6 ms·

Good. Look, ultimately, beyond a certain point, this stuff is point scoring. After you have some amount - say a few hundred grand, a million - the actual numb

Good. Look, ultimately, beyond a certain point, this stuff is point scoring. After you have some amount - say a few hundred grand, a million - the actual number doesn't really matter - you're waving your metaphorical dick around. And that's fine. If we can convert that dick waving into serious change - if we can get the metric by which intelligent beings compete to be something good, like carbon captured or species saved or ICE cars avoided or _whatever_ - we are well on the way to winning. You built an enormous solar farm? Adonis DNA. If we hack it so that it just slots in to the Natural Way of Things - e.g. with a carbon tax or similar - such that investing and buying and doing good things is simply logical - even better.

_edo 7y ago
If you want all of our productivity and competition to go towards something good you have to decide what good means. Is is it the total sum of all the wants and needs of society being matched up with our resources as efficiently as possible? Or is good something chosen by a small group of people using their superior knowledge and wisdom?
- skosch 7y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. We don't need your technocratic oligarchy. Most people already do agree on what's "good" and what isn't, and yet they (rationally) choose to put their money elsewhere, because they have no guarantee that everyone else won't freeload off of their contribution. If I invest $100 in protecting a public good (like the climate), I only get one seven-billionth of the benefit; the rest goes to all of the other people on the planet. So I'll only invest if everyone else chips in, too. The easiest solution to force cooperation like that is called ... taxation. The more difficult, but perhaps closer-to-ideal solution involves more math, see e.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656
  - jiriknesl 7y ago
    This is a false assumption as well. If people decide to not invest to clean energy/climate-neutrality/reducing waste, it might be fear of freeloading, but it can be billions of other reasons. But most reasons will have something in common. And it is not fear of freeloading. It is a list of priorities. When something is really important for people, they do it, they invest time and money into it. If people don't invest their time nor money, it is in fact not important for them. So why tax something that isn't important for people (because if it was important, they everybody would buy clean energy, would stop using plastic & other things)?
    - WA 7y ago
      It wasn’t important for people in medieval cities to have a working sewer. Nobody would invest in such a thing. But the benefits are obvious. It wasn’t clear to people that putting on a seatbelt saves their lives. Maybe, because there was no seatbelt in the first place. What’s important to people is sometimes a matter of marketing. What’s important to people requires that "the right stuff" is offered. People want to save the environment, but also want to save money. Only way this can work is if products get the damage they cause taxed in. Because right now, the environmentally friendly products are more expensive. It should be the other way around.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    > If I invest $100 in protecting a public good (like the climate), I only get one seven-billionth of the benefit; the rest goes to all of the other people on the planet. So I'll only invest if everyone else chips in, too. I used to think like this, but I'm fed up of taking "economic maxims" that I read on the Internet as being actually true. I don't believe this to be the case. I think that taking action, being public about taking action, and ultimately standing behind what you think is right, taxes and others be damned, is the way to go. Yes, there will be free riders. That's inevitable in anything you do. People "free ride" on software I write all the time. I can shoulder it.
    - skosch 7y ago
      Oh I agree, it absolutely is the way to go! If you haven't heard of it, take a look at the Giving What We Can pledge [0]. But most people aren't like you and me. I've had conversations about this with many others, and the most prevalent attitude is the one I described: ask them to buy the more expensive, environmentally friendly product, and they'll decline; ask them whether they would support a law that would require all products to be environmentally friendly, and they'll enthusiastically agree. If that's how people work, then that's how we have to make policy.
  - _edo 7y ago
    My.....technocratic oligarchy? Sure, yeah. Notice you have to assume that most people agree on what's good and that you know what that is. It's a solved problem, it's just a matter of implementing it. > If I invest $100 in protecting a public good....So I'll only invest if everyone else chips in, too. Public goods are non-rivalrous, another person consuming the good has no effect on you. So out of spite you're going to go against your own best interest because you think it's better to punish other people than to purchase a good that you would purchase if you could just figure out how to exclude them from using it. That's valuing the suffering of others over your own well-being. Going back to how hard it is to figure out what people think is "good".....
cheez 7y ago
Except that's not what happens. What happens is people line up at the trough of government directed funding and distort the market, often negatively for a long period of time. For example, people who are against meat consumption for climate purposes are linked through various entities to companies like BYND. So they begin to work on legislation that will profit BYND. For another example, the solar funding debacle under Obama. Otherwise I have no qualms with what you're saying.
- optimiz3 7y ago
  > solar funding debacle Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs. What % of startups do you expect to succeed, 100%?
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    The issue (as I understand it) was not that any one company failed, but that people lied about or ignored warning signs that failure was imminent for specific companies (edit: and that this may have been done due to conflict of interests). The actual policy issues and implication are hidden behind the partisan wrangling and spin that surrounded this topic. There are legitimate concerns about conflicts on interest for people who have large investments in green companies while also lobbying strongly for particular "green" public policies. The risk is that if we uncritically accept these people at their word, we may end up with policies that do less to protect the environment and climate and more to line the pockets of the advocates. Of course, these issues are endemic to our current political/economic systems and don't just apply to investment in climate friendly companies. I would be much more inclined to trust the motivations of environment advocates with large investments in environmental companies if those investments were purchased and administered through some sort of blind trust to alleviate conflict on interest concerns.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      What about all the coal-funded coal lobbyists?
WalterBright 7y ago
> Look, ultimately, beyond a certain point, this stuff is point scoring. Larger amounts of capital means you can do larger things with it. Like SpaceX. If I had $zillions, I'd probably finance a probe to every object in the solar system that's moon size or larger, and landers to the ones that can be landed on.
- arbol 7y ago
  Why would you do this before tackling the climate crisis?
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Spreading into the solar system is a long term solution.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      Only for the select few that were allowed to leave the planet.
    - ta1234567890 7y ago
      A slightly shorter term solution: going underground. Earth is huge, we have barely scratched the surface. There is a lot of space and resources underground. And we don't have to go anywhere, we are already here.
      - chr1 7y ago
        Exactly, seasteading and 'terraforming' deserts are other short term solutions, but for any of that to get more investment we need growing population in rich parts of the world, that would need this and would have money for this. But unfortunately we do not have that.
        ta1234567890 7y ago
        I think we need better marketing and just a handful of very wealthy and highly visible people to invest in those alternatives instead of going into space. In any case, what really makes space exploration possible today, is military spending. Which means that for the alternatives to become viable, they need to have strategic military applications. Unfortunately.

_edo 7y ago

If you want all of our productivity and competition to go towards something good you have to decide what good means. Is is it the total sum of all the wants and needs of society being matched up with our resources as efficiently as possible? Or is good something chosen by a small group of people using their superior knowledge and wisdom?

skosch 7y ago
That's a false dichotomy. We don't need your technocratic oligarchy. Most people already do agree on what's "good" and what isn't, and yet they (rationally) choose to put their money elsewhere, because they have no guarantee that everyone else won't freeload off of their contribution. If I invest $100 in protecting a public good (like the climate), I only get one seven-billionth of the benefit; the rest goes to all of the other people on the planet. So I'll only invest if everyone else chips in, too. The easiest solution to force cooperation like that is called ... taxation. The more difficult, but perhaps closer-to-ideal solution involves more math, see e.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656
- jiriknesl 7y ago
  This is a false assumption as well. If people decide to not invest to clean energy/climate-neutrality/reducing waste, it might be fear of freeloading, but it can be billions of other reasons. But most reasons will have something in common. And it is not fear of freeloading. It is a list of priorities. When something is really important for people, they do it, they invest time and money into it. If people don't invest their time nor money, it is in fact not important for them. So why tax something that isn't important for people (because if it was important, they everybody would buy clean energy, would stop using plastic & other things)?
  - WA 7y ago
    It wasn’t important for people in medieval cities to have a working sewer. Nobody would invest in such a thing. But the benefits are obvious. It wasn’t clear to people that putting on a seatbelt saves their lives. Maybe, because there was no seatbelt in the first place. What’s important to people is sometimes a matter of marketing. What’s important to people requires that "the right stuff" is offered. People want to save the environment, but also want to save money. Only way this can work is if products get the damage they cause taxed in. Because right now, the environmentally friendly products are more expensive. It should be the other way around.
- esotericn 7y ago
  > If I invest $100 in protecting a public good (like the climate), I only get one seven-billionth of the benefit; the rest goes to all of the other people on the planet. So I'll only invest if everyone else chips in, too. I used to think like this, but I'm fed up of taking "economic maxims" that I read on the Internet as being actually true. I don't believe this to be the case. I think that taking action, being public about taking action, and ultimately standing behind what you think is right, taxes and others be damned, is the way to go. Yes, there will be free riders. That's inevitable in anything you do. People "free ride" on software I write all the time. I can shoulder it.
  - skosch 7y ago
    Oh I agree, it absolutely is the way to go! If you haven't heard of it, take a look at the Giving What We Can pledge [0]. But most people aren't like you and me. I've had conversations about this with many others, and the most prevalent attitude is the one I described: ask them to buy the more expensive, environmentally friendly product, and they'll decline; ask them whether they would support a law that would require all products to be environmentally friendly, and they'll enthusiastically agree. If that's how people work, then that's how we have to make policy.
- _edo 7y ago
  My.....technocratic oligarchy? Sure, yeah. Notice you have to assume that most people agree on what's good and that you know what that is. It's a solved problem, it's just a matter of implementing it. > If I invest $100 in protecting a public good....So I'll only invest if everyone else chips in, too. Public goods are non-rivalrous, another person consuming the good has no effect on you. So out of spite you're going to go against your own best interest because you think it's better to punish other people than to purchase a good that you would purchase if you could just figure out how to exclude them from using it. That's valuing the suffering of others over your own well-being. Going back to how hard it is to figure out what people think is "good".....

cheez 7y ago

Except that's not what happens. What happens is people line up at the trough of government directed funding and distort the market, often negatively for a long period of time. For example, people who are against meat consumption for climate purposes are linked through various entities to companies like BYND. So they begin to work on legislation that will profit BYND. For another example, the solar funding debacle under Obama. Otherwise I have no qualms with what you're saying.

optimiz3 7y ago
> solar funding debacle Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs. What % of startups do you expect to succeed, 100%?
- shkkmo 7y ago
  The issue (as I understand it) was not that any one company failed, but that people lied about or ignored warning signs that failure was imminent for specific companies (edit: and that this may have been done due to conflict of interests). The actual policy issues and implication are hidden behind the partisan wrangling and spin that surrounded this topic. There are legitimate concerns about conflicts on interest for people who have large investments in green companies while also lobbying strongly for particular "green" public policies. The risk is that if we uncritically accept these people at their word, we may end up with policies that do less to protect the environment and climate and more to line the pockets of the advocates. Of course, these issues are endemic to our current political/economic systems and don't just apply to investment in climate friendly companies. I would be much more inclined to trust the motivations of environment advocates with large investments in environmental companies if those investments were purchased and administered through some sort of blind trust to alleviate conflict on interest concerns.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    What about all the coal-funded coal lobbyists?

WalterBright 7y ago

> Look, ultimately, beyond a certain point, this stuff is point scoring. Larger amounts of capital means you can do larger things with it. Like SpaceX. If I had $zillions, I'd probably finance a probe to every object in the solar system that's moon size or larger, and landers to the ones that can be landed on.

arbol 7y ago
Why would you do this before tackling the climate crisis?
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Spreading into the solar system is a long term solution.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Only for the select few that were allowed to leave the planet.
  - ta1234567890 7y ago
    A slightly shorter term solution: going underground. Earth is huge, we have barely scratched the surface. There is a lot of space and resources underground. And we don't have to go anywhere, we are already here.
    - chr1 7y ago
      Exactly, seasteading and 'terraforming' deserts are other short term solutions, but for any of that to get more investment we need growing population in rich parts of the world, that would need this and would have money for this. But unfortunately we do not have that.
      - ta1234567890 7y ago
        I think we need better marketing and just a handful of very wealthy and highly visible people to invest in those alternatives instead of going into space. In any case, what really makes space exploration possible today, is military spending. Which means that for the alternatives to become viable, they need to have strategic military applications. Unfortunately.