I wish we could get some critiques that weren’t from a subgroups that so closely resembles the neargroup they’re criticizing: https://consilienceproject.org/team/
These essays often feel less like a novel analysis, and more just like different US elite factions arguing over whose turn it is to gain the Mandate of Heaven.
The consilience project is more rooted in systems theory than technocapitalism. Daniel's interests overlap strongly with the rationalist types (existential/civilisational risk, primarily) but his approach is not the economics-centric form that they take.
> Notably, corporations themselves are also experiencing a reduction in internal science funding. The proportion of corporate funding allocated toward the research side of industrial R&D dropped from 28% in 1985 to 20% in 2015. The same review of scientific publications found that the rate of papers being published by corporations dropped significantly between 1980 and 2010, indicating that it is most cost-effective for companies to rely on existing data as opposed to producing new data.
This is disingenuous, primarily because it applies data that is effectively outdated and no longer applicable. I'd say the exact opposite is true in fact. It's the companies investing the most in R&D that are also the most successful, both in terms of financial and overall societal contribution.
These essays often feel less like a novel analysis, and more just like different US elite factions arguing over whose turn it is to gain the Mandate of Heaven.