5 ms·

I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16

by Loic 10y ago

I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16. They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have. When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field. We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not?

calibraxis 10y ago
Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site (like both US political parties): in a discussion of threats to humanity, an apparently highly-rated comment talks about paying too much in taxes. And fears that solutions to global warming will "completely subvert our entire system of law making." (Both of which are good things: not just markets, but the nation state system itself, are exactly what need disrupting. Those who drank the koolaid can't think past tight bounds even when future generations are at stake. Not everyone can escape to billionaire mansion compounds in New Zealand. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-man... )
- tajen 10y ago
  But there's a third explanation that doesn't imply it's right-wing capitalism: Maybe paying more taxes still doesn't solve global warming? A problem when I discuss global warming with colleagues is that they attempt to put me in one side (deniers) or the other (social-ecology), both of which don't match my views (In my case, I think tying social with ecology hurts both results, but the comment you're talking about has other ideas). So instead of judging and classifying this person, please dig into their logic and provide them with sources.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site You read a different HN than I do.
akerro 10y ago
>but if this is the only solution, why not? It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution. People who don't turn off lights (also TVs, computers) at their homes over night. I met a lot of them, one of the dumbest excuse was... light bulbs break if we turn on and off the lights frequently, so they were leaving 3x 100W lightbulbs overnight, irony, they were working as council of Greenest Capital of Europe :))) People who burn coal and wood to heat homes, burn coal = more CO2, burn wood = less forests. People who don't recycle stuff - I'll just throw away that TV on a street or drop from 2nd flow window for fun! Ha! People who buy new phones and computers because that's a new fashion. People who eat food that was grown in places were 10years ago we could see amazon rainforests. People are too lazy and it's too hard for masses to leave their comfort zones.
- estefan 10y ago
  It's people who rape people, murder people, poison people... oh wait, they're all illegal too.
  - akerro 10y ago
    So let's sue government for rapist and murderers to end it?
    - cauterized 10y ago
      If the government were not enforcing existing laws against rape and murder, damn right there would be lawsuits.
      - lostcolony 10y ago
        Or if the government was allowing the laws to prevent rape and murder to be written by lobbyists for rapists and murderers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
croon 10y ago
> We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not? Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution. I actually agree with you. Whatever you think of this suit or this election, I think we can agree that there are some situations in which you have no "good" recourse, and have to resort to whatever is there to make your point/stand.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  > Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution. Mostly people who will be dead before climate change becomes a problem.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution. But most people thought that was stupid, and legitimacy rests with the majority.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Both major candidates optimized for the electoral college. If the election were on popularity they would have optimized for such --what the result would have been is unknown, it may have been the same or it might have changed the outcome, but we do know that the campaigns would have been vastly different. Also, one candidate spent twice the amount on advertising. If the winner had outspent the loser by 2x, I'm sure there'd be an outcry about the amount of money used in the campaign.
Shivetya 10y ago
I think the problem here is they are proxies for those who really want the suits to go forward. Most of them cannot make an informed opinion about much in their early teens nor even by college as views can be heavily influenced by those in positions of authority they are exposed too.
couchand 10y ago
Yeah, it's probably stupid to sue (from a legal perspective, that is, it may be useful as PR), given that the judge seems to have admitted that there's no legal basis for the claim: Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.” This is a novel legal argument, and it would have to be brilliant to gain much traction.

by Loic 10y ago

calibraxis 10y ago

Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site (like both US political parties): in a discussion of threats to humanity, an apparently highly-rated comment talks about paying too much in taxes. And fears that solutions to global warming will "completely subvert our entire system of law making." (Both of which are good things: not just markets, but the nation state system itself, are exactly what need disrupting. Those who drank the koolaid can't think past tight bounds even when future generations are at stake. Not everyone can escape to billionaire mansion compounds in New Zealand. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-man... )

tajen 10y ago
But there's a third explanation that doesn't imply it's right-wing capitalism: Maybe paying more taxes still doesn't solve global warming? A problem when I discuss global warming with colleagues is that they attempt to put me in one side (deniers) or the other (social-ecology), both of which don't match my views (In my case, I think tying social with ecology hurts both results, but the comment you're talking about has other ideas). So instead of judging and classifying this person, please dig into their logic and provide them with sources.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site You read a different HN than I do.

akerro 10y ago

>but if this is the only solution, why not? It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution. People who don't turn off lights (also TVs, computers) at their homes over night. I met a lot of them, one of the dumbest excuse was... light bulbs break if we turn on and off the lights frequently, so they were leaving 3x 100W lightbulbs overnight, irony, they were working as council of Greenest Capital of Europe :))) People who burn coal and wood to heat homes, burn coal = more CO2, burn wood = less forests. People who don't recycle stuff - I'll just throw away that TV on a street or drop from 2nd flow window for fun! Ha! People who buy new phones and computers because that's a new fashion. People who eat food that was grown in places were 10years ago we could see amazon rainforests. People are too lazy and it's too hard for masses to leave their comfort zones.

estefan 10y ago
It's people who rape people, murder people, poison people... oh wait, they're all illegal too.
- akerro 10y ago
  So let's sue government for rapist and murderers to end it?
  - cauterized 10y ago
    If the government were not enforcing existing laws against rape and murder, damn right there would be lawsuits.
    - lostcolony 10y ago
      Or if the government was allowing the laws to prevent rape and murder to be written by lobbyists for rapists and murderers.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

croon 10y ago

> We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not? Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution. I actually agree with you. Whatever you think of this suit or this election, I think we can agree that there are some situations in which you have no "good" recourse, and have to resort to whatever is there to make your point/stand.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
> Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution. Mostly people who will be dead before climate change becomes a problem.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution. But most people thought that was stupid, and legitimacy rests with the majority.
- mc32 10y ago
  Both major candidates optimized for the electoral college. If the election were on popularity they would have optimized for such --what the result would have been is unknown, it may have been the same or it might have changed the outcome, but we do know that the campaigns would have been vastly different. Also, one candidate spent twice the amount on advertising. If the winner had outspent the loser by 2x, I'm sure there'd be an outcry about the amount of money used in the campaign.

Shivetya 10y ago

I think the problem here is they are proxies for those who really want the suits to go forward. Most of them cannot make an informed opinion about much in their early teens nor even by college as views can be heavily influenced by those in positions of authority they are exposed too.

couchand 10y ago

Yeah, it's probably stupid to sue (from a legal perspective, that is, it may be useful as PR), given that the judge seems to have admitted that there's no legal basis for the claim: Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.” This is a novel legal argument, and it would have to be brilliant to gain much traction.