6 ms·

> nuclear versus solar as a question of democracy versus authoritarianism This is the first time I encounter this argument. To me it sounds more like confirmat

> nuclear versus solar as a question of democracy versus authoritarianism This is the first time I encounter this argument. To me it sounds more like confirmation bias: you are antinuclear; this is a very emotional thing, and any argument against nuclear energy sounds very good. > one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it Yes, but so do most industrial processes nowadays. The computer I'm writing this on would be impossible without a powerful state to protect its manufacturer, and the manufacturers of all the components that went into making it. Yet, I doubt you think computers are inherently linked to authoritarian regimes, and democracies should resort to pen and paper.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Well maybe they would start thinking about that linkage now that you’ve mentioned it?
- credit_guy 3y ago
  The linkage between computers and authoritarianism?
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Yes.
schneems 3y ago
The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”. Which I think it argues very successfully. So either you’re arguing that “no, artifacts do not have politics” which I don’t think you’ve done well. Or you would like to show that nuclear does not have the result of making a society more authoritarian. Which you’ve not done. Or you could concede that “yes, this tech makes things more authoritarian” but go on to argue that it’s not by much and it’s worth it if a good trade off. This would be your best option but you’ve picked a technology with a mocking counter example, thus undermining that possible argument. If you feel you made a strong argument for something I didn’t list, then I’m curious to hear what exactly you’re trying to argue and why you believe your comment supports that argument.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”. I think you accidentally wrote the opposite of what you thought. If you substitute X with "nuclear power plants" and Y with "authoritarian", then your second statement is synonymous with your first statement. Regardless, your initial point was neither; that's the thing I was responding to. Specifically: > I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not. My argument was that all advanced technologies require a powerful state to protect. Like computers. We already have such a state, and it is not authoritarian. Democracy is not incompatible with having a powerful state. The fact that the US won WW2 is a testament to that. But let's address your new contention: the existence of nuclear power plants in a country makes it more likely that that country would slide into authoritarianism. That works with a toy model of a state being completely without regulations. We don't live in such a toy model. The US, and the Western countries, have lots of regulatory bodies, and they work well. In the case of the nuclear power plants, that regulatory body is the NRC in the US. The idea that people can steal plutonium from nuclear waste in the US is ludicrous. The idea that you can't safeguard the nuclear waste, or the nuclear power plants themselves is a complete rejection of reality. Both in the US and in the UK, France and so many other countries. Let's talk than Russia. Russia has become a full fledged totalitarian regime. Russia also has numerous nuclear power plants. Were the power plants the cause, or one of the causes, of Russia becoming undemocratic? Of course, identifying cause-and-effect relationships is notoriously difficult, even on a philosophical level. But one can't escape but notice that while most industries in Russia are owned by oligarchs, the civilian nuclear industry (Rosatom) is not. So, I find that the evidence that nuclear power plants lead to a weakening of democracy is flimsy at best.
  - schneems 3y ago
    The paper is not about absolutes and specifics: > nuclear makes states more authoritarian It is about relatives and the general: > adopting tech X will make it societies more Y So > I find that the evidence that nuclear power plants lead to a weakening of democracy is flimsy at best. I hear your evidence and conclusion, do you think that relative to nuclear adopting solar will have a stronger or weaker authoritarian effect?

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Well maybe they would start thinking about that linkage now that you’ve mentioned it?

credit_guy 3y ago
The linkage between computers and authoritarianism?
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Yes.

schneems 3y ago

The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”. Which I think it argues very successfully. So either you’re arguing that “no, artifacts do not have politics” which I don’t think you’ve done well. Or you would like to show that nuclear does not have the result of making a society more authoritarian. Which you’ve not done. Or you could concede that “yes, this tech makes things more authoritarian” but go on to argue that it’s not by much and it’s worth it if a good trade off. This would be your best option but you’ve picked a technology with a mocking counter example, thus undermining that possible argument. If you feel you made a strong argument for something I didn’t list, then I’m curious to hear what exactly you’re trying to argue and why you believe your comment supports that argument.

credit_guy 3y ago
> The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”. I think you accidentally wrote the opposite of what you thought. If you substitute X with "nuclear power plants" and Y with "authoritarian", then your second statement is synonymous with your first statement. Regardless, your initial point was neither; that's the thing I was responding to. Specifically: > I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not. My argument was that all advanced technologies require a powerful state to protect. Like computers. We already have such a state, and it is not authoritarian. Democracy is not incompatible with having a powerful state. The fact that the US won WW2 is a testament to that. But let's address your new contention: the existence of nuclear power plants in a country makes it more likely that that country would slide into authoritarianism. That works with a toy model of a state being completely without regulations. We don't live in such a toy model. The US, and the Western countries, have lots of regulatory bodies, and they work well. In the case of the nuclear power plants, that regulatory body is the NRC in the US. The idea that people can steal plutonium from nuclear waste in the US is ludicrous. The idea that you can't safeguard the nuclear waste, or the nuclear power plants themselves is a complete rejection of reality. Both in the US and in the UK, France and so many other countries. Let's talk than Russia. Russia has become a full fledged totalitarian regime. Russia also has numerous nuclear power plants. Were the power plants the cause, or one of the causes, of Russia becoming undemocratic? Of course, identifying cause-and-effect relationships is notoriously difficult, even on a philosophical level. But one can't escape but notice that while most industries in Russia are owned by oligarchs, the civilian nuclear industry (Rosatom) is not. So, I find that the evidence that nuclear power plants lead to a weakening of democracy is flimsy at best.
- schneems 3y ago
  The paper is not about absolutes and specifics: > nuclear makes states more authoritarian It is about relatives and the general: > adopting tech X will make it societies more Y So > I find that the evidence that nuclear power plants lead to a weakening of democracy is flimsy at best. I hear your evidence and conclusion, do you think that relative to nuclear adopting solar will have a stronger or weaker authoritarian effect?