Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Handle's avatar

Thomas is smoking something. "Why are people unwilling to consider the reason that nuclear projects fail so often is the technology itself?"

"Unwilling" is just a slimy word to use here. It's more like "reject after looking at the actual evidence". Let me try to rephrase it so that people can really appreciate how absurd a statement it is. "Why are people unwilling to consider the reason that California high-speed rail projects fail so often is the technology itself?"

Oh, gee, could it maybe be because the problem with something that's been developed for generations and that is built ten times more quickly, economically, and profitably in advanced serious countries is obviously NOT "the technology itself"? China - not exactly known for making a bunch of dumb bets on fundamentally bad energy tech -tripled- their nuclear output from 2014 to 2021, and brought another 2GW online just last year. South Korea did the same in 2022 and KEPCO can practically mass produce APR-1400 kits to be assembled in the US cheaply anytime America says ok (i.e., never) just like they did with the UAE (which, like Iran, obviously does not need nuclear for energy, but for, um, other reasons.)

This is an especially moronic line to get past the editors at -Regulation- which is constantly telling everybody about how stupid US regulations (but never, "the technologies themselves"!) are the heart of the de-facto anti-abundance-agenda because they make so many nice things an order of magnitude more expensive for Americans than they are elsewhere, whether it's shipping under the Jones Act or subway tunnels in New York or whatever.

Expand full comment
Doctor Hammer's avatar

I am a bit skeptical of all the arguments around literacy and long form reading etc. The core of Mir's thought implies that there was a time when people were reading a lot more and were better humans because of it. Seems possible, but it also seems possible that most people were always short sighted and lacking introspection and long abstract thought capabilities, and long form reading was popular with those who were not so lacking. It seems a bit like saying "People who drink more Gatorade are much more healthy and physically fit than other people, so people should drink more Gatorade;" the causality is backwards.

One way I think about this is "When was having a large shelf of books, nonfiction and literature types, seen as the basic norm and not a sign of unusual intellectual interests?" I am pretty sure the answer is "never" which implies that such a focus on books and long form reading was an activity with a specific enough target audience that it signaled something special about them.

I suspect what changed is less to do with people dropping a technology that makes them more intellectually functional, and more that we spend a lot of time pretending that people are more intellectually functional via sending them through many years of school in which they read and learn very little, and then tell them how educated and erudite they are. All the while we shame people who will honestly admit "I don't know anything about that, really, so I don't have an opinion" next to people who have a second hand opinion of everything and do not admit to knowing nothing.

Expand full comment
43 more comments...

No posts