Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, has an interesting editorial in the Washington Post titled Going Nuclear. He begins,

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust…. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Moore’s essay is important for two reasons. Obviously, he has something to say about nuclear energy and he has some valid points.

More importantly, he demonstrates that continuing to re-evaluate our opinions and changing our minds are beneficial activities. He also shows us that publicly admitting that we were wrong is a positive thing, not a humiliation.

These are easy things to suggest but can be hard to do in real life. My own opinions tend to calcify into pronouncements-from-on-high over time. Once that happens, not only do I fully expect you and everyone else to kow tow to my superior knowledge, but I begin to believe in my own infallibility. After taking that step, the last thing I want to do is stand up in front of my friends and eat humble pie.

Today I am standing in front of the mirror, looking deep into my own eyes, and saying, “If Patrick Moore can do it around nuclear energy and in the Washington Post, I can do it, too. After all, I’m only human. I admit that many of my opinions are wrong and that I can still learn. I can even do it in public view.”

This is a big mirror. Won’t you join me?

chancre’s
chancres
Edit…
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

(No suggestions)
Edit…
Ignore all
Add to dictionary