Wealth redistribution is not gifted money in lottery quantities. Tax income can be spent on affordable housing and any other public service.
We need regulation to give the egoists boundaries and wealth redistribution to lower capital income and foster labour income. Changing incentives is hard.
> Commercial surveillance is only trying to sell you something you don't need.
Besides the maximimization of revenue, the profit motive also dictates the reduction of risk.
Consider any application for insurance, membership, coverage...
>government surveillance, is trying to lock you up because they have run out of real terrorists to fight
"Government is surveilling/fighting you because who else" is easily applicable to $EvilCorp monopolies, because its tautological.
And the penalties will be absorbed by the corporation, aka customers and employees. Limited liability enables sociopaths, sanctions on the other hand come too late and fall too short.
Biology is very complex and contrary to public believe generally wasteful and not efficient and also not beautifully designed and in harmony but messy, and so is genetics.
The chance that a single random base pair mutation (not a gene) actually gets activated/expressed and forms a functioning protein that is even advantageous for survival and gets passed down to descendants is tiny. Cancer or a rare genetic condition is much more likely.
What you need is source of trust and right now its signatures which are outsise of the users control.
A 5 cent hardware button which gives you a small time windows to install a new trusted bootloader could achieve the same thing without trusting microsoft.
This doesn't actually address some of the scenarios SB is intended for. I.e. you're an IT administrator, you manage a fleet of 1000 machines, you want to ensure that they are all running secure bootloaders and secure kernels and secure software, top to bottom. In that scenario, every end user having a little "security vulnerability" button they can press if they get bored (or feel like being malicious) isn't appealing.
Having to send someone out to press the button at a thousand desks in order to update the bootloader? Also not appealing.
Germany's energy (overall and electric power) production has been knocked back to 1970s levels [0]. If that is working, failure is unimaginably bad. The trend is grim.
China, on the other hand, has built a new US sized economy over the same timeframe that looks very similar to the German situation on a per-capita basis. I'd rather live in a country that was doing similar things with energy. The trend is rosy.
German Net Power Generation in First Half of 2024 35.0% of energy from fossil fuels. More than half of that could have been replaced by nuclear energy by not shutting down power plants.
Ironically, with strong regulations from a neutral government, the conflict between the privileged billing class and the poor working class would not erode our society.
> The entire economy is a massive government-centered money laundering scheme.
This kind of shifts the blame away from the private sector which is actively undermining democracies.
> Citizens of nations are burdened with trillions of dollars of debt that can never be repaid.
Incorrect. Where is the money that had beem loaned by central banks and is now needed to keep infrastructur and our society in general afloat? Our f̵i̵s̵c̵a̵l̵ monetary system is a zero sum game in the end. So where did the money go?
> Incorrect. Where is the money that had beem loaned by central banks and is now needed to keep infrastructur and our society in general afloat? Our f̵i̵s̵c̵a̵l̵ monetary system is a zero sum game in the end. So where did the money go?
Most of that money which the government created comes back to the government via taxes. High taxes keep the loop short. Like I said, after 10 hops, with just 30% tax, $100 ends up being taxed down to $2.80... So say a corporation receives a $1 billion gov contracts, pays their executives and employees, then their employees pay rent to their landlords, then the landlords pay builders for renovations, etc... 10 hops and only $28 million remains of that 1 billion... $972 million is back in the government's hands whence it originated.
It's just a matter of time before that full $1 billion dollars has hopped its way right back into the government's hands via taxes.
> Most of that money which the government created comes back to the government via taxes
Super wrong. (At tends of quadrillions of dollars wrong this might be the wrongest economic take I have ever seen.)
Total taxes in the U.S. in 2023 were $4.5tn [1]. GDP, a sum of transactions, $29tn [2].
More trivially: the money supply, at $21 quadrillion [3], dwarfs both the federal budget and the Fed’s balance sheet combined, and has almost-monotonously grown over the last century.
"Our fiscal system is a zero sum game in the end."
That would be news to me?
Money is created all the time and also lost. The central banks try to keep prices stable, by influencing the rate in which money gets created, so why should it be zero sum?
(not a US citicen, though, but I belive the US central banking system works this way)
>This kind of shifts the blame away from the private sector which is actively undermining democracies.
This. Rants of the GP's type are pretty common after one gets an intro to the monetary system with a little bias thrown in. These are readily available on a YouTube near you.
They tend to be vague and talk about "the banking system" or "the economy" or "the government" being somehow corrupt or rigged, as if by design.
Thing is, they're not wrong that something is amiss, but it's not the systems in general. It's private people and corporations that are doing the rigging. Free flow of money into politics courtesy of Citizens United, regulatory capture, a purchased SCOTUS that now openly represents anti-democratic ideals and defangs government in favor of oligarchs, etc.
And, it's accelerating. Who'll even need regulatory capture anymore when you can just have SCOTUS nix the government's power to regulate?
These are the actual issues and their source is pretty clear. Through that lens, vague ideas about "the system" seem so egregiously obvious a distraction, they read like disinfo.
Diversity in energy sources is a good point but not strictly an argumemt for nuclear power.
You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants, which, as previous comment noted, take much longer to build.
> If a source is green, it must be used.
"Green" is a perfect propaganda pitch btw. The actual problems we try to solve are energy source and waste products. Nuclear energy looses on both aspects, which is why its much more expensive (also including risk/complexity).
IMO nuclear power became just another alternative narrative, like ivermectin, because right wingers cant deny covid or climate change anymore and cant bow to the other side.
You have weak arguments against renewable energy and none for nuclear yet you smell propaganda and ideology and dismiss a well sourced comment.
I am using your own arguments against you.
> Besides the fact that no one predicts how much more renewables[/nuclear] can scale [or last], where prices will go, and whether they will be enough. All it takes is one war or a few more tariffs with China to screw up renewable[/nuclear]-only decarbonization.
> You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants, which, as previous comment noted, take much longer to build.
Why should I respond to someone who proposes to build renewable in parallel, while omitting in the same sentence the possibility of building multiple reactors in parallel?
It's a rhetorical game that says enough about the user's goals. I do not intend to stoop to such a level.
> You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants.
I am not ignoring anything, I repeat, going only renewable implies not diversifying.
That a geopolitical problem could destroy decarbonization goals is a real risk. Or do you want to deny China's total monopoly in the industry?
No energy source is perfect, including nuclear and solar, so stop adding arguments just to overshadow the problems we're talking about.
> "Green" is a perfect propaganda pitch btw.
Well, we can define and use the word that you prefer.
By green I mean a technology whose emissions are low enough to help in decarbonization. Is it better?
Decarbonization is the main issue here.
> The actual problems we try to solve are energy source and waste products. Nuclear energy looses on both aspects, which is why its much more expensive (also including risk/complexity).
As I wrote earlier, the main problem is decarbonization. Secondary problems exist in any kind of energy source.
That the IPCC predicts nuclear growth in most scenarios is quite indicative of its relevance to decarbonization.
So nuclear power is important for decarbonization. And it has been shown over the decades to be a viable option for providing electricity with low emissions. Do you deny this?
Once we accept that, we can discuss how slow and expensive it is, but before then I don't see it possible to engage in an intellectually honest discourse :)
Well, technologically, maybe, but not in terms of location. Previous commenter called it "democratized".
> do you want to deny China's total monopoly in the industry?
No, but that could change. As china did, we can orient towards an electrical future too and there are generator designs without rare earth elements. So chinese dominance is not a given.
> By green I mean a technology whose emissions are low enough to help in decarbonization. Is it better?
I prefer the term "sustainable" and by framing it with energy sources and waste products i am giving you the higher order problem at hand.
> Decarbonization is the main issue
I disagree because my scope is broader. I agree with your statement that NE is "cleaner" than fossil based power plants for now, because as with carbon, its just a matter of scale too.
In an inverted scenario where nuclear waste is the main concern, i could, like you, argue in favor of fossil power.
The path ahead is quite clear, our focus should heavily be on renewables and only tolerate finite energy source as temporary in our transition strategy ... which is something you would deny, i guess.
> No, but that could change. As china did, we can orient towards an electrical future too and there are generator designs without rare earth elements. So chinese dominance is not a given.
True. But looking at the problems we are experiencing in the silicon world, a transition could bring a generalized crisis and quite a long time to return to "current" production levels. We're already struggling now with decarbonization, and China's is just one possible problem that we can't afford on the roadmap. So the priority should be to diversify to minimize these problems
> I prefer the term "sustainable" and by framing it with energy sources and waste products i am giving you the higher order problem at hand.
That's fine, but "sustainable" is a very subjective term. What is the threshold of sustainable? And I bet we have different views and different priorities.
> I disagree because my scope is broader. I agree with your statement that NE is "cleaner" than fossil based power plants for now, because as with carbon, its just a matter of scale too. In an inverted scenario where nuclear waste is the main concern, i could, like you, argue in favor of fossil power.
But somehow it seems contradictory to me in some places.
The materials and rare earths from which panels, wind blades and batteries are made are finite. Recyclable, but finished.
Uranium is recyclable from spent fuel, and renewable from the sea.
Then in addition to uranium other types of elements can be used such as fuel, Thorium, Plutonium, etc. (CANDU reactors for example can go with Thorium)
Also this basic argument seems a bit lacking to me, all these energy sources have a finite life, a panel a few decades, a power plant 60-80 years. When new more efficient ways to generate clean energy are discovered they will be used and replaced, we have this now, and it would be better to use them.
Plus, regarding the term "sustainable," and its subjectivity, I find it a priority to minimize the materials required. Because having billions of tons of waste to recycle, it's much harder to control, do it effectively, and in a sustainable way in every corner of the earth.
So I much prefer very small amounts of hazardous material (highly controlled and localized) over endless amounts of inorganic material everywhere.
Plastic, even for noble uses, has already demonstrated the worst of man's carelessness. So nice democratization, but one must also recognize its problems and limitations.
Regarding the word "democratization," however, I see a lot of propaganda in it. Whenever it's used it almost seems like people are naming a divine entity. And all kinds of issues, accountability, feasibility, etc. are omitted. And conversely, any kind of "centrality," is intrensically a problem. I really have a hard time seeing past something of the rhetoric of the "mighty and evil."
The illusion of a neutral global institution like the UN is a result of US hegemony too. They could not tolerate international courts but prosecute Assange...
I would go even further and blame the state of the developing countries on the west too, because their selfish competetivly oriented globalisation left them as vasals since the end of colonization.
This is actually the sadest part, what will remain of this hegemony: a world order made by and for the corrupt. Maybe china makes it better since they resisted IMF, WHO, etc but i have my doubts.
It's clear to me many of the European colonies post & during Monarchal Empires were exploited. But Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines, Germany, and a lot of the places that were sorta "vassals" of the United States faired well off-ish. I see a lot of examples in history where the United States actually played hardball with the colonial powers of Europe post WWII siding with the exploited more, forcing concessions on the European powers.
Not that the United States isn't flawed or doesn't do hypocritical or unilateral diplomacy (Israel or anything related to communism, & I guess installing/supporting dictators that support US interests), but is it too much to ask if you can provide me a few examples where the US acted like an exploitative colonial power that hindered developing countries (at least in the past 80 years)?
Besides installing dictators or at least manipulating political movements beyond latin america...
It looks like china is trying the same thing the west did after WW2: debt trap diplomacy. [0]
The linked article focuses alot on china in a negative way but the origin of debt trap diplomacy began with the bretton wood institutions (IMF, WHO, world bank) in 1944 and resulted in the debt crises of 1980s [1,2] and the globalized developing countries. These institutions where handing out massive loans meant for development but bound to sometimes very harsh economic reforms [3,4]. The effect was not the promised growth but the debt crises and the (imo intentional) economic opening of resource rich but otherwise poor countries to the well developed economies of the west.
Afaik the US did not directly acted as an expoitative power but hindered developing countries as a proxy for multinational corporations. Like for chiquita banana in latin america or for shell in nigeria [5,6].
This story is decades old, explains well the current corrupt-but-useful leaders all over the southern world and i dont even have to go into the petrodollar and its meaning for small oil exporting countries. The US/the west is imo very responsible for the global state of affairs and the gain of power/wealth is the only explaination for the development we took. This is my bridge to exploitation but propably not the smoking gun you where looking for. This topic is so vast to just focus on a single country.
Im 2 paragraphs in and already started my comment, this is how bad this article is.
... 5 paragraphs, its getting much worse. Just ponder this marvel:
> Social evolution and genetic evolution go hand in hand. But the former is much faster than the latter.
Self contradiction right away.
Or this one:
> In complex societies, myths and grand narratives are utterly important. They are what makes people agree to cooperate on a larger scale. Without bombastic ideas like Islam, the Welfare state, free speech or the superiority of the Aryans, complex societies wouldn't be possible.
Id counter that bs with basic needs. Any society, no matter their complexity revolves around the fullfillment of basic needs. Food, shelter, medical care, security, etc.
The article is not entirely bs but way too social darwinistic:
> Cultural evolution happened when societies confronted each other.
Evolution just needs mutation and selection. No other culture required.
One last nitpick:
> Strangely enough, I know of no comprehensive attempt to catalog basic human social structure.
