralized, top-down politics. Science, which enjoys tremendous support because of its objectivity and logic, is ultimately easily incorporated into the human power structure. We must be deeply aware that science does not make us smarter.
4. The construction of nuclear power plants raises ethical issues
It is also important to consider the nuclear power issue from the perspective of power = capital. Nuclear power encompasses a colonialist ethical agenda of exploitation and domination of the “periphery” by the “core.”
Those in the “core” are willing to make sacrifices far beyond their reach, and honestly want to maintain the present system.
The ritual of remembering 3.11 once a year and externalizing the issue with the clichéd phrase “it is important not to let the memory fade away” works to atone for the sins of the powerful themselves but fails to make them aware of their own culpability.
So, what can we do to make people realize that the nuclear power issue is “their” issue? In considering this, it is necessary to consider what factors are causing people to shy away from the nuclear power issue.
5. The dichotomy makes the essence of the problem invisible
The first major factor is that the word “nuclear power plant” itself already has a troublesome smell that directly evokes ideological conflicts. It is not good to focus only on the issue of whether or not to operate nuclear power plants. Not only does it emphasize the one-sided image and dichotomy of nuclear phase-out = emotional and idealistic, and restart = logical and realistic, it also gives the impression that some highly conscious people are fighting, and even motivates people to assume indifference.
Any person needs to denigrate someone else in order to assert his or her opinion. For example, as a difference in perception before the fact, the nuclear power plant de-nuclearization group says that “Public opinion is turning to the right,” “Politicians want to restart nuclear power plants,” and “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine showed the danger of nuclear power plants,” while the restart group says that “Public opinion tends to jump to de-nuclearization,” “The criteria for restarting nuclear power plants are too high,” and “Using the invasion of Ukraine as material for de-nuclearization lacks logic.”
By setting the basis for their argument against their own position and reverse-defining “who they are not,” they attempt to maintain their own superiority.
I would like to introduce an interesting discourse by sociologist Emile Durkheim. He stated that “crime is rather essential to society.” By watching the news and accusing criminals, it is possible to make them label themselves as “not criminals”. I thought the same thing could be said of the composition of the nuclear power plant de-nuclearization group and the nuclear power plant promotion group.
Leaving aside the credibility of the evidence, from a step backward, both the nuclear phase-out camp and the nuclear restart camp appear to be engaged in a sterile debate on the same level. And by watching from the sidelines the slightly “itty-bitty” people engaged in sterile debate, one is encouraged to self-define oneself as “not so itty-bitty,” and most people feel less threatened by the fact that they are indifferent to the nuclear power plant issue.
6. Simple oppositional structures are not always evil, but….
However, this is not to say that we should quit study groups, demonstrations, and campaigns for nuclear power phase-out. Even in high-level philosophies of thought, simplification of issues and oppositional structures occurs in the process of penetrating the consciousness of the masses. Just as misandry (male hatred) was necessary in the process of the feminist movement’s penetration.
For an individual to keep the light of awareness lit for more than a decade, or for the issue of nuclear power to become visible as a “problem” in society, there must be a simplified icon, “nuclear power free.
However, we must also be aware that maintaining the icon has become a self-objective. For many people, the nuclear accident is just news they saw on TV, and their temporary memories and feelings will fade, so in the end, it is individuals with that kind of “conviction” who can continue to talk about nuclear power, and a stable conflict structure will continue to be maintained. Many people are becoming dimly aware that we are at a point where we cannot expect major changes even if we just continue to insist on nuclear power phase-out.
7. Let’s change the framework of our thinking
The prescription for this current situation is to change one’s own perception first, rather than to change society. In other words, we must break free from the dichotomy, consciously or unconsciously.
As a first step, for example, what if we draw a table of 4 divisions in our minds with “what we want nuclear power plants to be as an ideal” on the x-axis and “what they should be in reality” on the y-axis? (image:1)
Surprisingly few people, with the exception of narrow-minded physicists and those on the extreme right, would say that nuclear power plants are necessary at all costs, whether in an ideal or realistic society. Many, I think, believe that we are better off without nuclear power plants. Therefore, if we take the viewpoint that we are not talking about an ideological conflict, but rather a difference in personal values, where we should come to terms with the gap between ideals and reality, we may be motivated to have a more constructive discussion, rather than letting our emotions take over.
It would be interesting to create a 3D view by subtracting the time of deliberation, the level of interest, the amount of information received, the source of information, and so on, as the z-axis. (image:2)
If we can be aware that people’s opinions are not flat, but have depth, we will be able to imagine the process that led to their opinions and their personal backgrounds.
Since there are limits to human cognition, if we can collect individual people’s thoughts as objective data, and if we can represent the will of the people in 3D, fair and democratic policies may become possible. We should not only despair at the corruption of Japan’s democracy, but also look forward to the digital innovations that are to come.
8. Summary of my argument
I believe that the core of the nuclear issue lies in taking a bird’s-eye view of universal human modes of thought and perception. The starting point should be to philosophize about human beings, transcending political debates and ideological conflicts.
In order to appeal to cynical young people, why not talk about the nuclear power plant issue not only in the conventional way of gathering subjective and emotional sympathy for the victims’ experiences, but also by positioning the issue in the humanities, where people can learn “what it means to be human” ?
I hope that the nuclear power plant issue will function as a logical and cool discussion forum where everyone can speak freely without taboos.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read this far into my writing. If you’re interested in my subjective experience, you can find it here!
