3 ms·

Also, another point here is that I'm speaking of the consequences having no longterm effect. But even in some parallel world where they would have a longterm ef

Also, another point here is that I'm speaking of the consequences having no longterm effect. But even in some parallel world where they would have a longterm effect, the short to midterm benefits would often still outweight it. CFCs are a good example. They were largely responsible for ozone depletion and the primary developer - DuPont (now another player in genetically engineering foodstuffs) - was well aware of this. They lobbied the government for about a decade to prevent regulating them until they had a new, patented, replacement and then turned 180 and acknowledged they were destroying the ozone. But even had they not managed to successfully corrupt the government there and we prohibited CFCs a decade earlier, as we should have, they would have made immense profit in the time leading up to that period such that the fear of their actions being stopped were not really a concern. The fact that modern democratic governments can be broken so easily by large enough corporations exasperates, rather than creates, the problem.

Fins 9y ago
Out of curiosity, how would the prohibition of CFCs work before there were a replacement? Or would that be something like the anti-GMO crowd that feasts on their organic free-range heritage breed quinoa salad while telling people in developing world that there's not enough food for them, because GMO is evil, so drop dead?
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  Do you think that CFCs were the world's first refrigerant?
  - Fins 9y ago
    There was a reason we moved to CFC, wasn't there? Switching back and forth woulds be pretty expensive.
    - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
      Yes, swapping would have obviously come with a cost. The point was that swapping would have been entirely possible. Instead DuPont, even knowing full well the potentially global and catastrophic level of damage they were causing, successfully lobbied to prevent any regulation against them for the better part of a decade after their effects became widely known. And it's highly likely that DuPont understood the dangers well before then.

Fins 9y ago

Out of curiosity, how would the prohibition of CFCs work before there were a replacement? Or would that be something like the anti-GMO crowd that feasts on their organic free-range heritage breed quinoa salad while telling people in developing world that there's not enough food for them, because GMO is evil, so drop dead?

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
Do you think that CFCs were the world's first refrigerant?
- Fins 9y ago
  There was a reason we moved to CFC, wasn't there? Switching back and forth woulds be pretty expensive.
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    Yes, swapping would have obviously come with a cost. The point was that swapping would have been entirely possible. Instead DuPont, even knowing full well the potentially global and catastrophic level of damage they were causing, successfully lobbied to prevent any regulation against them for the better part of a decade after their effects became widely known. And it's highly likely that DuPont understood the dangers well before then.