3 ms·

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 successfull

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?
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    The US state has in place the laws, rules, regulations, law enforcement, etc, to safeguard numerous facilities. That whole apparatus needs to exist. One can't just walk in a factory that assembles F-35 jets, or Himars missiles, or even one that manufactures Tylenol. There were some Tylenol murders in 1982, and the FDA added measures to prevent that from happening again in the future [1]. So, while I agree that a solar farm needs virtually no safeguarding compared to a nuclear power plant, I don't think it would have any discernible effect in the overall state surveillance apparatus. We live in a society that's quite obsessed with the checks and balances around state surveillance, and it's a healthy obsession. If anything, having nuclear power plants increases slightly the stakes in that debate, and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less. But I'm not willing to go as far as claiming that the effect in that direction is going to be any more measurable than the effect in the opposite direction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders#Pharmaceutical_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders#Pharma...
    - schneems 3y ago
      > So, while I agree that a solar farm needs virtually no safeguarding compared to a nuclear power plant, I don't think it would have any discernible effect in the overall state surveillance apparatus. This is the argument I suggested you make in my first reply. I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s the best argument for your position: that the effect might exist, but is negligible. To me the consolidation of power isn’t in surveillance it’s in force of mandate. If the government says “we must do this or the lights go off” that’s one consolidation of power. If they say “we must do this or else something will kill you and render the area uninhabitable for generations to come” that’s a much stronger force. When I read this paper that’s the relative difference that I’m feeling when they talk about authoritarian leanings. I assume all organizations want more power (both government and corporate). To me, something that has an authoritarian-izing effect is one that provides an excuse for a consolidation of power. Whether it results in an authoritarian state is unknowable but the question “which of these fears would give the government more power” is (at least in the abstract and general sense) clear enough to be accurately debated. The authoritarian/democratic angle would be to clarify whether the mandate comes from the people (democratic), or from some immutable source, or both. > and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less. I could see how you could want that to be true. But I’m just guessing on how it could actually be true. How could we test this hypothetical?

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?
- credit_guy 3y ago
  The US state has in place the laws, rules, regulations, law enforcement, etc, to safeguard numerous facilities. That whole apparatus needs to exist. One can't just walk in a factory that assembles F-35 jets, or Himars missiles, or even one that manufactures Tylenol. There were some Tylenol murders in 1982, and the FDA added measures to prevent that from happening again in the future [1]. So, while I agree that a solar farm needs virtually no safeguarding compared to a nuclear power plant, I don't think it would have any discernible effect in the overall state surveillance apparatus. We live in a society that's quite obsessed with the checks and balances around state surveillance, and it's a healthy obsession. If anything, having nuclear power plants increases slightly the stakes in that debate, and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less. But I'm not willing to go as far as claiming that the effect in that direction is going to be any more measurable than the effect in the opposite direction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders#Pharmaceutical_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders#Pharma...
  - schneems 3y ago
    > So, while I agree that a solar farm needs virtually no safeguarding compared to a nuclear power plant, I don't think it would have any discernible effect in the overall state surveillance apparatus. This is the argument I suggested you make in my first reply. I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s the best argument for your position: that the effect might exist, but is negligible. To me the consolidation of power isn’t in surveillance it’s in force of mandate. If the government says “we must do this or the lights go off” that’s one consolidation of power. If they say “we must do this or else something will kill you and render the area uninhabitable for generations to come” that’s a much stronger force. When I read this paper that’s the relative difference that I’m feeling when they talk about authoritarian leanings. I assume all organizations want more power (both government and corporate). To me, something that has an authoritarian-izing effect is one that provides an excuse for a consolidation of power. Whether it results in an authoritarian state is unknowable but the question “which of these fears would give the government more power” is (at least in the abstract and general sense) clear enough to be accurately debated. The authoritarian/democratic angle would be to clarify whether the mandate comes from the people (democratic), or from some immutable source, or both. > and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less. I could see how you could want that to be true. But I’m just guessing on how it could actually be true. How could we test this hypothetical?