6 ms·
That's not what the argument is saying. We obviously didn't know the ill effects of the product when it first came out (think original Coke with cocaine). Yes,
by 23throwaway23 7y ago
That's not what the argument is saying. We obviously didn't know the ill effects of the product when it first came out (think original Coke with cocaine).
Yes, it may have given us some material benefits, but now it is clear that it is hurtling the human race towards extinction (and likely much life on earth with it).
I suggest you are misreading the argument.
- marcusverus 7y agoWhich makes heroin a terrible analogy because it doesn't match up with the argument, except insomuch as it flatters the poster's sense of the evil Exxon as a 'pusher' of an evil product.
- 23throwaway23 7y agoI don't follow. The burning of fossil fuels is risking human extinction. Sure, I can now fly from New York to Shanghai. But evidence increasing points that civilization and possibly humanity won't survive this benefit. This has been known by Exxon for ~40 years, and they have worked to suppress and sow disinformation. Can you elaborate? The response seems incoherent.
- bcrosby95 7y ago14% of global emissions is from all transportation. It's a poor example. Most of it comes from electricity production, industry, and agriculture. I guess flying an airplane is an easy target. But it really shows the actual motives when someone holds it up as an example if how we're destroying the planet.