blastuponsometerries t1_is7k3lv wrote
Reply to comment by nuke621 in Ethics of Nuclear Energy in Times of Climate Change: Escaping the Collective Action Problem by CartesianClosedCat
>Iād argue the biggest obstacle is will.
And who's will specifically? Why do we allow those who benefit massively from the status quo to stymie any change or progress?
​
>We certainly ended up with a nuclear weapons arsenal that is much bigger then the power generation industy with all the waste products to boot. ... The moon landing and interstate highway system come to mind.
All of those were in the interests of the powerful. Luckily most coincided with the interests of the people as well. Nuclear weapons both protected the country as well as allowed it to have massive leverage over others. The moon landing was invested in out of fear of loss to communism, not some noble good. But the science that came along was a nice bonus.
Coincidentally the interstate highway system just so happened to result in the final dismantling of the US passenger train network. So cars went from a luxury to mandatory for participation in the US economy. Great for oil interests.
​
>Sometime in the 1970s, the US lost the will to bet big.
After the whole generation was locked into car culture and the banks got stuffed with middle eastern oil money (foreign money in US banks did not have to fall under US financial regulations).
Suddenly the extremely wealthy interests had sidestepped the US controls that had helped the US dominate in world growth since the great depression. Then using this power to outsource jobs from the US to undermine the accumulated power of the American middle class and employees.
A decade later, enough power and wealth had been concentrated to go after the tax base of the country and dramatically centralize economic power. The power of the American voter shrunk proportionally. Its no mystery why popular reforms and investments are seemingly impossible, yet unpopular changes sail through nearly unopposed.
Its not some magic that caused the US to lose its ability for large investments in the 1970s. It was an intentional strategy to concentrating power in a way that no longer required projects to benefit multiple economic classes. Instead only serving the interests of the same small group of wealthy billionaires.
iiioiia t1_is81p8s wrote
> Why do we allow those who benefit massively from the status quo to stymie any change or progress?
Democracy. The current governance of the country is literally The Will of The People.
And in case you're the type to criticize it, first realize: it is literally our most sacred institution (as seen on TV - over, and over, and over).
gandzas t1_is86ji7 wrote
I think you missed the rest of his post.
iiioiia t1_is8g92y wrote
Oh I read it, and agree with it.
What is happening in the US is very much not the will of the people, it is extremely sophisticated theatre.
blastuponsometerries t1_isb65da wrote
Just a few basic things we have to do. Deeper changes come from questioning how on earth people still think the senate is a reasonable institution after increasing the number of states by 5x. Many of which have minuscule populations. Of course the Senate is the only body that can approve Supreme Court appointments. How convenient
In general the US population gets most things right over time.
But our current system is designed to constrain the will of the people at many key points. Then the people can be blamed for failures even as the people are basically ignored.
Nearly all our problems can be fixed by more democracy and giving the people a greater influence.
- Removing money and bribes from political elections
- Ranked choice to remove the 2 party duopoly
- Anti-gerrymandering protections and 2 winner districts to reduce polarization
Just a few basic things we have to do. Deeper changes come from questioning how on earth people still think the senate is a reasonable institution after increasing the number of states by 5x. Many of which have minuscule populations. Of course the Senate is the only body that can approve Supreme Court appointments. How convenient š
iiioiia t1_isbf4ao wrote
> Just a few basic things we have to do. Deeper changes come from questioning how on earth people still think the senate is a reasonable institution. after increasing the number of states by 5x.
FTFY.
And regarding "how on earth people still think":
See also: https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
> Of course the Senate is the only body that can approve Supreme Court appointments. How convenient.
The entire structure of the systems seems rather convenient. And archaic. And...some other things.
Nothing strategically planted heuristics can't paper over though!
> In general the US population gets most things right over time.
I suspect knowing this would require access to a counterfactual reality machine. No such machine is required to believe it though!
> Nearly all our problems can be fixed by more democracy and giving the people a greater influence.
Perhaps, but maybe only for very specific definitions of "nearly", "can", "fixed", "democracy", "giving", and "influence". People tend to have strong aversions to complexity/accuracy though, so maybe best avoid such styles of thinking - leave that up to The Experts, and of course, Democracy (our most sacred institution)!
I'm sure it will all work out in the end.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments