New ideas for Nuclear Power

 Sometimes things get missed. A couple have come up in reactor design recently.

1. To make a reactor work you have to transport the heat from where the reaction happens to where you want it to do work. Molten salt is a poor conductor of heat, so it used to be thought that it couldn't do the job. However because it is a liquid it can transport heat by convection instead of conduction. Moltex Energy noticed this, patented it, and have it as a core part of their plan to make energy cheaper than fossil fuels.

2. Helium has various properties that make it the gas of choice in High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) designs. Rod Adams has recently pointed out that isotope 15 of Nitrogen, N15, shares these properties, plus having additional benefits. In particular it is similar to air, so lots of expertise and equipment for dealing with air is applicable. It is also very abundant since it makes up 0.35% of the nitrogen in our atmosphere. Of course separating it out is not trivial, but it is commercially available, so it is being done.

These things should come in threes. Perhaps my contribution is too trivial to mention, but here it is:

3. Nuclear power plants like to operate continuously. They need to charge enough to cover the sunk cost of construction (or equivalently to cover the interest payments on the construction cost). But the marginal cost of operation is very low, and perhaps in truth negative given the costs involved in having the flexibility to reduce production. Moltex Energy is putting their money on energy storage to soak up excess energy when demand and price are low, and sell later when both are high. Meanwhile there are many things we could do with energy if it was cheap. Consider fresh water. It is seriously under-priced because we ignore the environmental impact of taking it from natural river systems and from underground aquifers. But those natural options are hitting their limits. Current desalination methods are expensive to build because the theory is "energy is expensive, so we build an expensive solution that makes efficient use of energy". And once you've built an expensive system you want to run it as much as possible. But actually, in a world where there is often excess energy with nowhere to go, this argument is wrong. What you want is a cheap solution that you only need to run when energy is more or less free. There are other industrial processes where the clever search for energy efficiency is misguided, and a cheap design is economically preferable.

Money and Economics

Money and Economics

Modern human culture arrived and swept all before it from 100,000 to 30,000 years ago.  It has a lot of features, including symbolic communication (also known as "language"). Developing at that time, was the symbolic representation of wealth: the right to access resources. This was an essential part of the major evolution of modern humans that allows us to live in large groups, instead of in the small groups where everyone knew everyone else.

Money

Cowrie shells of a narrow range of sizes were one of the early forms of money. This is because it took a significant and fairly constant amount of effort to find them. This is the "proof of work" theory of money, which led to the invention of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. Gold and silver mining came to dominate money creation, even though the amount of work involved is more variable, leading to inflation events such as when Spain received a lot of South American gold, or when the Emperor of Mali took the Hajj pilgrimage in 1324 (seriously).

From the beginning, money has tried to do two jobs that are not perfectly compatible: one is to act as a medium of exchange, and the other is to act as a store of value. We are psychologically confused about this, with a strong expectation that it should act as a store of value. A common error is to assume that when money fails to act as a store of value then that is because of government printed paper money, and that would not be a problem with a "proof of work" money system such as gold. The assumption is that the money should retain a value equal to the work that went into it, but that is false because the work happened in the past and can't be undone, and the value is set by current events, as I'll describe later.

Bitcoin is a perfect example of money as a medium of exchange. Its use is primarily this: the buyer first exchanges some of his local currency for bitcoin; then they use that bitcoin to buy on the internet; then the seller takes the received bitcoin and exchanges it for her local currency. This is certain to correctly reflect the exchange rate between the buyer's and seller's currencies, because if it didn't there would be money to be easily made by looping some money through the FX (foreign exchange) and bitcoin routes. For this use of bitcoin as a medium of exchange, it doesn't matter what the current value of bitcoin is, as long as it doesn't go up or down too fast. And indeed we've seen big swings in the price of bitcoin, but usage has continued. 

Another example of a medium of exchange that is never held for long is a paper currency that is experiencing significant inflation. In this case, as with bitcoin, the value of the currency is dictated by the amount of use it is getting. For bitcoin, where there is limited production, the value can go either way, but since it depends on decisions by many people, it is inherently unpredictable. However some people keep a significant bitcoin holding, as if it was a store of value, and the existence of these stores means there is always a risk that the market will be flooded by people trying to cash them in.

Value

When the economy is functioning correctly, it continuously produces things of value at the highest possible rate, giving something close to full employment. The things of value that it produces are services. A car or a train provides transportation services. A house provides shelter and accommodation services. Owning a house provides a security of shelter service.

To produce services you need assets: houses, cars, people with skills and time, and much more. What services an economy can produce depends on what assets it has. What services an economy does produce depends on who has the economic power to decide. In a pure market economy that power is precisely money. In our society governments and banks have substantial additional power.

If value consists of services continuously produced, then what is a "store of value"? Non monetary stores of value are just assets that can be put to use producing services in the future (whether or not they are currently used): houses, machinery, stores of non-perishable raw materials, and much more. The relative value of these things changes, so the concept of a store of value is a fuzzy one. Can money be a store of value?

Gold acts as a form of money. It has industrial uses, but the amount of gold stored vastly exceeds any such requirements. Also the price of gold is artificially high because of all the storage. We have to deduce that gold only acts as a store of value because people expect that it will, and that expectation is no different from the previous expectation that cowrie shells would retain their value.

Suppose that, for some form of money, the value of the money (what it will buy) is steady or going up (deflation). Then people are inclined to save it for the proverbial rainy day. If the currency has limited production, such as gold or bitcoin, then the fact that money is being taken out of circulation means there is less money chasing the same amount of goods, so prices must fall. Which is the same as saying that the value of the currency is going up. This further increases the inclination of people to save because if you can defer a purchase you pay less. But the "rainy days" that people are saving for are not always uncorrelated. When a pandemic or a weather disaster comes along, then that money comes out chasing a supply of goods that can't quickly increase, causing instant inflation. We see that saving money is not the correct way for society as a whole to prepare for an emergency, and that money with limited supply can mislead people into thinking it is a store of value.

A real store of value must be linked to future production of services, because that is the real economy when you strip away the veneer of money. Later we'll consider how to do that.

Currencies

Currencies should be optimized for the role of being a medium of exchange. And indeed that is what modern Reserve Banks try to do, and largely succeed.

Though the currency is a medium of exchange, still the participants in the economy want to keep a buffer of money. They don't want to have to liquidate an asset whenever they need to buy something. But as we've seen, it is unhelpful if there is any incentive for people to hold large quantities of the currency, because then the authorities lose control of this vital part of the economy. The Reserve Banks have found that 2 to 3 percent inflation is ideal. People can hold plenty of currency for exchange purposes without significant loss, but everyone has a big incentive to buy or invest to avoid their wealth melting away over the longer term. So the money keeps going around at a moderately constant rate.

If there is excessive inflation then the Reserve Bank can soak up money by borrowing money (selling bonds) which raises the interest rate. This actually presents itself as raising the interest rate. Presumably it is easier to work out how to counteract a particular amount of inflation by specifying a particular interest rate and borrowing enough to hit that target.

If inflation is too low, or there is deflation then the Reserve Bank can counter that by lowering the interest rate by buying bonds to put more money into circulation. There are minor and major problems with this. A minor problem is that there may not be enough bonds to buy back, which has been solved by buying other organizations' bonds. The major problem is that if money isn't circulating, which is what happens in recessions, then adding more doesn't help much and makes the situation less stable. I should admit that I don't understand the detail of how Reserve Banks function, but I think this is close enough.

Using interest rates to control the economy is fundamentally wrong since it has random effects on many people who need to live off a risk free investment. Currently interest rates are close to zero, forcing Reserve Banks to move to what they call quantitative easing. Buying non-bank bonds gives wealthy debtors free money, aggravating the rising inequality in our society.

For a stable economic system we want the interest on safe investment to be fairly steady. Historically it looks like inflation plus 3 percent might be the right number. This allows people to save for retirement expecting that they can expand their capital at the rate of inflation and also have income to live off. To achieve this we need an alternative to low interest rates to inject money into the economy.

I propose that there be a "tax on low inflation". When there is deflation or low inflation, the Reserve Bank will create money and pay it to the tax office. The legislation for this tax will require that it be spent almost immediately, and that any that cannot be so spent should be sent immediately to the general population, as the Australian Labor government did in the GFC. 

Another way the government can spend the low inflation tax is to buy something from another country, as long as the money can be spent immediately. How does that work? The government buying foreign currency lowers the country's exchange rate. That makes it easier for local industry to sell for export. It also causes immediate inflation by raising the price of imported goods.

While the tax on low inflation will be a big improvement in normal times, it does leave the situation where a lot of money is in private hands and can, in certain circumstances, flood the economy.

A Value Store Currency

We increasingly deal with money through computer software. That makes it easy for us to deal with multiple currencies. We have seen the difficulty of a single currency being both a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is natural to ask if we can separate out a 2nd currency that is a store of value. I have a proposal.

Value is services, provided by assets. A store of value consists of assets that will contribute to providing services at some future time. But such assets have variable lifespans, and they vary in their relative value over time. What we want for our value-storing currency is for it to represent a right to part of a collection of assets, that is maintained in a way that preserves its value. Explicitly:

We'll call our value-store currency "doubloons". People can interchange doubloons and dollars at any time at the current rate. The intention is that the exchange rate changes will be identical to inflation (for some reasonable definition thereof), so that the purchasing power of doubloons will be constant.

The government keeps non perishable assets whose value matches that of the outstanding doubloons. When people cash in their doubloons, so that there are then less outstanding, then the government sells some assets to keep the store level correct. When people buy more doubloons, then the government uses the dollars it gets to expand the store.

When the value of the assets held rises faster than inflation, then the government can sell some and pocket the money. However if the value doesn't rise fast enough then the government commits to expanding the store using tax money.

The government has an obligation to keep stores of things to prepare for an emergency. PPE (personal protective equipment) and oil have been in the news lately. It is intended that this value-store be used for this purpose, though the government has to make up any costs from storing perishable items that need to be constantly refreshed (such as food). When an emergency does strike then the government should replace the assets it then needs with others.

The store should not be an arbitrary collection of assets, but rather cover a wide range in the right proportion, so that the country can continue to operate during periods when it is cut off from suppliers for any reason.

Since there are costs associated with supporting this, it is envisaged that it will be for citizens and local organizations only. All they are allowed to do is convert the currency to or fro. It still makes sense to have loans and other financial operations denominated in doubloons, but when the time comes to do the actual financial transfer it is actually done in dollars calculated at the current rate.

Foreign Currency Exchange

We see the breathless news item "there is a current account deficit/surplus". What does that mean? When there was fixed exchange rates then a current account deficit meant that more people wanted to sell the local currency than there were people who wanted to buy it. So the government was forced to sell its foreign currency or gold holding to preserve the fixed rate, and this couldn't continue indefinitely. It was an urgent situation. Eventually the government would be forced to reduce the price of the local currency, changing to a new fixed exchange rate. Investors who guessed this would happen made a fortune.

Now that we have floating exchange rates, running a current account deficit is neither positive nor negative. It has a different meaning. A current account deficit means that more goods and services are coming into the country than are going out. And yet the currency has an equal number of buyers and sellers. How can that be?

The answer is that the extra buyers of the local currency are buying things in the country which they then don't take out of the country. This might be real estate, or equity in a business or it might be a loan. So one way to look at it is that a current account deficit represents foreigners investing in the country. Another way is to say that there is net borrowing from overseas. There is no way to distinguish between these.

On the other side, a current account surplus sounds like a great thing, but it might just mean that foreigners are disinvesting in the country.

When countries share a currency, such as the European Euro, then that is taking fixed exchange rates to extremes, since countries don't have the option to modify their rate. This was a big problem in the Eurozone, with poorer countries teetering on bankruptcy. This is potentially a problem in federal countries like the USA and Australia, which have states with substantial economic independence. In those countries the solution is for the central government to arrange wealth transfer from richer to poorer states. It seems that the Eurozone has now recognised the need to do this, with the European Central Bank buying government bonds of the poorer states at low interest rates.

Reality versus Finance

When I was a kid in the mid-1950s, the milkman delivered milk to our door. With cream on top, but I digress. He just had to run between the vehicle and the doorsteps because the vehicle advanced by itself using natural intelligence. Yes it was horse drawn. Sixty five years later and artificial intelligence hasn't caught up. But by the 50s horses were already rare.

What caused the Great Depression of the 1930s? In our assets plus services economic model, what happens if you suddenly lose a lot of assets? Obviously the total ability of society to produce services is reduced. It is the job of government and the finance sector to figure out what to do about that to produce services at the rate needed for full employment.

The 1920s and 30s was a period of transition. People were moving from the country to the city. In the country they had tremendous skills for dealing with horses and other animals. Even in the city horse skills were very valuable. The move to mechanization threw those skills in the bin. At a moment in time when there was a tremendous need for new skills, the market was flooded with labour that was unskilled in the new context.

Governments could have handled this better. Yes it would have been good to get the unemployed people to work building infrastructure such as roads. Pouring money into the economy and blowing some huge asset bubbles would have helped, and that's what we would do today. But really the right answer was to identify the training needs and make that happen.

That would have been hard then, but maybe we can leverage the Internet to do it now. Which brings us to the next section.

Pandemic Economics

In the pandemic there are many services, recreational and optional, that are much less used. But there is also less employment so it balances out. Except that the unemployment is not evenly distributed. So the government is paying the unemployed in various ways. This maintains the consumption of essential services like food, so that essential services are not also reduced by lack of demand, as happened tragically in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

If we think about services, the first question is what extra services could be provided while restrictions are in place. Most of the people who are underemployed have skills that are not currently useful. So extra work would have to be relatively unskilled, and shovel-ready. This is hard, though it does seem that in Australia some unemployed people could be employed doing fuel reduction to reduce the impact of bushfires.

We can also try to prepare by considering what services will be wanted when the pandemic is under control. A lot of people will want a holiday, including people who usually go overseas but will now stay closer to home. A lot of people will be keen to save, having blown their savings, or because they are behind on their mortgage. This will create unemployment unless the government steps in with community wide services. There is plenty that needs to be done.

Most of all we need to give unemployed people the ability and incentive to learn new skills.

The Virus Problem

 The Virus Problem

I'm not a doctor or a biology expert. This is just based on my concept of common sense. For the purposes of this article, I will use "bacteria" to mean living things that don't try to get into cells, though there are others; and I will use "virus" for things that need to get into cells, though this also includes intracellular parasites such as malaria and toxoplama.

For bacteria the immune system has a problem because there are good and bad bacteria, and the body has to distinguish. However the good are only in special places like the skin and gut, and mostly when they are in the wrong place the answer is to attack and kill and that works well most of the time for most people.

Viruses get into cells, and that is much harder for the body to deal with. The body has a complicated system for dealing with viruses before they get into cells and that is great except that a lot can happen while it's getting its act together.

The problem is: what to do about infected cells. In the early stages the answer is to kill the cells and hope to make up for the damage later. But when too many cells are infected then that can be a bad plan, because losing too many of an important type of cell can kill you. Plan B is for the cell to shut the virus down as much as possible, and for the immune system to tone down the cell destruction to a manageable level. Viruses that are well adapted to humans seem to know to tone down their attack to not kill their host, since that is a bad career move for them.

Humans form a vast monoculture across the planet. Monocultures are extremely prone to disease. We are lucky to have the SARS-CoV2 virus as a wake-up call. We need to wake up and decide to attack all viruses, planet-wide. This means:

• Testing, particularly of people travelling. We are mostly looking for anything new, or known to be virulent. E.g. temperature checks are an easy test, and everyone with a temperature can be followed up. Sereological testing for antibodies is good, if it can be done easily, perhaps with a finger prick.
• Reporting. Let's get a continuous global view of the health of our monoculture.
• That will let us isolate and attack areas of infection.
• Aim high. We want the total elimination of viruses and other intracellular parasites.

An Internet Education Infrastructure

 An Internet Education Infrastructure

Australia has proved a popular destination for tertiary students to get University degrees. This has been good for the economy, but is not going to come back soon, and it may never come back. And yet what are people going to do during the coming period of high unemployment? Many will choose to improve their education. 

Meanwhile the Internet has developed into an important adjunct to education. Explicitly:

Youtube (and other video and podcasting and blogging services) provide a lot of brilliant educational material. Unfortunately they also provide an equal or greater amount of well presented false information. For educational purposes there is an urgent need for curation, and to free the material from providers who are subject to so much legal and commercial pressure from various bad actors.

Wikipedia (and other attempts to organize knowledge, such as nLab and kerodon), are a wonderful resource, but they are not oriented to education. For example if you want to understand a particular entry, it will have links to things that you also need to understand, but if you go to those links they are just as complex with just as many links, and not restricted to the level of understanding you need. For educational purposes subjects have prerequisites, and when we have links to material from the prerequisites then we want the exposition to be at the level of that prerequisite. Then, when you go down these rabbit holes, you must come to an end. That is because subjects and prerequisite subjects are organised in a tree structure, and things get simpler as you go down, and there is a limit to how simple you can get. Educational web pages might also have links to other parts of the same course but they will naturally be clearly marked as such.

Let's suppose we do the work, so that we have a wonderful curated collection of educational material, and we have a tree structured curriculum containing links to recommended educational material that covers the course. There are two more things we need for a working education system, which are, in reverse order:

• Evaluating, in a secure way, that students have acquired the knowledge and skills taught by the course, and providing widely accepted certification of that.

• Practising the demonstration of the acquired knowledge and skills and receiving feedback and help. 

There are extra problems when the skills to be demonstrated involve real-world interactions, and not just screens. Students will then be limited to particular places even for practice. There will already be a requirement for students to get to particular places for secure evaluation.

Every part of this looks doable. We will assume that we have a collaboration of government and semi-government organizations (such as universities). All the people involved are identified, not anonymous. Identification is naturally from authorization by one of the participating organizations.

Curation of Educational Resources

Some of the people in some of the organizations will be authorized to do curation. This will include all the people preparing courses and curriculums. Where copyright permits the items should be moved to a secure repository. Otherwise a cryptographic hash of the item should be taken so that it can't be changed while staying at the same URL.

The person adding an item indicates why. The main reason will be because it honestly presents the views of a significant number of experts in the field, preferably all of them. Another reason might be that it has historical interest of some sort. The educational level and clarity of presentation would also be assessed.

Curriculum and Course Construction

A curriculum describes the knowledge and skills for a particular subject area at a particular level, and how these should be assessed. It should come with something like a wikipedia entry, except that the links should always point to information in the prerequisites, or perhaps to information from earlier in that same course. This collection of web pages should actually be a very terse course for the curriculum.

A course for a curriculum is a set of curated resources that cover the curriculum, plus example assessments with examples of the successful completion of those assessments.

Assessment

It is envisaged that assessment will be separated from instruction. Instruction can be provided by independent training services. However institutions going to the trouble to produce curriculums and courses, will often be running the course for some students, and providing at least enough assessment for those students. 

Assessment should be secure. Students need to be biometrically identified and the circumstances need to prevent cheating. For example screen based testing should use the assessors screens and should be done in a faraday cage to prevent communication with the outside world.

Training

Separating training from assessment has been quite common. For this to work the curriculum and assessment have to be well defined. The payoff is innovation and flexibility in training. If people already know the subject then they only need to make sure they use the same terminology and notation to get certification.

Summary

A dynamic educational environment can raise productivity, and also make the world a lot safer for democracy when voters need to resist an avalanche of misinformation.

A Nuclear Future for Australia

An Open Letter to CSIRO

The world is on the brink of momentous change. At the same time, the Australian government needs to give the voters a positive message about the future. It is natural for CSIRO to lead at this time.

Nuclear power is going to deliver the cheap, carbon-free high intensity energy that will shape the 21st century. We don't know which SMR (small modular reactor) technology will win, but it is clear that several are close to deployment and there is enormous scope for technological progress. Morrison explicitly said they were not ruling out nuclear. With Indonesia, and many other neighboring countries, going nuclear, there is little doubt we will follow. Leading environmentalists believe it is an essential technology to combat climate change while maintaining and increasing our standard of living.

When I was at CSIRO the public was very anti-nuclear, and we were pleased to escape being united with ANSTO. That is now rapidly changing, and CSIRO will be left behind if it doesn't endorse and support nuclear energy. Deploying and taking full advantage of nuclear power is a multidisciplinary job, so union with ANSTO is now a good step.

The public is ready to hear about the need for disaster preparation. A recurring world-wide disaster is a large volcano erupting, sometimes for years, and significantly reducing sunlight, leading to agriculture failures. This happens every few hundred years on average, the most recent being Mount Tambora in 1815. This is, incidentally, an argument for nuclear power compared to solar. More significantly it is an argument for vertical farming using artificial light, which cheap nuclear power will make affordable. Vertical farming eliminates the need for chemicals, such as insecticides, which have damaged the natural environment. It can benefit from optimal levels of CO2 and just the light frequencies the plants use. Vertical farming is usually shown going up, but it can as easily go down out of sight. Allowing cities to be self-sufficient in basic food production and water purification will strengthen their ability to cope with many sorts of disaster.

Small reactors are also a natural way to power large ships, giving fast, quiet, cheap, and carbon-free shipping. This has the potential to connect Australia to the world, so that we are less reliant on trade with nearby economies such as China. I don't know whether it is practicable for Australia to be involved in manufacturing on that scale, but cheap power plus robot technology seems to open up the possibility.

A look at the map shows that Australia is lacking cities in its North-West. For a truly ambitious project we should build a city there that sits lightly on the land, producing its own water and most of its food, safely destroying its waste and producing no air pollution. I like to think the Aboriginal people will be supportive of this, because it is the blueprint for a world where we can return significant amounts of land to their care.

Further in the future, but clearly in view, is the advance in space technology. While most are thinking about the Moon and Mars, the smart money is on asteroids beyond the frost line, and avoiding deep gravity wells. While this is further in the future, there is an obvious connection to perfecting vertical farming and water purification using nuclear energy

It is in times like these that governments and voters are primed to accept a significant change in direction. Seize the moment.

Australia: Black Lands Matter

https://twitter.com/leunigcartoons/status/1268157242400006145?s=20

Australia needs to get its own house in order before commenting on racism in America. It is a bit too easy to say "Black Lives Matter", but then not give up anything. But I think recent developments in our understanding of history clearly point to what should be given up.

What we now fully understand is that Aboriginal people, across the whole country, managed the landscape for safety and for productivity. This was effectively farming, and contradicts the view that they were  merely subsisting off land left in its natural state.

After the demise of the megafauna, the Aboriginal people stepped into the breach. The megafauna used to munch and muscle their way through the forests, stopping the understorey building up dangerously. The Aboriginal people developed a system of low level continuous burning to do that job. They also became the top predator, so that kangeroos and other herbivores didn't overgraze.

European settlers and their diseases massively reduced the Aboriginal population. The Sydney area was open woodland when Cook and then settlers arrived. Later, explorers travelling over land saw smoke from fires in all directions. But very soon the dense forests that we are familiar with had taken over, and we new arrivals thought that was the natural state. In fact it had never existed before. Worse still, the Aboriginal practice of burning, though necessary, had had the effect that fire tolerant and fire dependent species were now much more common. We were all setup for the bushfire disasters that have plagued us ever since.

The problems are related and I will propose a solution to both. It needs to be said that the Aboriginal people are not a single legal entity, so we can't just give the forests back to them. Indeed it would not be wise to go that far, because the National Parks are now something that all Australians, and the ancestors who were the ancient owners, would want to keep close to a natural condition.

• The plan would be gradually expanded. Initially it would cover land where bushfires are likely and dangerous.
• Those Aboriginal people wishing to actively participate would become the beneficial owners able to: sell hunting licenses, charge for entry or camping, sell natural produce such as kangeroo meat.
• The Aboriginal people would work with government scientists to plan for returning the forests to a more natural and safer and more productive state.
• This includes the removal, or at least reduction, of non-native species of plants and animals.
• Keeping the forest thinned out and with low level vegetation reduced. Cultural burning should be part of this, but sequestering carbon would be better if possible.
• Those doing the work in the Parks would be paid, proportionately to their involvement. Those with more involvement will also receive more of the benefits.

Training will obviously be an important activity. We want Aboriginal people to be well off, well educated, and honouring their ancestors by caring for the land. Then we will be well placed to advise other countries on race relations. Reducing the bushfires will also be nice.

Counting votes in optional preferential

The Australian Senate has optional preferential voting. That means voters can number some candidates (or parties), but not number all of them. As I understand it counting goes like this, assuming you have 6 spots to fill:

• Divide the number of valid votes 7 (number of winners + 1), rounding down, then add 1 for luck. This is the quota. You need a quota of votes to win a seat.
• Count votes till someone has a quota. Now only 5 more to go. The rest of the winner's votes (their excess) continues in the count going to lower preferences. Except that doing it that way would be non-reproducible, so actually all the winner's votes continue, but only counting as an appropriate fraction.
• Except that some votes are now exhausted because they didn't vote below that winner. Now the quota needs to be lowered appropriately, otherwise you might not get enough winners.
• And so on till you have your 6 winners.

Do they actually reduce the quota? I left a question on Antony Green's web site but didn't get an answer.

To only reduce the quota for subsequent candidates is unfair. The people who vote for the most popular candidates get votes that count less. But going back and changing the quota for previously confirmed candidates could change the count. Maybe they push on with the original quota, hoping they'll get 6 people elected. But that is bad even if it works.

The correct answer is to set the quota to the smallest quota which will elect 6 candidates. So that if you reduce the quota by even one it will lead to 7 candidates getting a quota. The point is that you want to discard the largest number of votes, because that is where the loony single issue supporters are lurking. This is what easily happens when only one person is being elected: almost half the votes can be discarded.

With this counting method, I now think optional preferential Senate voting is ok, minimizing the chances of extremist parties.

comments on "Planet of the Humans"

The new movie from the Michael Moore stable, "Planet of the Humans", is available free on youtube: https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE. Everybody should see it.

As we have recently learned from SARS-CoV2, exponential growth is brutal. Also, if something can't go on then it must stop. These things apply to people as well as virus pandemics. That is the basic message of the film.

The movie proposes we solve the problem now with population reduction and much lower consumption. That isn't going to happen. There is an alternative which is two fold:

(a) Take on board the fact that human population exponential growth must stop and build up the social structures that will make that possible. Basically bringing a new person into the world is a deal between the world and the parents, and that needs to be explicit (and fair).

(b) Give ourselves time to get to that point by adopting the one energy source that the rest of nature has no use for: Nuclear Power.

If the movie doesn't kick start a pro Nuclear Green movement than I'll be very disappointed.

A final comment on the movie is this. It is a collection of emotional anecdotes. Anecdotes are a weak form of evidence. The role of anecdotal evidence is to tell you what needs to be seriously and openly investigated. If we've learnt anything from the pandemic, it is the importance of getting the experts involved in a clear and open way, while understanding that they don't always agree, and that they can change their mind.