These conversations about how "[industry 1] is helping facilitate the the proliferation of [industry 2] and indirectly is part of the [problem || solution]" is

These conversations about how "[industry 1] is helping facilitate the the proliferation of [industry 2] and indirectly is part of the [problem || solution]" is deeply disturbing and signals to COMPLETE fragmentation of entire civil societies. Fill industry 1 with the likes of tech, finance, government, oil. Fill industry 2 with the likes of CO2 emitters, military, human rights violators, deportation police, surveillance machines. Proliferations and advancement in harmful tech (nukes) leaks into helpful tech (nuclear medicine). And vice versa. One cannot exist without the other. But if we start choosing who to help based on some random ideology and random understanding of when an indirect action becomes complicit in an act, we are destined to become unstable in our judgement and motives. There needs to be a line drawn. Canada president Trudeau is anti carbon. But supports the proliferation of Canadian oil. And he hears vitriol and accusations of hypocrisy. But being anti carbon doesn't mean you have to hurt supply. It means you only hurt demand. Thoughts like if you don't like war, then hurt weapons manufacturing, can also create war by causing weak rich countries envied by strong poor nations. There is more to say and more examples to give but I'd rather ask the more intelligent hn crowd to say them.