4 ms·

I do not believe the solution to Climate Change (or any societal problem) can be found in the US Congress. If we are expecting the US Congress to save humanity

I do not believe the solution to Climate Change (or any societal problem) can be found in the US Congress. If we are expecting the US Congress to save humanity we are all doomed Government needs to get out of the way and stop trying to pick winners and losers, they are bad at it (see Ethanol )

kube-system 4y ago
The free market does not address externalized costs, by definition. If you don't price those costs in artificially via legislation, they will end up systematically exploited. The business that can externalize more of their costs will always win -- they will have a better product for a better price. This is why things like river fires are no longer common. I will agree that congress is bad at picking winners. They should focus on prohibiting damaging practices. Although, congress didn't pick ethanol because they thought it was a winner. They picked it because it propped up farmers.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >This is why things like river fires are no longer common. And this is because of US Congress or because of State Governments? Most regulation around rivers, and other such things are State Government controlled, not federal I fully support federalism, I fully support State governments doing regulations that are sensible to the people, and conditions of states. I reject the idea it needs to be a national policy or that such a policy is even possible with out being completely corrupted and authoritarian. Nor do I believe such a regulation is envisioned by the powers granted to the US Congress in our Constitution
  - kube-system 4y ago
    River fires stopped happening in the US right around the founding of the EPA. State and local governments were in lock-step with industrialists throughout the 20th century... if they weren't industrialists themselves. State governments rarely legislate against dominant local industries, even today, but to an even greater degree last century.
  - anon400232 4y ago
    If you grant some problems require policies at the state government level, which may have a wide range of geographic sizes and demographic compositions, how can you not grant there are problems that can only be addressed at a national level? If you are worried about corruption and authoritarian tendencies, why do you tolerate them at the state level? Please lay out your tradeoffs in a way that might make your position consistent.
- anon400232 4y ago
  Government spending has in many cases an excellent track record of shaping investment. If you look at some of the brightest innovations, they got their start from government money. Funding on long time scales rarely comes from companies reporting profits every quarter. History has shown that there aren't that many Bell Labs that survive very long. How long will Open AI or DeepMind continue to contribute to public innovation? I'm not going to make a bet on that. Decades of spending on math and science, embedded into federal spending (though inefficient and wasteful in many ways) has generated many tremendous innovations. It is foolish to rely on one mechanism to generate innovation. I'm not suggesting that government is the only or best way. We need innovations across many timescales. P.S. The amount of close mindedness among "highly intelligent" people in the tech world is staggering. Step back and look at yourself. Ask if your ego is getting in the way of clear and creative thinking. P.P.S. For what it's worth, among the people I consider most inspiring in the tech world, very few have their head planted only in computer science. We need more historians, sociologists, lawyers, musicians, and so on. The libertarian faction of tech is indictive of a certain brain tendency -- a desire to simplify down to core principles -- and not one that we need more of. The drive for simplicity can lead us to interesting theories. It can lead to simpler systems. It can also lead to overlooking the true nature of humanity: what is good? what is fair? what is just? So "Is simplicity best? Or simply the easiest?" [1] Please question the value of simple philosophies when you make moral arguments. Human concepts are rarely simple. Neither is language. Or justice. Or fairness. Or innovation. [1] Depeche Mode

kube-system 4y ago

The free market does not address externalized costs, by definition. If you don't price those costs in artificially via legislation, they will end up systematically exploited. The business that can externalize more of their costs will always win -- they will have a better product for a better price. This is why things like river fires are no longer common. I will agree that congress is bad at picking winners. They should focus on prohibiting damaging practices. Although, congress didn't pick ethanol because they thought it was a winner. They picked it because it propped up farmers.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>This is why things like river fires are no longer common. And this is because of US Congress or because of State Governments? Most regulation around rivers, and other such things are State Government controlled, not federal I fully support federalism, I fully support State governments doing regulations that are sensible to the people, and conditions of states. I reject the idea it needs to be a national policy or that such a policy is even possible with out being completely corrupted and authoritarian. Nor do I believe such a regulation is envisioned by the powers granted to the US Congress in our Constitution
- kube-system 4y ago
  River fires stopped happening in the US right around the founding of the EPA. State and local governments were in lock-step with industrialists throughout the 20th century... if they weren't industrialists themselves. State governments rarely legislate against dominant local industries, even today, but to an even greater degree last century.
- anon400232 4y ago
  If you grant some problems require policies at the state government level, which may have a wide range of geographic sizes and demographic compositions, how can you not grant there are problems that can only be addressed at a national level? If you are worried about corruption and authoritarian tendencies, why do you tolerate them at the state level? Please lay out your tradeoffs in a way that might make your position consistent.
anon400232 4y ago
Government spending has in many cases an excellent track record of shaping investment. If you look at some of the brightest innovations, they got their start from government money. Funding on long time scales rarely comes from companies reporting profits every quarter. History has shown that there aren't that many Bell Labs that survive very long. How long will Open AI or DeepMind continue to contribute to public innovation? I'm not going to make a bet on that. Decades of spending on math and science, embedded into federal spending (though inefficient and wasteful in many ways) has generated many tremendous innovations. It is foolish to rely on one mechanism to generate innovation. I'm not suggesting that government is the only or best way. We need innovations across many timescales. P.S. The amount of close mindedness among "highly intelligent" people in the tech world is staggering. Step back and look at yourself. Ask if your ego is getting in the way of clear and creative thinking. P.P.S. For what it's worth, among the people I consider most inspiring in the tech world, very few have their head planted only in computer science. We need more historians, sociologists, lawyers, musicians, and so on. The libertarian faction of tech is indictive of a certain brain tendency -- a desire to simplify down to core principles -- and not one that we need more of. The drive for simplicity can lead us to interesting theories. It can lead to simpler systems. It can also lead to overlooking the true nature of humanity: what is good? what is fair? what is just? So "Is simplicity best? Or simply the easiest?" [1] Please question the value of simple philosophies when you make moral arguments. Human concepts are rarely simple. Neither is language. Or justice. Or fairness. Or innovation. [1] Depeche Mode