He might have been a Net Zero nut, but I don't think he's the one stopping people fracking or drilling the North Sea. And it was Nick Clegg who said "no point building a new nuclear plant as it will take ten years to deliver"(about ten years ago).
If Clegg erred, it was by being overly optimistic.
Approval for Hinkley Point C was indeed granted ten years ago but it has not, in fact, delivered. Unit 1 is currently estimated to begin production in 2030 at the earliest.
If the projected £48bn cost had instead been invested in building out new wind and solar projects, they'd be online now and would already be producing more electricity than HPC ever will, even when taking the differences in average capacity factor into account.
Even taking the different average capacity factors into account, the renewables would still produce more electricity each year than Hinkley Point C.
The case against new nuclear is simple: they take too long and cost too much money. HPC got the go-ahead based on EDF bearing the brunt of the risk, but if we could have persuaded French taxpayers to subsidise new UK offshore wind it would have made much more sense for us to do that instead.
> The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny.
It is 2026 and "solar" can for a while now be read as "solar with battery storage". Similar, grid-level storage for any other intermittent power generation method.
We all know this, you included. This tired and childish talking point that "solar only works when it is sunny" is boring and increasingly at odds with observed reality of these power systems as they are now rapidly being built out.
Im referring to brexit and to his "cut the green crap" which left us horribly exposed to energy price shocks caused by Putin. North sea barely has any gas left and is not economically viable. And yes as you have alluded, most of the NZ policies the rw populists are raging about were drafted years ago under the conservatives.
Oil companies seem awfully keen to drill in somewhere that is not economically viable. Net Zero has left us more exposed to Putin, not less as we don't produce much of our own energy and are in fact buying Russian oil via India, rather than drilling out our own.
none of these things are that important, or even particularly true. The greater effect is social/cultural. Wholesale capture of industries/social phenomena by technocapital. Describing everything in terms of neurotransmitters is rather silly, doesnt even really describe the experience of the individual.
There was a major campaign the last decade from many pro-capital and libertarian thinkers to label Adorno and other philosophers as the root cause of many people grievances. Remember Peterson et all all warning about "Cultural marxism" and "postmodernism"?
I try not be against new terms like "enshittification" or "dopamine fracking" for this reason, the tech people at the levers that might be convinced to change course seem to be more open to substack and blogpost concepts (see SSC / rationalist popularity for all this new terminology that just describes old continental philosophical concepts) instead of having to read old European thinkers that use too much Marxist terminology.
Edit: case in point, literally users here are now linking to SSC essays explaining critical theory lol
> There was a major campaign the last decade from many pro-capital and libertarian thinkers to label Adorno and other philosophers as the root cause of many people grievances.
I feel it's still ongoing, the reactionary elements are campaigning against anything circa modern (not modernist as in art but modern as organisation of society, so also anything that can be traced back to Enlightenment) and later, postmodern etc. They are actively destroying natural sciences too, which is a part of this effort. Feels like going back to feudalism.
Since I can't upvote @thrance's reply, I'll second it here: certainly complaints about postmodernism date to the 90s or earlier and fear of Marxism is as old as Marx (less sure about when "cultural Marxism" specifically became a scare-term of art)
Well, people don't read Adorno or others, maybe have their favorite sci-fi book, and then go and describe, sometimes centuries old, ideas as some novel insight.
what if you believe that someone is suffering from delusions and has beliefs that are increasingly disconnected from reality due to overexposure to ai generated responses and underexposure to human conversation? would that be psychosis?
No, qualia are not fundamental to existence, this is an example of Wilfrid Sellars' "myth of the given" - to have a quale of a colour or a shape appearing in your vision you must have a concept of that colour/shape. Qualia in that sense are not prior to cognition. Maybe we can say they are necessary as an element of concept formation and language, ie for sapience.
You really don't need a concept of a colour or a shape, and it's a fairly typical academic fallacy to assume you do.
That's directly confusing experience with categorisation and labelling of experience.
If you touch a very hot object your nervous system will pull your hand away before your brain registers what's happening. The qualia of pain are pre-conceptual, preverbal, and precranial, and your consciousness only catches up later.
Surely this implies exactly the opposite - you don't register the pain, don't feel it, until after you pull your hand away. It's a reflex action in response to heat. Qualia require a brain to process sensory input.
reflexes have nothing to do with qualia. you can differentiate objects without knowing what is a triangle and what is a square, or that this colour is red. but I think qualia as commonly understood involve concepts in a way that means they are not immediate experience in some kind of cartesian sense. We speak of them as categorised. certainly the way people commonly speak about them they are very carefree about invoking "the qualia of a horse" or some other specific object.
Not fundamental to existence but fundamental to consciousness.
Theoretically the person sitting next to you could be a zombie, no qualia, the lights are off, he's just having a conversation with you with nothing going on behind the scenes. And there's no way to tell, except that it's reasonable to extrapolate that since you feel something, he probably does too.
My argument is that qualia are actually cognitive artefacts bound up with language, not the base elements of "what it is to be" you or me, which is how people often speak of them, so the p-zombie concept is a bit nonsensical to me.
This is exactly my take also. Qualia and consciousness are the same thing. I have it, other humans appear to have it, other mammals appear to have it, LLMs don't.
it is quite on the nose that they have this quirky sf-tech-bro coded word for "waste" or "litter". Hey I've got this crazy idea, what if instead of cars we all rode in one big car and it had metal wheels and roads to reduce friction... it's only at Burning Man you can find people with big ideas like this
in order for anything to become truly profitable its uniqueness must be quantified and integrated into existing power structures, it must be expressly oriented towards fulfilling the needs/desires of the largest amount of people for the least amount of expenditure. Profitability IS intrinsically distasteful. Market forces, online ecosystems etc, quickly strip away any idiosyncratic features present in a viral trend, they aggressively select for sticking power, everything tends toward uniformity. This is closely linked with the process of reification.
puredata or supercollider - although I would honestly recommend Max/MSP over either (but it is commercial). Ableton is great and most DAWs in general are useful and quite similar so the skills are transferable, but they do lend themselves to specific orthodox kinds of composition, dance music and sound collage basically.
reply