4 ms·

>Recent years have shown me how difficult it is to make any meaningful public decision. Every debate is endlessly contentious, every subject has meaningful nuan

>Recent years have shown me how difficult it is to make any meaningful public decision. Every debate is endlessly contentious, every subject has meaningful nuance, and every decision has exceedingly hard-to-predict second-order-effects. The world is much more complex than it was even twenty years ago, and the effects are paralyzing. I would disagree that the world is much more complex than it was twenty years ago. The increase in complexity is perceived rather than actual. Just like more reporting of crime creates more awareness of crime that existed before but was unreported creating a mistaken awareness of more crime. On most indicators the world has gotten better and more free and more democratic. This matters for the next bit of reasoning. I would posit that what has happened is that second order effects are now more visible like the crime that was not reported and is now reported. More democracy and access to media means that second-order effects sufferers are more likely to make a kerfuffle and bang the equivalent of pots to get attention whereas previously the big decisions were just rammed through. A Hoover dam would probably not be built now because the communities affected are more empowered and have the resources to mobilize political opinion. I dont even know how much opposition the Hoover dam faced when it was built if any. Similarly it is far harder if not impossible to build Nuclear power plants because surrounding communities will raise hell. There is also far more understanding of the second order effects. They always existed but we were just unaware of them. I am not saying this is a bad thing or a good thing just pointing out that you are conflating awareness of second order effects with the existence of more second order effects.

chrisco255 6y ago
The nuclear nimbyism is one of the most erroneous mistakes we have made as a society. Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of energy. We need more nuclear. Maybe this awareness of second order effects has caused analysis paralysis and calcification of progress?
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of energy. I think people will keep repeating this long after the entire world run on solar. The good primary sources of energy all share the characteristic that they can not react fast to changes in demand, so they run most of their time in an anti-economic mode where they cost more than they get in revenue. Coal is getting outcompeted because of that, and nuclear is way slower to react than coal. (Not that it changes much, as nuclear is never competitive anyway.)
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Solar is impractical at many latitudes, especially under cloudy and wintry conditions. With solar you have both an energy storage problem and a surface area problem. Right now, solar benefits from the fact that it is a small fraction of the overall input into the system. It is simply supplemental, so there is no need to store so much excess capacity. However, if solar and wind were the only forms of energy, you would need massive reserves of battery storage both for off-peak (night and low wind conditions) and for longer-term weather conditions. Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora ? You think it will be able to power our buildings, our vehicles, our factory equipment, etc? Coal is primarily getting outcompeted by natural gas, which is cheaper to extract.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      > Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions Well, badly. How do you think nuclear would fare? History does not make one optimistic.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Why would nuclear suffer at all? It's not affected by weather. We power submarines with nuclear for months at a time.
- lokimedes 6y ago
  I live under the conviction that exactly the social denunciation of nuclear energy is the key to understanding our current situation. We are riding industrial progress brought about by coal and oil, but we failed to hitch the developmental next train by not going full in on nuclear as it became possible. In essence we have an unsustainable industrial society that has scaled beyond the limits of its base energy source. As unpopular as my view may be, neither solar nor wind or any other Sun-derived energy source belong to the post-fossil era.
bleepblorp 6y ago
> On most indicators the world has gotten better and more free and more democratic. On what timescale? Freedom House's metrics on freedom and democratic governance have been in retreat for over a decade now[0], due both to increasing authoritarianism in the underdeveloped world and the rise of illiberal[1], anti-democratic, movements in the developed world. Human development indicators--such as the percentage of the global population in extreme poverty--have certainly been rising up to the end of 2019, but the pandemic has been forecast, by some, to undo several decades of those improvements[2]. > I would posit that what has happened is that second order effects are now more visible like the crime that was not reported and is now reported. This is absolutely true. In the US, the crime rate has been falling since the 1990s but most Americans continue to believe that the crime rate is rising.[3] In part some of this perception is due to media sensationalism but a very large part of it is, to be blunt, the result of deliberate political propaganda.[3] > A Hoover dam would probably not be built now because the communities affected are more empowered and have the resources to mobilize political opinion. ... I am not saying this is a bad thing or a good thing I believe the privileging of local preferences over collective needs has been extremely bad for society as a whole because it has prevented collective needs from being addressed. For example, the housing affordability crisis that is gripping much of the anglosphere is largely due to local preferences against housing construction to override the need for a growing population to have housing. Collective needs that impact millions of people are more important than the whims of local NIMBYs. The same applies to public infrastructure and mega-projects, including nuclear power. We most likely need nuclear power to save the planet, and that need is far more important than the property values of people who are in the immediate area of new power plants. Our current NIMBY-first system does not allow for this. [0] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/democracy-retreat https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/democracy... [1] This word does not mean 'conservative.' [2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/half-billion-people-could-be-pushed-poverty-coronavirus-warns-oxfam https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/half-billion-people-... [3] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-convinced-crime-is-rising-in-the-u-s-theyre-wrong/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-conv...
- haltingproblem 6y ago
  You seem to mostly agreeing with the effect but arguing for more collectivism over individual rights which is a personal preference. There might be blips on the developmental indices which means on some metric like infant mortality, the improvement rate has stalled compared to last year or the overall metric has actually gotten worse but it will require a monumental disaster to go back to where infant mortality was in 1990 or even 2000. On Freedom House, which I used to often quote, I have commented extensively in this thread [1]. To summarize, Freedom House metrics are completely qualitative and subjective. They have not published the "raw data" for the last two years of rankings. Raw data here means their subjective rankings for the various criteria which they then combine into one metric. Poppycock of the partisan kind being marketed as objective truth. Makes me cringe that I even used to believe in it. Freedom House raises $30,000,000 annually from Donors to create these metrics. Ask yourself what they are selling (alarmism: "Freedom is in danger") and to whom (donors). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24577995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24577995

chrisco255 6y ago

The nuclear nimbyism is one of the most erroneous mistakes we have made as a society. Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of energy. We need more nuclear. Maybe this awareness of second order effects has caused analysis paralysis and calcification of progress?

marcosdumay 6y ago
> Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of energy. I think people will keep repeating this long after the entire world run on solar. The good primary sources of energy all share the characteristic that they can not react fast to changes in demand, so they run most of their time in an anti-economic mode where they cost more than they get in revenue. Coal is getting outcompeted because of that, and nuclear is way slower to react than coal. (Not that it changes much, as nuclear is never competitive anyway.)
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Solar is impractical at many latitudes, especially under cloudy and wintry conditions. With solar you have both an energy storage problem and a surface area problem. Right now, solar benefits from the fact that it is a small fraction of the overall input into the system. It is simply supplemental, so there is no need to store so much excess capacity. However, if solar and wind were the only forms of energy, you would need massive reserves of battery storage both for off-peak (night and low wind conditions) and for longer-term weather conditions. Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora ? You think it will be able to power our buildings, our vehicles, our factory equipment, etc? Coal is primarily getting outcompeted by natural gas, which is cheaper to extract.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions Well, badly. How do you think nuclear would fare? History does not make one optimistic.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Why would nuclear suffer at all? It's not affected by weather. We power submarines with nuclear for months at a time.
lokimedes 6y ago
I live under the conviction that exactly the social denunciation of nuclear energy is the key to understanding our current situation. We are riding industrial progress brought about by coal and oil, but we failed to hitch the developmental next train by not going full in on nuclear as it became possible. In essence we have an unsustainable industrial society that has scaled beyond the limits of its base energy source. As unpopular as my view may be, neither solar nor wind or any other Sun-derived energy source belong to the post-fossil era.

bleepblorp 6y ago

> On most indicators the world has gotten better and more free and more democratic. On what timescale? Freedom House's metrics on freedom and democratic governance have been in retreat for over a decade now[0], due both to increasing authoritarianism in the underdeveloped world and the rise of illiberal[1], anti-democratic, movements in the developed world. Human development indicators--such as the percentage of the global population in extreme poverty--have certainly been rising up to the end of 2019, but the pandemic has been forecast, by some, to undo several decades of those improvements[2]. > I would posit that what has happened is that second order effects are now more visible like the crime that was not reported and is now reported. This is absolutely true. In the US, the crime rate has been falling since the 1990s but most Americans continue to believe that the crime rate is rising.[3] In part some of this perception is due to media sensationalism but a very large part of it is, to be blunt, the result of deliberate political propaganda.[3] > A Hoover dam would probably not be built now because the communities affected are more empowered and have the resources to mobilize political opinion. ... I am not saying this is a bad thing or a good thing I believe the privileging of local preferences over collective needs has been extremely bad for society as a whole because it has prevented collective needs from being addressed. For example, the housing affordability crisis that is gripping much of the anglosphere is largely due to local preferences against housing construction to override the need for a growing population to have housing. Collective needs that impact millions of people are more important than the whims of local NIMBYs. The same applies to public infrastructure and mega-projects, including nuclear power. We most likely need nuclear power to save the planet, and that need is far more important than the property values of people who are in the immediate area of new power plants. Our current NIMBY-first system does not allow for this. [0] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/democracy-retreat https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/democracy... [1] This word does not mean 'conservative.' [2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/half-billion-people-could-be-pushed-poverty-coronavirus-warns-oxfam https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/half-billion-people-... [3] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-convinced-crime-is-rising-in-the-u-s-theyre-wrong/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-conv...

haltingproblem 6y ago
You seem to mostly agreeing with the effect but arguing for more collectivism over individual rights which is a personal preference. There might be blips on the developmental indices which means on some metric like infant mortality, the improvement rate has stalled compared to last year or the overall metric has actually gotten worse but it will require a monumental disaster to go back to where infant mortality was in 1990 or even 2000. On Freedom House, which I used to often quote, I have commented extensively in this thread [1]. To summarize, Freedom House metrics are completely qualitative and subjective. They have not published the "raw data" for the last two years of rankings. Raw data here means their subjective rankings for the various criteria which they then combine into one metric. Poppycock of the partisan kind being marketed as objective truth. Makes me cringe that I even used to believe in it. Freedom House raises $30,000,000 annually from Donors to create these metrics. Ask yourself what they are selling (alarmism: "Freedom is in danger") and to whom (donors). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24577995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24577995