Although the concept of «energy» in the modern scientific sense has become widely used relatively recently, many philosophers have reflected on the forces driving the world and the nature of being, which can be correlated with modern ideas about energy:
Heraclitus of Ephesus: his teaching about constant change and the «flow» can be interpreted as a reflection on the dynamic nature of the world, where energy acts as the force underlying all changes. Heraclitus emphasised that «everything flows, everything changes». This reminds us that energy is an integral part of the universe and the source of constant transformations.
Aristotle: he distinguished between potential and actual being, which can be associated with potential and kinetic energy in modern physics. His philosophy focuses on purpose and rationality — energy should serve good purposes, such as ensuring the sustainable development of humanity.
Immanuel Kant: his works emphasise the laws of nature and the moral law within us. From Kant’s perspective, the use of energy should comply with the categorical imperative — to act in such a way that the principles of our actions could become a universal law. This implies a responsible approach to energy sources to avoid harming future generations.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: he viewed the world as a dialectical process where contradictions lead to development. In the context of energy, this may mean that it is necessary to seek a balance between technological progress and environmental consequences, between different energy sources.
How to use philosophical views to support safe energy sources
Responsible attitude to resources: following Kant’s principle of the universal law, we must use energy in a way that does not cause long-term harm to the environment. This is an argument in favour of renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydroelectric power), which are less harmful to the environment compared to fossil fuels.
Seeking balance and harmony with nature: based on Hegelian dialectics, we can argue that energy development should take into account environmental constraints and strive for sustainable development. It is necessary to combine different energy sources, minimising negative consequences.
Goal-setting and benefit for society: in the spirit of Aristotelian philosophy, when choosing energy sources, we should focus on the welfare of society and long-term goals. Safe energy sources contribute to human health, environmental protection, and sustainable economic development.
Awareness of the dynamism of the world and the need for adaptation: inspired by Heraclitus’ teachings, we understand that the world is constantly changing, and technologies must also adapt. Investing in the research and development of safe and efficient energy sources is the key to humanity’s successful future.
Thus, philosophical views emphasise the importance of a responsible and balanced approach to energy use, which is a strong argument in favour of developing safe and renewable energy sources.
The statements of modern and ancient philosophers can help predict the development of society in the context of threats, such as the vulnerability of energy systems to cheap drones, in several ways:
Through the analysis of ethical principles and moral dilemmas:
philosophers such as Immanuel Kant emphasise the categorical imperative — the need to act in such a way that the principle of our actions could become a universal law. This may push society to develop international norms limiting the use of technologies for harmful purposes;
reflections on moral responsibility can contribute to the creation of ethical codes for technology developers, taking into account potential harm.
With the help of theories about the nature of human beings and society:
Plato’s teachings about the state and the ideal society may suggest the need for strong centralised regulation of technological developments and their application;
Thomas Hobbes’ ideas about the «war of all against all» remind us of the importance of international agreements to limit dangerous technologies, since in an anarchic state everyone can take advantage of vulnerabilities for their own interests.
Thanks to concepts about development and contradictions:
Hegel’s dialectic suggests that development occurs through contradictions. In the context of modern technologies, this may mean that vulnerabilities in energy systems will lead to the development of new protective technologies and strategies;
the philosophy of the dynamism of the world (for example, Heraclitus’ teaching that «everything flows, everything changes») emphasises the need for adaptation and constant improvement of security systems.
Based on theories about the role of technology in society:
modern philosophers and theorists (for example, within the framework of technophilosophy) consider the impact of technology on society and may point to the need for balanced development — when progress goes hand in hand with security measures;
analysis of the relationship between technological development and social changes can help predict how society will respond to threats associated with the vulnerability of critical facilities.
Through ideas about the social contract and collective security:
concepts of the social contract (Rousseau, Locke) can be applied to develop mechanisms of international cooperation in the field of technological security;
understanding the importance of a collective response to threats can stimulate the creation of international coalitions to protect critical infrastructure.
Thus, philosophical teachings help to comprehend the deep causes of threats, propose ethical frameworks for their solution and predict possible paths of societal development in the face of new technological challenges. They do not provide specific technical solutions, but set value guidelines and conceptual approaches to solving complex problems.
Comparison of explosion risks for nuclear, solar, hydro and wind power plants
Nuclear power plants (NPPs):
Explosion risks: NPPs carry a potentially high risk of a nuclear explosion or an accident related to reactor meltdown. The examples of the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents show that the consequences can be catastrophic and long-term.
Sources of risk:
technical malfunctions;
design or operational errors;
natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis);
problems with the cooling system;
the possibility of losing control over the nuclear reactor.
Consequences:
release of radioactive materials into the environment;
radiation contamination of the area;
threat to the health and life of people and animals within the affected area.
Solar power plants (SPPs):
Explosion risks: the risk of an explosion at an SPP is significantly lower compared to an NPP. SPPs operate on the basis of photovoltaic panels and do not use explosive substances or energy sources that could cause a large-scale explosion.
Possible risks:
risk of fire due to electrical equipment or wiring malfunctions;
damage to panels during extreme weather conditions (hail, hurricanes).
Consequences:
local damage to equipment;
interruptions in electricity supply;
in case of a fire, damage to the station’s infrastructure.
Wind power plants (WPPs):
Explosion risks: the likelihood of an explosion at a WPP is extremely low. WPPs do not use flammable or explosive materials.
Possible risks:
mechanical damage to blades or towers during strong winds or hurricanes;
malfunctions in electrical equipment, which can lead to a fire.
Consequences:
failure of individual elements of the station;
need for repair or replacement of damaged equipment;
local consequences that do not pose a large-scale threat.
Conclusion:
NPPs have the most serious risks associated with the possibility of a nuclear explosion and radiation contamination.
SPPs and WPPs are characterised by significantly lower risks, which are mainly related to electrical malfunctions or mechanical damage.
Thus, in terms of explosion risk, SPPs and WPPs are much safer than NPPs. However, when assessing the safety of energy facilities, other factors should also be taken into account, such as environmental impact, cost-effectiveness and reliability of power supply.
Statements by modern Nobel Prize winners on the effectiveness of nuclear energy use in the context of aggravating situations in the world
Ira Helfand (Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1985):
Emphasizes the extreme danger of developing nuclear energy in conditions of international tension
Believes that any expansion of nuclear infrastructure increases the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation
Advocates for a complete abandonment of nuclear energy as a source of electricity
Modern experts in the field of nuclear safety note:
High risks of sabotage and terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants in conditions of geopolitical instability
Vulnerability of nuclear energy facilities to modern means of destruction
Catastrophic consequences of accidents at nuclear power plants in conditions of military conflicts
General conclusions of the scientific community:
The development of nuclear energy should be strictly limited in conditions of international conflicts
It is necessary to strengthen security measures at existing nuclear power plants
The priority direction should be the development of alternative energy sources
Key recommendations:
Reduction of the number of operating nuclear power plants
Accelerated development of renewable energy sources
Strengthening of international control over nuclear energy
Development of new technologies for safe storage of nuclear waste
The majority of modern nuclear scientists agree that in the context of aggravation of international relations, the development of nuclear energy poses more threats than potential benefits. They call for a rethinking of the role of nuclear energy in the modern world and the search for safer alternatives.
Statements by modern Nobel Prize—winning scientists on the use of nuclear energy in the context of an escalating international situation:
Alicia Sanders-Zakre (Policy and Research Coordinator for the International Campaign for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a Nobel Peace Prize—winning organization):
Considers that the risks of nuclear war are currently particularly high due to the tense international situation;
indicates a variety of factors that increase nuclear risks, from geopolitical tensions to the emergence of new technologies that complicate decision—making in the nuclear field;
Stresses that in most nuclear Powers, arms control is in the hands of individuals who are subject to emotion, stress, and the influence of disinformation;
He argues that the only way to eliminate the risk of using nuclear weapons is to eliminate them completely.
Ira Helfand (winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, MD):
presented a scenario of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, warning of the enormous risks to the entire planet;
Predicts that a conflict involving conventional weapons will lead to a humanitarian catastrophe with thousands of victims and millions of refugees;
assumes that if the conflict goes beyond the Ukrainian borders, NATO forces will join the fighting, after which a war with the use of nuclear weapons may begin;
provides specific figures on the potential victims and consequences of the use of nuclear weapons: for example, the explosion of a 100-kiloton nuclear bomb over Moscow will lead to the death of 250,000 people, a similar strike on Washington — to the death of 170,000 people;
He believes that the use of 250 warheads with a capacity of 100 kilotons can reduce the average global temperature by 10 °C, which will provoke "unprecedented famine" and the death of modern civilization.
Nobel Prize laureates who signed a letter to the Huffington Post ("End Nuclear Madness") (among them are Jose Ramos-Horta, Muhammad Yunus and Kailash Satyarthi):
Call on the citizens of the nuclear Powers to hold their Governments accountable for non-compliance with their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT);
Note that the nuclear Powers have not fulfilled their obligations under the NPT, despite the destruction of a significant part of their arsenals;
They point out that the United States and Russia still have enough nuclear weapons to repeatedly destroy the world;
They consider it necessary to convene a conference within the framework of the United Nations to conclude a new treaty that would prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons.
According to a survey by the Times Higher Education magazine, which was attended by 50 Nobel laureates:
23% named the possibility of nuclear war as one of the main threats to humanity.In the sources available to me, there are no direct statements by Nobel laureates about the possible chain reaction during the construction of many nuclear power plants and the growing risks. However, there are some mentions that might be useful:
Glenn Seaborg (Nobel laureate, later head of the US Atomic Energy Commission) expressed very optimistic assumptions about the widespread use of nuclear energy in various spheres of life: "There will be nuclear-powered shuttles for flights from Earth to the Moon, artificial hearts with nuclear engines, plutonium-heated pools for scuba divers and much more." This statement reflects early enthusiasm for the possibilities of nuclear energy, without focusing on the potential risks.
The discovery of Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann (who, together with the Austrian physicist Lisa Meitner and Meitner's nephew Otto Robert Frisch, conducted experiments with uranium products bombarded with neutrons) showed the possibility of fission of uranium nuclei. This discovery became fundamental for the development of nuclear energy, but also highlighted the potential risks associated with a chain reaction.
Fermi and his team worked to create the conditions for a self-sustaining chain reaction, which eventually led to the creation of the first nuclear reactors. Scientists of that time understood the significance and potential danger of a chain reaction.
Although specific statements about the risks associated with the construction of many nuclear power plants are not presented, the history of the development of nuclear energy shows that scientists were aware of both the enormous potential and the serious dangers associated with the use of atomic energy.
Although direct statements by modern philosophers are not available in the sources accessible to me, some general topics and concerns that are often discussed in the context of nuclear energy and international security can be highlighted:
The threat of international terrorism and military conflicts:
NPPs may become targets for attacks in conditions of international instability and conflicts. The vulnerability of the plants poses a serious risk to the environment and human safety;
there is a danger that in the event of war or terrorist acts, NPPs could be destroyed, leading to large-scale radiation disasters.
The problem of nuclear weapons proliferation:
the construction of NPPs in some countries may contribute to the development of technologies that could potentially be used for the creation of nuclear weapons;
the escalation of the international situation increases the risk of nuclear technologies falling into the wrong hands.
Political instability in uranium-supplying countries:
countries accounting for more than 30 % of the world’s uranium production (Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, Uzbekistan) are considered politically unstable. This creates additional risks for fuel supply to NPPs in other countries;
geopolitical conflicts may disrupt the supply chains of nuclear fuel, negatively affecting the operation of NPPs.
Long-term risks and responsibility:
the question of how to isolate radioactive waste from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands or millions of years remains open, raising ethical questions about the responsibility of current generations to future ones;
the need for safe storage of radioactive waste and decommissioning of NPPs after their service life requires long-term international agreements and cooperation.
Dependence on political and cultural factors:
philosopher Karl Friedrich von Weizsäcker argued that the global spread of nuclear energy requires a radical change in the world political structure and culture. He concluded that at present there are no political and cultural prerequisites for ensuring universal peace, which makes nuclear energy vulnerable from the perspective of international security.
The balance between technological progress and security:
the development of nuclear energy raises the question of how ready society is to accept the associated risks;
it is necessary to carefully weigh the potential benefits of using nuclear energy against the risks it poses in an unstable international climate.
Thus, modern discussions on the construction of NPPs in the context of an escalating international situation cover a wide range of ethical, political, and technical issues, emphasising the need for international cooperation and strict security measures.
