4 ms·

But let’s also not throw out the baby with the bathwater in the _opposite_ direction. We should not be reliant on Russia for energy to such an extent that our e

But let’s also not throw out the baby with the bathwater in the _opposite_ direction. We should not be reliant on Russia for energy to such an extent that our economy gets destroyed when a Russian tyrant goes on an ego trip. We should not be allowing Chinese entities to own our energy infrastructure. We should not be allowing foreign nationals to buy up massive amounts of property in London with shady money, distorting the property market for normal citizens. There is a happy medium somewhere in between complete globalisation and complete isolation.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> We should not be allowing foreign nationals to buy up massive amounts of property in London Same way England should not be allowed to reign over 56 states with their King? I mean, if it goes both ways, I agree.
cs702 4y ago
We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind. The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had the political and economic cloud to slow down or even stop progress. We have such "single points of failure" in the global economy because we have allowed market power to become highly concentrated, nationally and globally, without any checks and balances.
- LargeWu 4y ago
  You're missing the point a bit. Replace energy with food, water, medicine, microchips, or any other commodities necessary for modern life and the point still stands.
  - cs702 4y ago
    I think I understood the point. The counterpoint I was trying to express, in response, is that this is a consequence of allowing high-concentration of market power in many of those commodities, nationally and globally, without any checks and balances.
- tacitusarc 4y ago
  Reliance on other nations for critical resources is a separate concern from technological mechanisms for acquiring those resources, even if the later may help solve the former.
  - cs702 4y ago
    I think reliance on highly-concentrated markets (globally/nationally) for any critical resource is the bigger issue.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Yes, but this is entirely at odds with globalization. A primary reason we outsource production to developing countries is to exploit their lack of regulation (including environmental regulation). If the UK transitions to green energy, they’re not subject to Putin, but they’re still subject to Xi and they are still contributing substantially to emissions. Moreover, transitioning to green energy will probably create reliance on rare earth metals and other minerals that will likely be controlled by despots.
Kaibeezy 4y ago
Of course, the UK threw out the baby and the bathwater with Brexit. I'd have rendered that slogan as “The more reliant we are on others with whom we have any substantive combination of: a severe trade imbalance, no framework for meaningful dialog, and conflicting major foreign policy goals -- the less resilient we are as a nation”

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> We should not be allowing foreign nationals to buy up massive amounts of property in London Same way England should not be allowed to reign over 56 states with their King? I mean, if it goes both ways, I agree.

cs702 4y ago

We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind. The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had the political and economic cloud to slow down or even stop progress. We have such "single points of failure" in the global economy because we have allowed market power to become highly concentrated, nationally and globally, without any checks and balances.

LargeWu 4y ago
You're missing the point a bit. Replace energy with food, water, medicine, microchips, or any other commodities necessary for modern life and the point still stands.
- cs702 4y ago
  I think I understood the point. The counterpoint I was trying to express, in response, is that this is a consequence of allowing high-concentration of market power in many of those commodities, nationally and globally, without any checks and balances.
tacitusarc 4y ago
Reliance on other nations for critical resources is a separate concern from technological mechanisms for acquiring those resources, even if the later may help solve the former.
- cs702 4y ago
  I think reliance on highly-concentrated markets (globally/nationally) for any critical resource is the bigger issue.
throwaway894345 4y ago
Yes, but this is entirely at odds with globalization. A primary reason we outsource production to developing countries is to exploit their lack of regulation (including environmental regulation). If the UK transitions to green energy, they’re not subject to Putin, but they’re still subject to Xi and they are still contributing substantially to emissions. Moreover, transitioning to green energy will probably create reliance on rare earth metals and other minerals that will likely be controlled by despots.

Kaibeezy 4y ago

Of course, the UK threw out the baby and the bathwater with Brexit. I'd have rendered that slogan as “The more reliant we are on others with whom we have any substantive combination of: a severe trade imbalance, no framework for meaningful dialog, and conflicting major foreign policy goals -- the less resilient we are as a nation”