UK Fusion Lab's uncertain future

[Syne]

Sounds like it. Either way, I'm fairly confident the final outcome will be less disastrous than imagined. The truly disastrous outcomes are never imagined beforehand.

[RainbowUnicorn]

A question mark hangs over a world-leading laboratory that has pioneered research into fusion for nearly 40 years.

The Culham Centre for Fusion Energy near Oxford is largely funded by the EU and dozens of its scientists come from outside the UK.

Since the vote for Brexit, many at the centre have become "extremely nervous" amid uncertainty about future financing and freedom of movement.

Five researchers have already returned to continental Europe with others said to be considering their positions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37777729

One potential answer to the problem is based upon something similar to both how the Vatican has "Vatican City" or how the Ministry within the UK acts like a State within a State.

If the Scientific community could act as it's own independent Principality in relationship to the UK Government, it would be able to be held outside of the Brexit political quagmire.  (In essence European Cooperation could continue with that principality. as opposed the UK)

as the age of narcissism takes grip on the riens of the nation, scientists are probably wise to move sooner rather than later.
I would expect the US scientists to be leaving the US as fast as possible already.
The UK often trys to copy the US as quick as it can without appearing too hasty.
With Massive cuts to dissabled childrens welfare costs its only a matter of time before the govt massively cuts back on intestment into research that does not deliver an immediate consumer product.

[Syne]

as the age of narcissism takes grip on the riens of the nation...

If you think narcissism hasn't had the reins for quite some time, you've been living under a rock.

[RainbowUnicorn]

as the age of narcissism takes grip on the riens of the nation...

If you think narcissism hasn't had the reins for quite some time, you've been living under a rock.

my point is the general voters as a balancing force.
the balance is shifting.
the collective social consciousness that pervades and controls the leadership and prevents leaders from becoming blood thirsty murdering dictators...
that moderator morality is becoming somewhat of a narcissist.

THAT is what i meant.
there are very very few leaders who are in the job to do the best for the people.
most are in it because they crave power and control over others.
i am lucky enough to have met some public servant profesionals who are actually in the job for life doing it for the people because that is why they do it and what drives them.
such people are not very common and rarely have any better sucess at winning national leadership roles.
wealth has become the new badge of "what makes a good public servant" which i find quite fascinating as it is simply illogical.

[Syne]

If you think narcissism hasn't had the reins for quite some time, you've been living under a rock.

my point is the general voters as a balancing force.
the balance is shifting.
the collective social consciousness that pervades and controls the leadership and prevents leaders from becoming blood thirsty murdering dictators...
that moderator morality is becoming somewhat of a narcissist.

THAT is what i meant.
there are very very few leaders who are in the job to do the best for the people.
most are in it because they crave power and control over others.
i am lucky enough to have met some public servant profesionals who are actually in the job for life doing it for the people because that is why they do it and what drives them.
such people are not very common and rarely have any better sucess at winning national leadership roles.
wealth has become the new badge of "what makes a good public servant" which i find quite fascinating as it is simply illogical.

What do you consider "the collective social consciousness"? Have voters ever voted anything but their own self-interest? If anything, I'd say a sense of patriotism is one of the few unifying forces (like after 9/11), and we've just seen 8 years of trying to erode any sense of collective national pride. The nation has been made the source of all ills, by way of phantom institutionalized problems that magically materialized all but whole cloth.

[RainbowUnicorn]

What do you consider "the collective social consciousness"?

modern civilised western cultural expectations in a social interactive engagement of idiological practice.
(happy to break that down into some examples)

Syne
Have voters ever voted anything but their own self-interest?

Sure.
however, i think maybe you might be eluding to a majority impetus of personal motivation.
to which i would tend to agree with you based on wealth demographics.
ironically though now the super rich get to make all the descisions for the working class and poor while using the working classes money without any accountability.
which is somewhat of a self fulfilling phropecy of the rich to rienforce the naure of greed.
hence you may wish to re phrase your question a little maybe ? (maybe that is the same thing you mean?)

Syne
If anything, I'd say a sense of patriotism is one of the few unifying forces (like after 9/11), and we've just seen 8 years of trying to erode any sense of collective national pride. The nation has been made the source of all ills, by way of phantom institutionalized problems that magically materialized all but whole cloth.

you will need to give me an example of what "USA national pride" is to avoid your comment sounding like dog whistle political banter.

"phantom institutionalized problems" could you please give an example or two so i can understand what you mean ?
perspective wise there is varying bents i.e national/international/right-wing/left-wing/anarchist/cultural/religious etc

[Syne]

What do you consider "the collective social consciousness"?

modern civilised western cultural expectations in a social interactive engagement of idiological practice.
(happy to break that down into some examples)

Yeah, I'm probably going to need a few examples. Sounds like you're talking about how social media ideological bubbles distort people's expectations into thinking they can have an ideologically (their own of course) pure world.

Syne
Have voters ever voted anything but their own self-interest?

Sure.
however, i think maybe you might be eluding to a majority impetus of personal motivation.
to which i would tend to agree with you based on wealth demographics.
ironically though now the super rich get to make all the descisions for the working class and poor while using the working classes money without any accountability.
which is somewhat of a self fulfilling phropecy of the rich to rienforce the naure of greed.
hence you may wish to re phrase your question a little maybe ? (maybe that is the same thing you mean?)

I mean individual self-interest. I don't think it's as simple as the rich making all the decisions, but they do have the loudest voices and most influence on the people. Except they do exert undue direct influence on our politicians. Although some of that kind of influence is a proper representation of the people, like the millions of people who fund the NRA to lobby on their behalf.

The only way to remove greed from government influence is to make government small enough that it doesn't get to play with the kind of money that attracts so much corruption.

Syne
If anything, I'd say a sense of patriotism is one of the few unifying forces (like after 9/11), and we've just seen 8 years of trying to erode any sense of collective national pride. The nation has been made the source of all ills, by way of phantom institutionalized problems that magically materialized all but whole cloth.

you will need to give me an example of what "USA national pride" is to avoid your comment sounding like dog whistle political banter.

"phantom institutionalized problems" could you please give an example or two so i can understand what you mean ?
perspective wise there is varying bents i.e national/international/right-wing/left-wing/anarchist/cultural/religious etc

I'm not sure what's wrong with national pride (so long as you don't conflate it with identity politics crap like white nationalism). People of all ideologies, ethnicities, etc. came together as one unified and proud nation after 9/11. I hope we don't need such a threat to do so again.

Phantom institutionalized problems like systemic racism and sexism, rape culture, etc.. Not only is it trivial that all these do exist in very tiny minorities, but no one who asserts them can point to any significant number of real examples that would make it systemic, nor offer any real way to address such problems...other than some misguided trust in an ever-larger government (in which these systemic problems supposedly exist).

[RainbowUnicorn]

What do you consider "the collective social consciousness"?

modern civilised western cultural expectations in a social interactive engagement of idiological practice.
(happy to break that down into some examples)

Syne
Yeah, I'm probably going to need a few examples. Sounds like you're talking about how social media ideological bubbles distort people's expectations into thinking they can have an ideologically (their own of course) pure world.

Soo we are both on the same track justat different ends of the examples.
you mean what i mean. kinda like common sense but more of a trend nature.
Like as an example someone standing on a street corner screaming at people about religion. some countrys that is an accepted practice while in others it is classed as offensive.
when you collect all those generalised things together as one group of people you get a set of generally accepted norms of society.
admittedly yes with all the pety politics & bi-partisan divide & conquer capitalist canabalism you get a distorted concept of what is acceptable, because deviciveness becomes an acceptable practice for personal profit in an environment where abuse is being noramlised and empathy is being de-sensatised.
i gues to draw a circle around what i mean in a semi clinical term of reference it might be considered innovator(marketing term for those who act first & welcome change) sociology.

Syne
Have voters ever voted anything but their own self-interest?

Sure.
however, i think maybe you might be eluding to a majority impetus of personal motivation.
to which i would tend to agree with you based on wealth demographics.
ironically though now the super rich get to make all the descisions for the working class and poor while using the working classes money without any accountability.
which is somewhat of a self fulfilling phropecy of the rich to rienforce the naure of greed.
hence you may wish to re phrase your question a little maybe ? (maybe that is the same thing you mean?)

Syne
I mean individual self-interest. I don't think it's as simple as the rich making all the decisions, but they do have the loudest voices and most influence on the people. Except they do exert undue direct influence on our politicians. Although some of that kind of influence is a proper representation of the people, like the millions of people who fund the NRA to lobby on their behalf.

The only way to remove greed from government influence is to make government small enough that it doesn't get to play with the kind of money that attracts so much corruption.

ok so your first point im replying to here is statistics per societal democracy or KEY Democratic principals in express terms as a statistical fact.
wiki NRA   Members 5 million (as of May 2013) 
wiki USA population Population 324,954,000
= 1.5386793207654006 % of the population or 1.5 %

now statistically 1.5 % of the population is by no means a democratic majority.
soo if we were to have a discusion using the NRA as some type of measure it would be over before we began, UNLESS we were talking about things like the rich elite controlling the working class majority etc etc ...
or facism, facism is much the same i think you will agree.

there are several different statistics involving guns in the usa which confuse people if they do not pay close attention.
the total number of registered guns puts 8 guns in every 10 house holds so thats 80%.
BUT that is by no means law abiding sensible citizens who own guns legally
gun ownership statistics which is more on parr with the NRA lobbying reality is around 25% to 30% of the population who have access to a  gun in the home and around 18% who legally own fire arms.
so that is only 1 in 18 gun owners that support the NRA. which again is statistically fairly small and by far no means democratic support as a majority.

your second point your telling me your a minimalist when it comes to government(im making up that term to mean you beleive the government shouldbe as small as possible)
i tend to sit on the other end of that scale for 2 reasons
1. i think we should empower society to have a honest law abiding leadership and should stamp out corruption in our government where ever it is found and i do not subscribe to abiding corruption as a manditory motivator to limit social actions, OTHERWISE i would be supporting massive budget cuts and down sizing the police and emergency services because people should not be going near or interacting with people organisations or areas of the community where crime might be or occur.

2. by having a comprehensive and law abiding government it allows better cheaper distribution of critical services and manages monetary control to avoid depresions hyper inflation and large scale raqueteering while ensuring a higher quality of life and faster more direct contact and response to situations like diseases and other such regular occurances which cripple society financially and phsysically.
but thats just my personal crazy idea. many people think people on the whole are far too corrupt at heart and by nature. personally i think thats just culture.

Syne
If anything, I'd say a sense of patriotism is one of the few unifying forces (like after 9/11), and we've just seen 8 years of trying to erode any sense of collective national pride. The nation has been made the source of all ills, by way of phantom institutionalized problems that magically materialized all but whole cloth.

you will need to give me an example of what "USA national pride" is to avoid your comment sounding like dog whistle political banter.

"phantom institutionalized problems" could you please give an example or two so i can understand what you mean ?
perspective wise there is varying bents i.e national/international/right-wing/left-wing/anarchist/cultural/religious etc

Syne
I'm not sure what's wrong with national pride (so long as you don't conflate it with identity politics crap like white nationalism). People of all ideologies, ethnicities, etc. came together as one unified and proud nation after 9/11. I hope we don't need such a threat to do so again.

Phantom institutionalized problems like systemic racism and sexism, rape culture, etc.. Not only is it trivial that all these do exist in very tiny minorities, but no one who asserts them can point to any significant number of real examples that would make it systemic, nor offer any real way to address such problems...other than some misguided trust in an ever-larger government (in which these systemic problems supposedly exist).

i am not entrely sure what you mean by national pride as a USA thing as i have heard varying ideas from media and many have no actual explanation of what it is.
maybe we should reference outsourcing here as a good guide to national pride(what gives you pride in your country?) in a working example.
all the big companies have sold out their own people and people have just gone along with it.
i think it would be fair to suggest people have sold their pride for cheaper chinese(it was taiwanese at one stage and indian and philipino and mexican) made products.
why have they chosen this ?
that is probably a question that they need to be asked if there is any real desire to get to the core of the issue. everything else is just hot air and political ego stroking lies.

Phanton problems...
completely agree. scare-mongering people and groups to react in predictable ways to dog whistle politics, so the politicians do not need to actually do anything and can use such things to cover up the real corruption they are engaging in or protecting or hiding from.
irony of using the word "institutionalised" in the USa where capitalism is the accepted norm and "institutions" are considered socialist and evil.
very much irony in that.
probably so much irony and miss information and word loading that it makes the discusion quite awkward unles exclusively among intellectuals.
Culture is somewhat of a modernisedterm these days and tends to mean a collective group rather than actual culture.
more soo because most have no real desire to define what culture really is because of th emassive deviciveness and litigious hysterical reaction that seems to be a social expectation among many people who wish to sell themselves publicly.

-and how to fix it .... offering ways to address and/or fix or counter mitigate ... all very much more soo about power and control.
lose the fear device and lose the ability to control and thus lose power.
most are simply power crazed so will never fix anything because they lose the ability to manipulate the groups with the fear that they use as a bargaining point.
as you close out "smaller Vs larger Govt.
im very much infavour of larger but none of these normalised corrupted salarys of millions for the jobs.
its quite dishonest(in my opinion) to pay government leadership such massive amounts of money.
im editing to add a why because im sure some readers may have no real comparative concept of public service Vs profiteering via capitalism...

---why should salarys for government leadership be no bigger than a top qualified specialist ?
because public service is not the position to extort profit. the very nature in service is to give rather than take and capitalism is the nature of exercising the most gain from a situation.
getting "the most personal gain" from the public while having such vast athority means that authrity in tern SERVES ITS SELF RATHER THAN SERVING THE PUBLIC and thus in so doing creates a normalised culture of canabalising society through extorting trust given as authority.


anything above 150k should be completely out of the question.
if they want more money they should be working in the private sector instead. NOT in public service.

[Syne]

Divide and conquer is not a capitalist methodology, it's a power methodology. Capitalism is just voluntary, mutually consenting trade. It's those who seek power, for its own sake, that divide people against each other. And people who seek control by that means usually can't achieve it in the free market, so they must peddle influence and favoritism. Those who most tout change (and hope) are the very ones who have sewn the division and normalized abuse.

The US is not a democracy...it's a republic. This means that it protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority (that could otherwise normalize whatever abuses it pleased on any minority...like disarming the Jews before the Holocaust). Fascism wouldn't allow 1.5% of the population to have any power or voice at all. And I'm sure you support many causes that you don't have the money to contribute to, so the percent of gun owners financially supporting the NRA shouldn't be a surprise.

1. Ideal governments are unattainable. The bigger the government, the more money it has, the greater the target for corruption. No amount of safeguards can stop that. Every time such idealization has been attempted, it has led to justifying the murder of millions.
2. Government meddling in the economy always does more harm than good. A higher quality of life cannot be achieved under the heavy taxation necessary to fund such governments (see the failing economies in Europe).

Americans should be proud to live in the freest country in history, much less the world. A country where anyone has the potential to succeed, regardless the circumstances you are born into. Other countries only cater to us, by selling such cheap goods, because the US has been successful enough to become the largest market in the world (about a quarter of the global market). It is due to our economy that many countries have become modern and successful themselves.

Why is using the word "institutionalized" ironic? Capitalism is the most decentralized (and when not marred by the corrupt crony capitalism of government favoritism, fairest) system possible. Institutions, of the sort claimed to have these phantom problems, are not capitalist at all. They are governmental, and as such, fit the definition of socialist (government-run/regulated business).

The only way to get rid of the corrupt, crony influence on capitalism is to limit the government that peddles such influence. While I completely agree with you about limiting public salaries, as long as there is tons of taxpayer money to dole out, politicians will still make up for it on the side...likely with even more corruption than we have now.