5 ms·

Does that series cover eliminating Rupert Murdoch? I know that this is taboo to discuss, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that non-technical solutions t

Does that series cover eliminating Rupert Murdoch? I know that this is taboo to discuss, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that non-technical solutions to climate change will necessarily include the elimination of those who metaphorically are holding a gun to humanity's head.

adamsea 7y ago
While I sympathize with your sentiment a more accurate and less provocative way of saying almost the same thing would be to say that the biggest barriers to dealing with climate change are social and political, and so changing social norms (so corporate behavior as evidenced by Murdoch) becomes unacceptable, and electing politicians who will pass meaningful climate-change laws, is really important.
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  There are a few groups to consider here. One is the ordinary corporate manager which is not especially ideological. This person might be part of the problem because CO2 emissions help the firm make money, but they'd have no deep problem with making money without CO2 emissions. Another is Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, and other funders of the "new right" who actively campaign to make governments less responsive to issues such as climate change -- predominantly by spamming the agenda so that politicians never get far past "lowering taxes for the rich". A third is the ordinary people, which makes the problem particularly difficult. In most countries the #1 way to have a riot is to raise the price of fuel. For instance, after Macron destroyed his credibility by cutting the wealth tax, he was unable to ask the "yellowjackets" to make any sacrifices. Now he can't manage pension "reform" for the same reason.
bergoid 7y ago
> it is becoming increasingly apparent that non-technical solutions to climate change will necessarily include the elimination of those who metaphorically are holding a gun to humanity's head. I beg your pardon? Who exactly is holding a gun to humanity's head? Are you thinking of entire populations or do you have specific individuals in mind? And what does your plan look like?
dang 7y ago
You can't post like this on HN. Please don't do it again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22064871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22064871 and marked it off-topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to ask you about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19252288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19252288
- revscat 7y ago
  I disagree with the position that even the discussion of the necessity for war, or any active engagements, in the pursuit of solutions to the existential threats posed by climate change are forever off limits. I understand their presence, but as the danger continues to increase, and the solutions so inadequate, directly addressing the root causes — specifically, the apparent necessity to go to physical war against those who seek to destroy humanity — should not be so taboo. But it’s your site. I hope you and your colleagues reconsider this stance, however, at least in regards to this specific issue, especially given its unprecedented importance.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

adamsea 7y ago

While I sympathize with your sentiment a more accurate and less provocative way of saying almost the same thing would be to say that the biggest barriers to dealing with climate change are social and political, and so changing social norms (so corporate behavior as evidenced by Murdoch) becomes unacceptable, and electing politicians who will pass meaningful climate-change laws, is really important.

PaulHoule 7y ago
There are a few groups to consider here. One is the ordinary corporate manager which is not especially ideological. This person might be part of the problem because CO2 emissions help the firm make money, but they'd have no deep problem with making money without CO2 emissions. Another is Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, and other funders of the "new right" who actively campaign to make governments less responsive to issues such as climate change -- predominantly by spamming the agenda so that politicians never get far past "lowering taxes for the rich". A third is the ordinary people, which makes the problem particularly difficult. In most countries the #1 way to have a riot is to raise the price of fuel. For instance, after Macron destroyed his credibility by cutting the wealth tax, he was unable to ask the "yellowjackets" to make any sacrifices. Now he can't manage pension "reform" for the same reason.

bergoid 7y ago

> it is becoming increasingly apparent that non-technical solutions to climate change will necessarily include the elimination of those who metaphorically are holding a gun to humanity's head. I beg your pardon? Who exactly is holding a gun to humanity's head? Are you thinking of entire populations or do you have specific individuals in mind? And what does your plan look like?

dang 7y ago

You can't post like this on HN. Please don't do it again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22064871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22064871 and marked it off-topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to ask you about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19252288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19252288

revscat 7y ago
I disagree with the position that even the discussion of the necessity for war, or any active engagements, in the pursuit of solutions to the existential threats posed by climate change are forever off limits. I understand their presence, but as the danger continues to increase, and the solutions so inadequate, directly addressing the root causes — specifically, the apparent necessity to go to physical war against those who seek to destroy humanity — should not be so taboo. But it’s your site. I hope you and your colleagues reconsider this stance, however, at least in regards to this specific issue, especially given its unprecedented importance.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]