Peter Singer is a Consequentialist Hedonic Utilitarian Ethicist. ...

2026-04-23T19:17:51Z

Peter Singer is a Consequentialist Hedonic Utilitarian Ethicist.

It's his professional job to be good at ethics and teach others about ethics.

He thinks the best ethics are judged by the consequences, and that good is the best for the most people.

He has a podcast. It's probably great. He is cool. I only just heard about it.

But this is his website.

The podcast is offered on Spotify and Apple.

It has an AI chat bot that isn't even prompted well to sound like Peter for no reason at all.

It has a embed for a substack.

That embed for a substack is expired because it's run by a thing called Supascribe that is presumably some software as a service scam.

Below that is a cookie permissions banner which is asking for permission to spy on you for advertisers even though there are no actual adverts on the site.

There are links at the top and bottom to Facebook and Instagram.

There is no RSS feed embedded in the page.

I repeat: Peter Singer is actually pretty cool, and he thinks about ethics sanely.

This is the web we have built. Where a professional Consequentialist Hedonic Utilitarian Ethicist does all this.

#web #ethics #peterSinger

Despite much opinion to the contrary, the government money we use ...

2025-11-22T10:39:50Z

Despite much opinion to the contrary, the government money we use is crappy.

I'm at bitfest in Manchester to find out if Bitcoin could be a better money.

It could hardly be worse.

The mood is still good, people are joking about recent devaluation rather than crying. Those who aren't all in are trying to buy more at the discount.

After an introduction by Mad Bitcoins, Joe Bryan explains the problem with government money.

He imagines an island on which two types of money are tried, with a dividing wall between them.

When economic problems hit, government can just print more money on the fiat side. Everyone now using money which is worth less. Distorting prices, inflating asset prices, making the rich (who hold assets) richer and the poor (who have to pay inflated prices) poorer. Driving wealth inequality.

On the hard money side, government must tax properly. Take in more from the rich rather than inflating to take it from the poor. Reducing wealth inequality.

On the government money side, the wealthy monitize houses, stocks, resources. Saving in money is impossible, its inflated away. So they save in assets and hording resources. Capital is misallocated. The youth can't afford houses. Poverty traps are caused. The only way out is printing more for benefits. Making it all worse. More economic crises, more printing. More government debt.

Eventually, the wall is broken. Government money people can save in the hard money instead. It reduces the value of government money further. More printing. More inflation.

Eventually, war. Funded by printed money.

The dollar is the best of a bad bunch all other government money is falling in value even faster.

I wonder, is bitcoin really this better money though? It's limited, hard, and can't be printed without energy investment.

I'm still unsure that fixing money fixes the world.

--

Note: "crypto" is mostly more like government money than bitcoin. It can be printed indefinitely by it's makers, does not cost it's makers to print. Crypto is usually just a scam people to get more bitcoin. Bitcoin is not crypto.

#bitfest #bitcoin

Nostr notes by Adam Dalliance :palestinepoppy:

Peter Singer is a Consequentialist Hedonic Utilitarian Ethicist. ...

Despite much opinion to the contrary, the government money we use ...