Ahmad Bitar
When discussing technologies, it is necessary to take emotions into account; along with the available factual information on implementation, risks, and development. These notions will be expanded onto nuclear energy, more specifically on how emotions come into play and debate the enactment on this form of innovation.
The disaster in Fukushima was a recent memory on how much nuclear energy has become such a hotly debated topic with regards to technology and societal change. This atrocity was in fact significant however, as this brought the attention to how nuclear energy must be fully prohibited ; since accidents were previously said to be nil. It must not be that simple, as agents are split into two forms of thinking: either ignoring the risks and repercussions of nuclear energy or using it as enough evidence to completely prohibit it. However, the general public are too irrational and too emotional to have a full on debate on the risks and safety. Still, distributing risks and benefits on nuclear technology cannot be based on purely quantitative analysis. Ethical considerations must be accommodated to allow for a more rational judgement on a cost-benefit analysis on the risky technology. Hence, emotions do come into play as it pertains to the perception of risk by general society. Psychological research has even further stated that emotions are in fact necessary to make common and moral observations and judgments. The general public hence must not be ignored, their judgement is stemming far from a quantitative point of view, rather that of emotions.
No innovative technology comes without a risk, but the general public have taken extreme outlooks on nuclear energy for good reason. Fukushima served as a target to refute the means of implementing nuclear energy, while others see the vast benefits it can bring as it pertains to efficiency and long-term safety. Finding a right balance to include risk emotions in nuclear power judgement would have to include several options. A strong starting point would be to use emotions as a starting point in all debates about nuclear energy. This ensures that stakeholder agents are taken into account before quantitative analysis and facts are presented. Will this suffice?
Perhaps another option would be to make a wide range of people in the general public more emotionally aware of the effects nuclear technology can bring to society as a whole. This can be done through various communication media such as newspapers, billboards, and various forms of literature. This can help bridge the gap between the two conflicting outlooks, and ensure prosperous experimentation into the fields of renewable resources responsibly and emotionally-conscious.
These discussed issues and the example of Fukushima can serve to apply better arguments for the debate on nuclear energy. A forward-looking approach and responsible experimentation would focus on more specific conditions under which responsibly implementing nuclear energy might be fully acceptable. With regards to democratic debates, emotions of agents should further be taken seriously and make emotions the starting point in debates about nuclear power. This will then provide a medium for focus on purely important ethical issues that need to be addressed and discussed. This will pave the way, in the end, for a more fair and rational debate on nuclear energy and how it can be applied appropriately.