4 ms·

Would the answer to that question be a fair analysis? A great deal has changed about the country between the successive governments - not just the political pow

Would the answer to that question be a fair analysis? A great deal has changed about the country between the successive governments - not just the political power structure. Population figures, human development, the march of technology etc, all affect energy demands. The most optimistic view would be that an energy company that operates without blackouts in an apartheid state should not be applauded for its performance under artificially-depressed demand.

MikeUt 6y ago
The current blackouts were blamed on corruption, followed by "the good old days of apartheid when corruption ran at an all-time high", implying blackouts were just as bad in the past. It would be nice to first clear up the factual issue of whether blackouts have grown more or less frequent, before jumping ahead to the moral calculus of who should be applauded or condemned more.
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  >implying blackouts were just as bad in the past. I don't understand where this implication comes from. In claiming that current governmental corruption is the cause of the current blackouts, the throwaway commenter implied that blackouts were less prevalent in the past. The reply then objected to the idea that the previous government was less corrupt - but the opposite statement does not require that blackouts were just as prevalent. It is possible that the previous government was corrupt, but any number of other factors meant that the energy grid did not require load shedding. That's why I asked if the historical frequency of blackouts is really a fair analysis? Is it worth "clearing up", given that blackouts are not a direct function of corruption?
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    > I don't understand where this implication comes from. From "blackouts are due to corruption -> corruption was just as bad in the past". Especially since blackouts were the only symptom of corruption mentioned. Yes, it's possible blackouts didn't manifest due to different reasons, despite equal corruption - that's why it's an implication. > Is it worth "clearing up", given that blackouts are not a direct function of corruption? A simple hypothetical "Yes blackouts are more common, but the old government was just as corrupt due to <list of reasons>" would have been much more informative, so yes I do think it's worth clearing up. Are we supposed to compare governments without comparing the state of the country they ran (run)? Except, of course, apartheid - that doesn't get left out.
- southafrica4 6y ago
  I lived in South Africa during apartheid and I experienced about the same consistency of electricity as I do now in the United States. It was a rare occurrence

MikeUt 6y ago

The current blackouts were blamed on corruption, followed by "the good old days of apartheid when corruption ran at an all-time high", implying blackouts were just as bad in the past. It would be nice to first clear up the factual issue of whether blackouts have grown more or less frequent, before jumping ahead to the moral calculus of who should be applauded or condemned more.

ivanbakel 6y ago
>implying blackouts were just as bad in the past. I don't understand where this implication comes from. In claiming that current governmental corruption is the cause of the current blackouts, the throwaway commenter implied that blackouts were less prevalent in the past. The reply then objected to the idea that the previous government was less corrupt - but the opposite statement does not require that blackouts were just as prevalent. It is possible that the previous government was corrupt, but any number of other factors meant that the energy grid did not require load shedding. That's why I asked if the historical frequency of blackouts is really a fair analysis? Is it worth "clearing up", given that blackouts are not a direct function of corruption?
- MikeUt 6y ago
  > I don't understand where this implication comes from. From "blackouts are due to corruption -> corruption was just as bad in the past". Especially since blackouts were the only symptom of corruption mentioned. Yes, it's possible blackouts didn't manifest due to different reasons, despite equal corruption - that's why it's an implication. > Is it worth "clearing up", given that blackouts are not a direct function of corruption? A simple hypothetical "Yes blackouts are more common, but the old government was just as corrupt due to <list of reasons>" would have been much more informative, so yes I do think it's worth clearing up. Are we supposed to compare governments without comparing the state of the country they ran (run)? Except, of course, apartheid - that doesn't get left out.
southafrica4 6y ago
I lived in South Africa during apartheid and I experienced about the same consistency of electricity as I do now in the United States. It was a rare occurrence