Leanan,

I am one of those environmentalists. I've had my share of marches and blockades, but I have done a 160 on this issue after 30 years (not quite 180).

The environment movement is split on this issue, but the pro-nuke wing is a minority wing. Same over the question of immigration as we witnessed with the election last year for the Board of the Sierra Club. The let us stop immigration minority wing was labeled as "racist" over wanting less people to illegally enter the USA.

There are many environmentalist (a minority) who want to go back to the Rousseau "noble savage" world too. They may get their opportunity, but it is interesting to note that those same noble savages killed off the mammoth, mastodon, etc.  

"but it is interesting to note that those same noble savages killed off the mammoth, mastodon, etc.  
"

Worth repeating.  Making some past culture your latest and greatest mental refuge (religion) is silly.  Our ancestors were just as cut-throat as us.

Otherwise The Mother of Nature would be looking on a group of Homo Saps doing something Other than making plans to gor at eachothers throat and ask questions later.

As an anthropology student, I can't let this one go by...

"it is interesting to note that those same noble savages killed off the mammoth, mastodon, etc."

There is still a debate going among archaeologists as to the proximate cause of the extinctions--climate change or overhunting.  See one discussion:  http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/mammoths/extinct.htm

Most likely it was a combination of the two, but there are good arguments made on both sides.  The so-called "savages" lived with the same pressures we do--finding enough resources to survive and reproduce.  In an environment where there was an abundance of other game, I doubt there was much pressure to conserve one species.  Mammoth and mastodon were preferred because there was a lot of return on your investment of energy.  Once they were gone, people switched to other sources but probably not without difficulty.  In general (there are always exceptions of course), tribal hunter/gatherers evolved ways of living sustainably in their environments, including keeping their population sizes stable through infanticide if necessary.  While that statement might be construed as an argument for the validity of:
"Our ancestors were just as cut-throat as us" there are also examples of hunter/gatherer cultures that are much more cooperative and non-agressive than we are.  Google the Kung people of the Kalahari, or the Mbuti people of the Forest in Africa.  There are also the Yanomamo in the Amazon, however.  My point is that it's not necessarily true that humans are by nature wasteful or "cut-throat".  Culture has much more to do with it and that is something we can change.  Given the dwindling supply of the resources that keep our culture going, IMO we are definitely going to have to change and adapt in order to survive.

JACK ---- FAVOR PLEASE

Would you PLEASE email the Midwest Renewable Energy Association at:  info@the-mrea.org ???

(please just once though or they get quit owly at you - "pest" stone repelant they use (organic even)

PLEASE talk to them.  Like the NewAge Repbulicans, myself and the EcoCulturally Correct, we have the SAME GOALS (goals - like in tag as a kid).

But I feel their (MREA) good intentions only serve to CLOUD the rode to HAdes we are now Paving In Progress...