5 ms·

Sure. But then, if you live in the "west", please realize the cost of turning on your light bulb or driving your car or wearing your shoes, or turning on the AC

Sure. But then, if you live in the "west", please realize the cost of turning on your light bulb or driving your car or wearing your shoes, or turning on the AC, or buying frozen meat. Realize the cost our lifestyle imposes on people elsewhere. The regimes that are protected and the lives we ruin in exchange for us being able to live the lifestyle that we have. Please don't make me say what I didn't. I'm just asking, as a non googler, am I much better than someone working at google on some of their darker project ? Objectively, everytime I do one of the things I listed above, I kill more people. My point being, your 4 points don't only apply to google employees. Indeed, at the very least, I feel they also apply to me, a non google, chillin at my house with AC and cold water. I pick your third bullet point. Because 1 would be lying to myself, I don't believe in 2, and I'm too weak to pick 4: I won't stop using my AC. I conclude I must be a much worst person I thought I was. On to watching netflix, I need to know what happens next in this one very important show.

azag0 8y ago
I’ll just copy-paste a comment (not mine) from a different subthread: “This all-or-nothing approach to morality is stupid. Just because not every decision in your life may be 100% morally justifiable, that does not mean “throw all ethics over board”.”
- ihsw2 8y ago
  This further reinforces the notion that the modern left has embraced essentialism, moralization, and Utopian ideology: * reducing people to (for example and more commonly than ever) ethnic and religious identities * turning every issue into a moral issue where decisions are separated into right and wrong with a distinct lack of nuance and thoughtful consideration * attacking those that don't share in your Utopian ideology as irredeemable sinners that must be isolated and neutralized, lest they detract from the overarching "perfect future" The top-most comment in this thread is obviously an extremist that lacks any interest in critically examining the multiple variables that have brought us to this situation and instead reduces it to "the American government is evil and anyone that works with it is evil by association." There are ways to affect the direction of this country (and of Google) without resorting to wholesale rejection of it on a basic level. We are entering a dangerous territory where pogroms and cannibalization of moderates are the norm, and where extremists of all stripes are given a platform with violent oppression imposed on those calling for moderation.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    I don't think this represents all or even most of the modern left. Just like on the right, the vocal minority seems to have taken the spotlight.
  - azag0 8y ago
    I can somewhat see where you're going with this, but I cannot possibly see how it is a reaction to my comment.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    Very insightful comment, I suppose you represent the modern, alternative right movement then? This is a very big problem, you can't have bags like "the left" or "the right" because that's too general to represent any meaningful philosophy. As an example, many people would argue Clinton is left. I'd argue she's on the center right of the spectrum, if not further and would certainly not refer to her as left-wing in general. I'm not making a judgment here as to which is correct, but it demonstrates pretty clearly that broad labels are not at all helpful.
    - ihsw2 8y ago
      I seek to represent those interested in a moderated and careful approach to moral dilemmas, where the restraints of ideological extremism and tribalism are left at the door.
noetic_techy 8y ago
> Sure. But then, if you live in the "west", please realize the cost of turning on your light bulb or driving your car or wearing your shoes, or turning on the AC, or buying frozen meat. Realize the cost our lifestyle imposes on people elsewhere. The regimes that are protected and the lives we ruin in exchange for us being able to live the lifestyle that we have. Ah the old veiled blame capitalism and blame the west argument. Except for the fact that capitalism has been nothing but a boon for the entire globe, even the non-westerners, and that western traditions and values (which are not necessarily coupled to capitalism) have been instrumental in introducing ideas and institutions that have freed a lot people globally for the first time in all human history. Capitalism overall has been nothing but a force of good for the world: - The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006. - Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent. - Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008. - The world is 120 times better off today than in 1800 as a result of capitalism. - Mortality rates for children under the age of five declined by 49 percent from 1990 to 2013. Doesn't sound like its ruining too many lives to me. All those people should feel terrible though? Do you think the non-western Chinese sit around and pine about how terrible their people/culture is for turning on lights, wearing shoes, and enjoying climate controlled spaces? No they don't, and they shouldn't, because its ridiculously naive point of view on the world. Instead they are proud of what they've accomplished. Meanwhile some in the west are sitting at Starbucks on their mac books or smart phones whining about how terrible the "west" is while checking to see if their steady paycheck was direct deposited before they uber back to their furnished home or apartment, all without being arrested by secret police for their negative post upon arrival. Fancy that.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  As opposed to that parallel universe without capitalism where no improvements happened? You can't just point to improvements and say "look the system is good". If feudalism had remained the dominant system then we'd still have had some improvements in quality of life, and I'm sure the aristocracy of this hypothetical world would be pointing to that and saying "look feudalism has been nothing but a boon!" just as confidently as you. The question is, could another system be better? And given that by pretty much any measure, we've had the resources to lift everyone out of poverty for years, and yet haven't used them to do that, I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that another way of allocating resources might be an improvement. >Meanwhile some in the west are sitting at Starbucks on their mac books or smart phones whining about how terrible the "west" is while checking to see if their steady paycheck was direct deposited before they uber back to their furnished home or apartment, all without being arrested by secret police for their negative post upon arrival. Fancy that. Meanwhile many people in the west can't afford most of these things, don't have a steady paycheck because they do shift work, live in a trailer, and are often harassed by the non-secret police for no reason. And they're the ones lucky enough to be born in developed economies.

azag0 8y ago

I’ll just copy-paste a comment (not mine) from a different subthread: “This all-or-nothing approach to morality is stupid. Just because not every decision in your life may be 100% morally justifiable, that does not mean “throw all ethics over board”.”

ihsw2 8y ago
This further reinforces the notion that the modern left has embraced essentialism, moralization, and Utopian ideology: * reducing people to (for example and more commonly than ever) ethnic and religious identities * turning every issue into a moral issue where decisions are separated into right and wrong with a distinct lack of nuance and thoughtful consideration * attacking those that don't share in your Utopian ideology as irredeemable sinners that must be isolated and neutralized, lest they detract from the overarching "perfect future" The top-most comment in this thread is obviously an extremist that lacks any interest in critically examining the multiple variables that have brought us to this situation and instead reduces it to "the American government is evil and anyone that works with it is evil by association." There are ways to affect the direction of this country (and of Google) without resorting to wholesale rejection of it on a basic level. We are entering a dangerous territory where pogroms and cannibalization of moderates are the norm, and where extremists of all stripes are given a platform with violent oppression imposed on those calling for moderation.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  I don't think this represents all or even most of the modern left. Just like on the right, the vocal minority seems to have taken the spotlight.
- azag0 8y ago
  I can somewhat see where you're going with this, but I cannot possibly see how it is a reaction to my comment.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  Very insightful comment, I suppose you represent the modern, alternative right movement then? This is a very big problem, you can't have bags like "the left" or "the right" because that's too general to represent any meaningful philosophy. As an example, many people would argue Clinton is left. I'd argue she's on the center right of the spectrum, if not further and would certainly not refer to her as left-wing in general. I'm not making a judgment here as to which is correct, but it demonstrates pretty clearly that broad labels are not at all helpful.
  - ihsw2 8y ago
    I seek to represent those interested in a moderated and careful approach to moral dilemmas, where the restraints of ideological extremism and tribalism are left at the door.

noetic_techy 8y ago

> Sure. But then, if you live in the "west", please realize the cost of turning on your light bulb or driving your car or wearing your shoes, or turning on the AC, or buying frozen meat. Realize the cost our lifestyle imposes on people elsewhere. The regimes that are protected and the lives we ruin in exchange for us being able to live the lifestyle that we have. Ah the old veiled blame capitalism and blame the west argument. Except for the fact that capitalism has been nothing but a boon for the entire globe, even the non-westerners, and that western traditions and values (which are not necessarily coupled to capitalism) have been instrumental in introducing ideas and institutions that have freed a lot people globally for the first time in all human history. Capitalism overall has been nothing but a force of good for the world: - The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006. - Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent. - Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008. - The world is 120 times better off today than in 1800 as a result of capitalism. - Mortality rates for children under the age of five declined by 49 percent from 1990 to 2013. Doesn't sound like its ruining too many lives to me. All those people should feel terrible though? Do you think the non-western Chinese sit around and pine about how terrible their people/culture is for turning on lights, wearing shoes, and enjoying climate controlled spaces? No they don't, and they shouldn't, because its ridiculously naive point of view on the world. Instead they are proud of what they've accomplished. Meanwhile some in the west are sitting at Starbucks on their mac books or smart phones whining about how terrible the "west" is while checking to see if their steady paycheck was direct deposited before they uber back to their furnished home or apartment, all without being arrested by secret police for their negative post upon arrival. Fancy that.

aninhumer 8y ago
As opposed to that parallel universe without capitalism where no improvements happened? You can't just point to improvements and say "look the system is good". If feudalism had remained the dominant system then we'd still have had some improvements in quality of life, and I'm sure the aristocracy of this hypothetical world would be pointing to that and saying "look feudalism has been nothing but a boon!" just as confidently as you. The question is, could another system be better? And given that by pretty much any measure, we've had the resources to lift everyone out of poverty for years, and yet haven't used them to do that, I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that another way of allocating resources might be an improvement. >Meanwhile some in the west are sitting at Starbucks on their mac books or smart phones whining about how terrible the "west" is while checking to see if their steady paycheck was direct deposited before they uber back to their furnished home or apartment, all without being arrested by secret police for their negative post upon arrival. Fancy that. Meanwhile many people in the west can't afford most of these things, don't have a steady paycheck because they do shift work, live in a trailer, and are often harassed by the non-secret police for no reason. And they're the ones lucky enough to be born in developed economies.