The Course of Progress

Thomas Cole’s The Course of Empire is a magnificent portrayal of the gradual rise, and poignant fall, of a civilization.

In the painting’s first scene, the sun is rising over a lush valley, an imposing crag dwarfs scantily clad hunters, and a cloudy horizon obscures the land beyond. Nature’s sublimity and its power over man are stirring to the viewer.

As the day progresses, the valley’s inhabitants have banded together and entered a pastoral state, the morning sky is brighter, and mankind’s mark on the land more pronounced, with sustained agriculture and a rudimentary temple. Humanity has not yet abused or altered the valley much, but great development is clearly possible in this fertile region.

Next the sun is at its zenith, as is the city. A once-humble settlement is now the seat of a self-indulgent empire, its architecture obscuring the once-commanding ridge and its people merrily celebrating military triumph and civilizational glory. Intentionally reminiscent of ancient Rome, the city’s decadence seems almost satirical, and likely unsustainable. 

Surely enough, as the afternoon light fades into a stormy evening, the city is embroiled in a bloody conflict, maybe a sacking by an external enemy, or perhaps a civil war. The delicately embellished buildings and stunning statues of war heroes cannot save it from its violent demise. 

Finally, as the sun sets and a dim moon rises, little remains of the previously glorious city. A lone pillar in the foreground draws the viewer’s eye. It once supported an empire but is now merely an overgrown home for a bird’s nest, while the rocky precipice in the background remains untouched, nature having endured mankind’s monumental hubris.

Americans remember Cole as the founder of the Hudson River School, a quasi-Romantic fraternity of painters who depicted vast, often untouched landscapes in a dramatic fashion. As the first American school of artists, these painters – especially Cole – were incredibly historically conscious, and their works were laden with social commentary. Cole painted The Course of Empire from 1833 to 1836, during a period of great change in American culture: the height of Jacksonian democracy and its emphasis on heralding progress. During this period, the concept of an evolving American frontier rose to prominence, with President Jackson’s infamous Indian Removal Act and general westward expansion. To many, especially the Jacksonian Democrats, the growth of America’s borders was part of a linear trajectory of improvement, the inevitable march of civilization. Cole disagreed, instead believing there was more cause for concern than hope. To Cole, no amount of continuous growth or seeming prosperity could triumph over the historical experience of past civilizations: man, and his anti-historical faith in the longevity of his creations, would always be self-defeating; and America, though worth cherishing, was also the next empire that would rise and eventually fall.  

Regardless, westward the course of empire took its way. And when America ran out of land to acquire, it moved on to new frontiers, especially politically and economically with the “Pax Americana” (U.S.-dominated peace) following the end of World War II. Truly the zeitgeist of the post-Enlightenment, Americans conquered abstract frontiers once they had satisfied concrete ambitions. The renowned thesis of the historian Frederick Jackson Turner, that an obsession with the geographic frontier has defined American culture, has clear flaws and is a limited reading of history. Rather, the passion for ever-expanding frontiers of all kinds is symptomatic of a larger obsession with unbridled advancement – what Christopher Lasch, a more recent and comparably prominent historian, believed is the dominant ideology of the Western world, a religion of progress.

Lasch took the religion of progress to be a reaction against longstanding moral values – a secular yet almost millenarian belief that the present was the cutting edge of cultural evolution. To reference the musical film Hair, it is almost an Aquarian conceit that a new age is gradually dawning that will correct injustices and let the sunshine into a world that has been in darkness for millennia. Lasch viewed liberals as beholden to capitalism, which he believed was both culturally destructive with its atomizing individualism and falsely alluring with its presumption that general economic growth – the gradual increase in metrics such as per capita GDP – would solve society’s ills. And whoever espouses mainstream “conservatism” in America, Lasch argued, espouses an incoherent “conservatism against itself,” fighting a culture war on inherently liberal, pluralistic, and capitalistic terrain that will never allow a true victory for traditional values.

In Lasch’s view, then, most groups on the American political spectrum, and elsewhere in the Western world, have had an obsession with cultural or economic progress which leads them to assume that things would surely improve in the long run, that we will escape the once-formidable clamps of history and its limits -- as noted, for example, in Cole’s painting. It was an obsession and assumption that Lasch considered naive and deeply misguided. 

Has modern society truly insulated itself against the ebb and flow of time, transcending the cycle of rise and fall? Is the course of this empire one without finality -- will it never come to an end? Or is Cole’s stormy evening coming, the modern age having failed to live up to its expectations, with hope collapsing as increasingly fanatical groups fail to reconcile their ideologies with reality? 

Lasch saw an answer to what he viewed as dangerous progressivist illusions in what have often been denigrated as petit (small or petty) bourgeois -- lower middle class, or non-affluent middle class -- sensibilities. Marxists distrust this group for its lack of class consciousness or relative apathy and its often-conservative politics, while advocates of capitalism look down on the petit-bourgeoisie for its supposed lack of ambition. Yet Lasch respected this in-between class for maintaining happiness in its simplicity and contentment in its unimaginativeness. They can be seen as something like Cole’s pastoral stage of history – free of excessive materialism and ambition, preferring to care for the land, protect their families, and produce rather than consume. 

For Lasch, such humble self-sufficiency is a desirable model. But Lasch’s answer is unfulfilling. While one can attempt to exit from our modern world’s dominant frontier-expanding, progressivist, growth-obsessed paradigm, becoming illegible to the rest of society and placing oneself at radical odds with its power structures, this is only a personal choice that does not change society, if it is even practical at all. Cole’s decadent city remains unchanged even if a few flee it; arrogance trumps diminishing virtue. At what point do attempts to “exit” become a fatalistic, ineffectual “Benedict option” or purist monkish withdrawal -- the social commentator Rod Dreher’s appealing but flawed recommendation? 

A blind devotion to limitless progress and an unwavering belief in the modern world’s longevity are highly questionable, and we should imagine an alternative. But the proper response is unclear. Some believe that we should, if possible, accelerate the decline of the capitalistic West. Others agree that Western capitalist power is waning, but argue that carefully tailored action should be taken to preserve it and its global influence. And many others genuinely believe that there is no great problem at hand – that the modern industrial-capitalist West is uniquely positioned to escape the traditional downward course of empire. The answer is unclear. But what seems clear is that the hyper-industrialized, no-limits present is just one day in a history that spans countless years, regardless of how long the sun stays up.

The Exponential Unhappiness of Gen Z: Part II

Since mankind became more physically settled with the Agricultural Revolution, most change had been glacially slow. Communities existed unchanged for centuries. Sure, things were generally more repressive and dangerous than they are now, but the basic units of a community, the family and village and religious institution, all endured. People’s lives were hard, but in important ways they were happy. Then, after the Industrial Revolution, change and advancement on all fronts exponentially took off, and life changed forever. The fields of psychology and neurology emerged amid industrialization, and starting in the mid-20th century, members of the “Greatest Generation” and then the Baby Boom generation commonly began to pop pills to drug their brains in order to feel happier. And with the onset of the 21st century, this rapid change intensified. Things that were taboo among most people suddenly became acceptable among most. (Not that any of this change is somehow wrong. It is good that we live in an era when people can more freely express their own unique identities).

In addition, the basic tools that are required in modern life, such as phones, computers, and the Internet, all become at least partly outdated in a short time and we need replacements. In the past, appliances and tools were built as if to practically withstand a nuclear blast; they would last perhaps 30 years before they had to be replaced. The fast, sometimes exponential advancement in more recent technology has, in my view, done particular harm.

Some technologies have virtually destroyed fabrics of community and society which had existed for millennia, leaving humans weak, scared, and impotent in a new, unnatural state.

With the intensification of societal change and technological development in our century, and with Generation Z having to grow up with so little concrete sense of identity and community, such extensive unhappiness in people our age has rapidly followed. The effects appear in many ways. Many of Generation Z, seeking meaning in life while feeling deeply unhappy, begin adhering to dangerous fringe ideologies, whether it be on the extreme left or the extreme right.

The culture of Generation Z is both watered-down and nihilistic, with its artists typically creating sad, soulless works. (Even its meme culture, a fundamental part of its identity, is surreal and meaningless. One needs only to Google deep-fried memes, photos with so many filters applied to them for comedic effect that their original point is lost, to see this.) The effects have been tragic, as members of Generation Z so often cope with their unhappiness by obsessive, and often addictive, consumption of alcohol, drugs, and sex.

What is the solution to Generation Z’s unhappiness? Does one even exist? I don’t know. I cannot say there is some antidote or silver bullet for this plague. The only solution I can see for our generation’s unhappiness would be to end the hyper-industrialized, hyper-connected, and Internet-oriented system of exponential growth and change. Maybe then, Generation Z, and the rest of humanity including those yet to be born, could find peace and contentment.

Opinion: Salem on the Hill

On August 19, 1692, my first cousin, Martha Ingalls Allen Carrier, was hanged as a witch in Salem, Massachusetts. Today, more than 300 years later, we still seek to understand the Salem Witch Trials. Based on wild accusations, unsupported assertions, unreliable hearsay, mere anecdotes, and flawed surmises, more than 200 Puritans were accused of witchcraft and 20 of them were convicted and executed. Why were the accused chosen? Why were the accusers believed? Why were the accused convicted? What happened in Salem in 1692, and why? We may never be able to fully answer these questions, but we must endeavor to learn from history so as not to repeat its mistakes. This has never been truer in America than it is today.

Martha was the daughter of Andrew Allen, a founder of Andover, and Faith Ingalls, a daughter of the founder of Lynn, both in Massachusetts. In 1674, Martha married an immigrant by the name of Thomas Carrier. They settled in nearby Billerica, but during the 1680s, Martha returned with her husband and four children (two had died from smallpox) to Andover. In 1690, an outbreak of smallpox occurred. While afflicted, Martha nursed her father, two brothers, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, two nephews, husband, and four children. Only she, her husband, and their children survived. Upon the death of the male members of the Allen family, Martha became a landowner. Thirteen people in Andover, seven of them in the Allen family, perished. The people of Andover blamed Martha for having brought smallpox from Billerica, but since the smallpox epidemic began in Boston in late 1689, new settlers in the colony might have done so.

Martha was a Puritan who didn’t live a Puritan life. Before she was accused of witchcraft in 1692, she was guilty of four great sins according to the New England mind. First, she was a woman in a society with a hierarchy that placed God at the top, men just below God, livestock at the bottom, and women just above livestock. Second, she was an independent woman in a society where women didn’t own property in their own right. Third, she was a free-thinking woman in a society where the congregational leaders believed women were the weaker gender, more easily subject to possession by the Devil. Fourth, she was an outspoken woman in a society in which men controlled women’s speech and more. Martha may have been the first American feminist.

In 1692, there was another smallpox outbreak in Salem. Joseph Houlton and John Walcott filed a complaint against Martha accusing her of acts of witchcraft against Abigail Williams, Mary Walcott, Mercy Lewis, Ann Putnam Jr., and others who became known as “the Salem Girls.” My distant cousin, Magistrate John Hathorne, and Magistrates Jonathan Corwin and Bartholomew Gedney examined Martha. During the proceeding, the Salem Girls accused Martha of having tried to force them to sign the “Devil’s book.” Martha denied their accusations. Yet the cries and agonies of the girls, from the tortures allegedly inflicted upon them by Martha without her laying a hand on them, were so great that the magistrates had Martha bound hand and foot, taken to Salem Prison.

On August 2, 1692, the trial began. A neighbor, Benjamin Abbott, testified that after a land dispute with Martha about a year earlier, he’d developed a pain in his side that later had become a sore which, when lanced, had given way to gallons of corruption, and that after her arrest, his health had improved and his sore healed. Another neighbor, Samuel Preston, testified that he had a quarrel with Martha and afterward his cow had died mysteriously. Her nephew, Allen Toothaker, testified that after a disagreement with Martha, some of his farm animals had died mysteriously. He also said Martha had told him a four-inch-deep wound he’d received in combat would never heal, and that after her arrest, his wound had begun to do so.

On and on it went. The magistrates admitted into evidence unreliable hearsay, unsupported assertions, mere anecdotes, and flawed surmises to prove wild accusations, none of which would be permitted today. In the courtroom, the Salem Girls screamed out that they could see the ghosts of Andover’s thirteen smallpox victims, and one accused Martha of murdering them all. Several local ministers voiced their concerns about the proceeding, but the magistrates wouldn’t be swayed by them, or by logic and reasoning. The magistrates could see nothing beyond their ultimate goal: the conviction and execution of Martha for witchcraft.

Martha had no legal counsel, couldn’t have witnesses testify on her behalf, and had no formal avenues of appeal. But she could speak for herself, and did. She remained defiant, refused to confess to witchcraft, accused her accusers of being out of their wits, accused the magistrates of conspiring and plotting against her, and otherwise challenged the male authority of the magistrates and others. On August 5, Martha was convicted and sentenced to death. Two weeks later, she was transported through the streets of Salem. No reason, no logic, no justice would prevail to save Martha from the gallows. She was hanged and buried in a shallow grave in unconsecrated ground.

Today, the witches of Salem are no more, but the witch hunt in America continues. On September 20, 2021, the ghosts of Salem came to Hamilton College. The wrongfully accused was a student nominated to the Judicial Board of the Student Assembly. The examination of the accused was a questionnaire different in substance for this one of the ten nominees. The indictment came in the form of an agenda with a pre-determined denial for this one of the ten nominees. The evidence of witchcraft came in the form of defamatory statements driven by discriminatory intent, including a demonstrably false characterization of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. An equivalent of Salem’s concerned ministers were two brave Student Assembly officers who abstained from the confirmation vote. And the self-righteous magistrates were the Assembly officers who voted not to confirm the nominee, even though the confirmation of Judicial Board nominees had been a mere formality in the past.

It is also notable that some Student Assembly officers had initially sought an in-person proceeding to make the confirmation more of a show trial than the standard livestream. This is yet more evidence of discriminatory intent against the nominee — a fellow Hamiltonian who, let us consider, they might expect to see as a student and alumnus on the Hill, now and perhaps in the future: at graduation in 2022, a 25th-year reunion in 2047, or a 50th-year reunion in 2072. In the aftermath, one of the Student Assembly officers was heard proposing to threaten the nominee with further defamation in order to intimidate him. But the nominee refused, and still refuses, to be silenced. If this student can be silenced on campus, any student can be.

According to the college’s Mission Statement: “[T]he College emphasizes intellectual growth, flexibility, and collaboration in a residential academic community. Hamilton students learn to think independently, embrace difference, write and speak persuasively, and engage issues ethically and creatively. One of America’s first liberal arts colleges, Hamilton enables its students to effect positive change in the world.” So where were the intellectual growth, flexibility, and collaboration among Student Assembly officers and members? Except for the two brave students who abstained, where was anyone else who has learned “to think independently, embrace difference, write and speak persuasively, and engage issues ethically and creatively”? Apparently, they were nowhere in sight on September 20.

And what of Hamilton’s Harassment and Discrimination Policy and Code of Conduct? Under the policy, “[a]ll members of the Hamilton College community are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of others … The College prohibits harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, age, veteran status, or any other characteristics protected by law, in its programs and activities. In addition to being antithetical to Hamilton's community values, harassment and discrimination are prohibited by this Policy … and by state and federal laws.” Under this code, “[p]rohibited student actions” include a “[v]iolation of published College policies, rules, or regulations.” Further, according to the Hamilton Student Handbook: “All student organizations [including the Assembly] are subject to Hamilton’s policies, including but not limited to the … Harassment/Discrimination … policy.” Are the Assembly officers so unknowledgeable, or obtuse, that they think the protections of these policies apply to them but not to everyone? If so, what kind of representation do they provide for the Hamilton student body? Seemingly, they believe in no freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom of religion, and no principle of diversity, inclusion, or justice, for disfavored students. 

About a week later, certain Assembly officers published a sanitized transcript of the September 20 minutes on the Hamilton website. Apparently they’d been keen to publish the full transcript, but the administration warned them of potential liability if they did. So, willing to further defame the student, and chafing against the relevant Hamilton policy and code, they published a sanitized transcript of the minutes along with a self-serving statement claiming the Assembly had been silenced. But freedom of speech doesn’t include a right to make slanderous or libelous statements, doesn’t shield one from the consequences of making such statements (especially when done with discriminatory intent), and doesn’t exempt one from Hamilton’s Harassment and Discrimination Policy and Code of Conduct.

In this day and age, due to the reach of the internet, wrongdoers’ acts last forever and the harm is often exponential to a wronged individual. No wonder the livestream of the September 20 meeting was taken down. No wonder the unsanitized transcript wasn’t published on the Hamilton website. No wonder a sanitized transcript was ultimately published. No wonder the nominee has lawyers. No wonder Assembly officers might have to engage lawyers. No wonder some Assembly officers have resigned. No wonder other Assembly officers have approached the nominee to ask whether they might be named in a complaint.

The nominee is an Undergraduate Fellow of AHI and an editor of Enquiry. Hamilton students affiliated with AHI or Enquiry are, and have been for years, under attack in violation of Hamilton’s Harassment and Discrimination Policy, Hamilton’s Code of Conduct, and Hamilton’s Student Handbook. The defamatory statements made with discriminatory intent against the nominee at the Assembly meeting, and the retaliatory conduct proposed by one of its officers against the nominee in the aftermath, will be a permanent and indelible stain upon Hamilton, its history, and its mission … and further, perhaps will become a cold and cruel portent of the failure of a nation, its future, and its promise.

Rest in peace, Martha Ingalls Allen Carrier. Stay strong, nominee.

Note: Margaret Wright is a friend of Hamilton College who is not affiliated with either the Alexander Hamilton Institute or Enquiry.

The Exponential Unhappiness of Gen Z: Part I

Over the summer, I was texting with a friend about life and the culture on campus. This friend and I often get into deep conversations about politics, philosophy, and the Hamilton community, and this time we discussed the social climate. We came to the conclusion that there is a pervasive sense of unhappiness and even nihilism in almost every young person at Hamilton College. We could think of only one student, a recent alumna and mutual friend of ours, who seemed to be free of such unhappiness. As our conversation petered out, I began to ponder: why are so many of my fellow members of Generation Z unhappy, nihilistic, if not downright self-hating? I thought that if I could put my thoughts into words, even if they might seem rambling and incoherent, I might better understand why. Furthermore, I realized that if I wrote this piece, then perhaps I could discredit that awful and hurtful insult, “snowflake,” that people on the right launch at members of Generation Z, and show that our unhappiness comes from a concrete place.

I am not a mental health expert, and have no degree or certification in any field related to mental health. I am merely sharing my perspective on what I’ve seen of Generation Z as one of its members, my firsthand experience of its unhappiness. We are members of it, and all my friends are. And let me add that writing for Enquiry does not mean I have some political or other identity, as some people have imagined. If I receive any harassing messages on social media or elsewhere, I will contact the appropriate channel or channels of authority. Donna Brazile’s tenure at Fox News did not make her a fascist, and J.D. Vance’s at CNN does not make him a communist, no matter what leftists or rightists on Twitter may say.

The origin of the unhappiness afflicting Generation Z can be boiled down to this: over the past twenty years, rapid technological advancement has destroyed the bonds of community to such a point that young people cannot hold onto a stable identity or place. This erosion of confidence and security has led to rampant unhappiness. Consider this allegory: A runner on a treadmill in the gym. All the runners before him have followed an old treadmill regimen, ordered by their trainers, of running at the same consistent pace. But this runner is new and has a new trainer, who modifies the pace, increasing it to maximum speed. At first he runs without difficulty, but the pace grows until he is struggling to keep up. He becomes exhausted and his legs begin to wobble, but he keeps running, trying to stay balanced by gripping the handlebars. Imagine it: sweat drips from your body and loosens your grip on the handlebars. You fall down, scraping your knees. After a few minutes resting, you begin to notice everyone else still working out, while your workout is incomplete. So you keep on running, and persist to the workout’s end, but you’re scratched-up and exhausted when you finish.

My point is that Generation Z grew up in an environment of such fast-paced technological and societal change and advancement that we have been unable to settle down and grow comfortable with the community or set of values we find ourselves in. In the second half of this piece, I will discuss it further.

An Inflammatory Opinion: on Inflammatory Food

Does your stomach hurt after eating at the dining halls? That orange ooze, those oily roasted veggies, PAM cooking spray on every grill, and the giant vats of yellow oil on the counter in Commons are likely causing you more problems than you realize. Inflammatory corn, soy, and canola oils are in nearly every food cooked in our dining halls.

Dr. David Heber of UCLA criticizes modern medicine’s focus on treating symptoms rather than “addressing the root cause” of health issues, “which in many cases is inflammation.” Most of the human immune system resides in the digestive tract. A diet high in processed oils “trigger[s] an inflammatory response,” like a food allergen does, compromising our immune system and often leading to the development of disease. During a global pandemic, attention to the health of our immune systems should be a paramount concern for the college, which has taken so many other dramatic measures to reduce transmission of the virus while serving us food that isn’t good for immune-system health.

Canola oil is “caustically refined, bleached, and degummed,” processes that involve “high temperatures or chemicals that are damaging to the human body.” It is then subjected to “deodorization,” a process of heating that oxidizes the product. “Canola oil is extremely unstable under heat, light and pressure, which causes oxidation and releases free radicals inside the body.” When heated in refining and cooking “it produces high levels of butadiene, benzene, acrolein, formaldehyde and other nasty compounds,” which “when combined with increased free radicals, create the perfect environment for cancer growth.” Ingesting this kind of oil exposes body tissues to “oxidized or rancid products,” which “contributes to degenerative diseases and chronic inflammation.”

The genetic modification of canola and corn causes further inflammation, and creates new allergies with corresponding inflammatory responses. Ninety percent of canola and corn is genetically modified, and because non-genetically modified corn and canola oil are specialty products, it seems likely that all of those oils in our dining halls are genetically modified. Monsanto nearly monopolizes the agricultural industry and produces genetically modified organisms (GMOs), altering their canola and corn with Bt endotoxin derived from bacteria that are designed to burst bugs’ stomachs. A group of French scientists found evidence that Monsanto corn produced tumors in rats and impaired digestion. Another study suggested that Bt corn creates allergies by perforating the intestinal wall. Sources unassociated with Monsanto say that Bt crops have caused digestive issues in rats, mice, and corn-fed cattle. 

If GMOs are so bad, why aren’t they adequately regulated? There is a revolving door between Monsanto and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. One of Monsanto’s attorneys, for example, became policy chief of the FDA, later returning to Monsanto to become its vice president and chief lobbyist. Geneticist David Suzuki summarizes the problem: 

“The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: … What biotechnology allows us to do is to take [an] organism and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species, to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very, very bad science. [The FDA assumes] that the principles governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.” 

Because of Monsanto’s political involvement, the ability to test the safety and health hazards of GMOs in North America is limited. It’s the biotechnology industry itself that tests almost all FDA-approved GM food. In Europe, many scientists suggest the harmful effects of GMOs, and 26 countries have banned them. President Biden has appointed Tom Vilsack, nicknamed “Mr. Monsanto,” to oversee the USDA as Secretary of Agriculture after holding the same position during the Obama presidency. He has reportedly approved more new GMOs than any other Agriculture Secretary, and he continues to serve the corporate interests of Monsanto. Regardless of what you think about any other aspect of the Obama or Biden presidency, the appointment of Vilsack is detrimental to the health of the country, which remains uninformed about the long-term detriments of GMOs and their inflammatory qualities, an ignorance that is convenient for corporate financial interests.

In 2016, Monsanto merged with Bayer, one of the world’s largest antacid, anti-inflammatory, and allergen medication-producing pharmaceutical companies. This $66 billion alliance enables Bayer to cheaply engineer drugs using GM agriculture. With numerous lawsuits against Monsanto that accuse it of failing to disclose the cancer-causing effects of its glyphosate pesticides and with evidence supporting the allergen-creating effects of Bt genes in its seeds, the union of Bayer and Monsanto even creates suspicions of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the GMO industry, since the ingestion of more Monsanto products means a greater market for allergy and symptom-suppressing medication.

With an endowment approaching 1.5 billion dollars, Hamilton could easily prevent long-term mental and physical health effects for its students by requiring the dining halls to use anti-inflammatory non-GMO oils, such as 100 percent extra virgin olive oil or coconut oil. At the very least, it could provide labeled alternatives that are free of such products at each meal. If Hamilton tries to care for students’ health in other ways, perhaps it would be willing to follow the science and change this unhealthy aspect of our diets. 

America's Next Step Toward Sustainable Energy

Looking beyond the largely political arguments over why average global temperatures are increasing, the fact remains that greenhouse gases are filling our atmosphere at an unsustainable rate. You might be surprised to learn that electricity production is responsible for only 27 percent of greenhouse gases that humans produce today. Still, solving this one quarter of the problem is pivotal to reducing other major sources of greenhouse gases. “Electrifying” these other gas sources –like autos and cement factories–is necessary in order to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. Given the energy options we have today, the United States would be remiss not to pursue nuclear power as a key next step toward environmentally friendly energy production.

Coal and natural gas now produce 59 percent of the U.S.’s electricity. Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent. The reasons are myriad, but they mainly involve government subsidies for fossil fuels and the relatively cheap cost of excavating and processing these non-renewable sources. To be clear, similar subsidies exist in countries throughout the developed and developing worlds. These factors make the economic landscape unfavorable for competing clean energy solutions.

Solar and wind, despite our hopes, are not the large-scale answers to our clean electricity deficit. We have largely maximized the efficiency of solar cells, yet solar panels remain a high-cost, low-yield commodity. Windmills are nice, but contingent on regular winds and could never satisfy a large percentage of our national energy appetite either. But the larger problem with these two energy sources pertains to how their energy is stored. If we were to construct the battery facilities needed to store solar or wind energy for entire cities, it would be inefficient and a net detriment to the environment. Just think about the amount of lithium required!

When many in the United States think about nuclear energy, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant accident likely comes to mind, generating unease. People are usually not interested in creating new facilities capable of accidentally irradiating their backyards. However, the reason for Fukushima's failure had not so much to do with the plant’s science or intended design, but rather with corruption. Nuclear plants contain an array of emergency backup generators, designed to keep the reactors cool in a plant failure or power outage. But one of the conditions for these generators to operate as intended is that they be located well above sea level. Instead, the builders of Fukushima determined that it was less expensive to place the emergency generators below sea level. Due to this poor decision, a tsunami flooded the generators and caused the nuclear chaos we all remember today.

Bear in mind, though, that Fukushima's construction began in 1971. Since then, scientists and engineers have come a long way in developing nuclear facilities that will not have reactor meltdowns. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others have invested considerably in the design of far safer, eco-friendly nuclear plants. Some new plant designs use nuclear waste as an energy source, which makes steam the only notable by-product. In short, safe and environmentally friendly nuclear technology exists today, and it’s pretty neat.

If we look past the public unease about nuclear plants and wish to proceed with adding more nuclear power to our energy sector, how many plants should we be building? The best answer is as many as we can–seriously. The United States cannot possibly build too many, as we would require approximately 306 new reactors to provide 75 percent of our current energy needs. We only have 94 functioning reactors today, all but five of which were operational before 2000. Perhaps even more interesting, every reactor currently operational was contracted by the U.S. government during the 1960s and 70s. Each reactor costs approximately 7.5 billion dollars to build, meaning that the construction costs alone required to nuclear-power 75 percent of today’s American energy production would be between 2 and 2.5 trillion dollars. This is an expensive goal, but demonstrates the cost of edging out fossil fuels in the most cost-efficient way possible.

In 2019 and 2020, the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed for the first time since 1957. We are unfortunately about to reverse this trend in 2021, already importing non-renewable energy predominantly from the Middle East. Maybe the scientific discovery for a quantum leap in energy production technology happens tomorrow, but that remains unlikely. If we are truly interested in a more sustainable future, the American people and government must work toward implementing more attainable energy options, almost inevitably including the one proposed here.