5 ms·

One of the quotes seems to imply Amazon should not let oil and gas companies use their cloud services. Having these companies use less efficient alternatives wo

One of the quotes seems to imply Amazon should not let oil and gas companies use their cloud services. Having these companies use less efficient alternatives would seem to be a net loss for society. I don’t think there is a positive upside because the change in cost would not be large enough to change output.

raxxorrax 7y ago
I don't know how extensive the infrastructure of big oil is and how interwoven with AWS, but you are probably correct. That aside, the whole business of Amazon is dependent on oil. Logistics, packaging, ... Maybe it is wrong not to protest, but it just feels... off.
- salawat 7y ago
  I would say that AWS infrastructure is a fart in the wind as far as the fossil fuel industry goes given they seem to have done just fine for most of their history without it. AWS is really only good for projects where the importance of the compute is not quite enough to justify setting up your own infrastructure, but important enough to be willing to throw money at to make the location part of your system go away by throwing more OPS people at it.
perfunctory 7y ago
> cost would not be large enough to change output. Nothing is large enough by itself to alleviate climate change. We can all cleverly rationalise why this or that action has little effect and watch the world burn in our smart inaction. Or we can do our bit where we have some influence.
- MadWombat 7y ago
  > We can all cleverly rationalise why this or that action has little effect and watch the world burn in our smart inaction. Or we can do our bit where we have some influence. This is what I dislike about activists. The whole "any action is better than in action" attitude. Actions are only good if the positive value they produce outweighs the damage they cause. For example, if we were to shut down all of industry everywhere, we might reduce our fossil fuel usage to a minimum, but it will not help the millions of people who would die in the aftermath of such an action. In this instance, insisting that Amazon kicks oil and gas companies off of its cloud services is an empty gesture. There are plenty of alternative services (Google and Microsoft come to mind and they are not the only ones) the infrastructure re-build cost will be absorbed into the pricing model and in the end nothing will be gained and you will pay for the change with your heating and gas bills. But hey, at least you can wear the "I did something" t-shirt or whatever
lopmotr 7y ago
That's probably the idea. That extra cost would be passed on to consumers and discourage oil and gas use. Of course, it'll be too small to measure the effect, but it's the principle of doing their bit.
gersh 7y ago
If the oil companies have to use a more expensive alternative service, it will drive up the marginal cost of extracting oil, and make oil less cost competitive against renewables. Furthermore, Amazon will no longer have business incentive to support the continuation of the fossil fuel industry, which could influence how they lobby on legislation.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > If the oil companies have to use a more expensive alternative service Microsoft is delighted to announce we are the digital transformation partner of #IPTC2020, the International Petroleum Technology conference, that kicks off tomorrow in Dahran until the 15th of January https://twitter.com/Microsoft_Saudi/status/1216286190653050880 https://twitter.com/Microsoft_Saudi/status/12162861906530508... Oil companies don't need to worry, MS will be happy to provide equivalent services for similar rates.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  As reasonable as demanding the employees not to use cars to get to work for the same goal.
bradleyjg 7y ago
It’s not about making the world a better place (consequentialism) it’s about not being associated with wrongness (a kind of virtue ethics). Once I understood this contemporary activism made much more sense.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Somewhat. It is also that providing material support and services to these companies, making things cheaper and more efficient for them to operate, prolongs the time these companies are viable and thus prolongs the harms they're causing. That kind of fits under the "association with wrongness" but it's more than just association.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  I think it's a bit arrogant to think you can differentiate virtue ethics from consequentialism. 1. Consequentialism requires us to model reality in order to predict consequences. Thus two consequentialists with different models of reality might prescribe different actions even if they have the same goals. From the outside, it's impossible to understand their model of reality entirely, so you can't assume that they aren't consequentialists just because they have different prescriptions from you. 2. Virtue ethics isn't always an ethical belief system in itself. Virtue ethics can be a strategy of using social pressure to reach consequentialist goals. From the outside, you can't tell whether they're using virtue ethics as the basis for there beliefs, or merely as a strategy for implementing a consequentialist ethic. Combining these two, it's almost always premature to assume that people are virtue ethicists just because they prescribe different actions from what you would prescribe, on what appears to be a virtue ethics. In a more general sense, that feeling of smug superiority I feel when I think someone is just virtual signaling is a sign of bias in my own thinking. To quote Scott Alexander[1]: > I will make a confession. Every time someone talks about the stupidity of creationists, moon-hoaxers, and homeopaths, I cringe. > It’s not that moon-hoaxers, homeopaths et al aren’t dumb. They are. It’s not even that these people don’t do real harm. They do. > What annoys me about the people who harp on moon-hoaxing and homeopathy – without any interest in the rest of medicine or space history – is that it seems like an attempt to Other irrationality. > It’s saying “Look, over here! It’s irrational people, believing things that we can instantly dismiss as dumb. Things we feel no temptation, not one bit, to believe. It must be that they are defective and we are rational.” > But to me, the rationality movement is about Self-ing irrationality. > It is about realizing that you, yes you, might be wrong about the things that you’re most certain of, and nothing can save you except maybe extreme epistemic paranoia. TL;DR: Don't dismiss people because they appear to be implementing a virtue ethic; they may actually be implementing a consequentialist ethic. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/
kerkeslager 7y ago
> Having these companies use less efficient alternatives would seem to be a net loss for society. Maybe, if you only measure gain/loss for society in terms of money. But if you care about leaving a habitable planet for the next generation, having oil and gas companies become pariahs that are expensive, so that people switch to carbon-friendly alternatives, would be a net gain for society.
slumdev 7y ago
Deontological ethics can look perverse if you're only interested in the outcome and not the means. If the means to an end must be just, you'll make a lot of decisions that can look suboptimal to someone who doesn't share your frame of reference.
vanusa 7y ago
Having these companies use less efficient alternatives would seem to be a net loss for society. The point is that these companies (more specifically: their operations related to fossil fuel extraction) are already, intrinsically, a net loss to society. As such should they be shut down. It doesn't matter whose cloud their operations are running on.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I don't know how extensive the infrastructure of big oil is and how interwoven with AWS, but you are probably correct. That aside, the whole business of Amazon is dependent on oil. Logistics, packaging, ... Maybe it is wrong not to protest, but it just feels... off.

salawat 7y ago
I would say that AWS infrastructure is a fart in the wind as far as the fossil fuel industry goes given they seem to have done just fine for most of their history without it. AWS is really only good for projects where the importance of the compute is not quite enough to justify setting up your own infrastructure, but important enough to be willing to throw money at to make the location part of your system go away by throwing more OPS people at it.

perfunctory 7y ago

> cost would not be large enough to change output. Nothing is large enough by itself to alleviate climate change. We can all cleverly rationalise why this or that action has little effect and watch the world burn in our smart inaction. Or we can do our bit where we have some influence.

MadWombat 7y ago
> We can all cleverly rationalise why this or that action has little effect and watch the world burn in our smart inaction. Or we can do our bit where we have some influence. This is what I dislike about activists. The whole "any action is better than in action" attitude. Actions are only good if the positive value they produce outweighs the damage they cause. For example, if we were to shut down all of industry everywhere, we might reduce our fossil fuel usage to a minimum, but it will not help the millions of people who would die in the aftermath of such an action. In this instance, insisting that Amazon kicks oil and gas companies off of its cloud services is an empty gesture. There are plenty of alternative services (Google and Microsoft come to mind and they are not the only ones) the infrastructure re-build cost will be absorbed into the pricing model and in the end nothing will be gained and you will pay for the change with your heating and gas bills. But hey, at least you can wear the "I did something" t-shirt or whatever

lopmotr 7y ago

That's probably the idea. That extra cost would be passed on to consumers and discourage oil and gas use. Of course, it'll be too small to measure the effect, but it's the principle of doing their bit.

gersh 7y ago

If the oil companies have to use a more expensive alternative service, it will drive up the marginal cost of extracting oil, and make oil less cost competitive against renewables. Furthermore, Amazon will no longer have business incentive to support the continuation of the fossil fuel industry, which could influence how they lobby on legislation.

keanzu 7y ago
> If the oil companies have to use a more expensive alternative service Microsoft is delighted to announce we are the digital transformation partner of #IPTC2020, the International Petroleum Technology conference, that kicks off tomorrow in Dahran until the 15th of January https://twitter.com/Microsoft_Saudi/status/1216286190653050880 https://twitter.com/Microsoft_Saudi/status/12162861906530508... Oil companies don't need to worry, MS will be happy to provide equivalent services for similar rates.
conanbatt 7y ago
As reasonable as demanding the employees not to use cars to get to work for the same goal.

bradleyjg 7y ago

It’s not about making the world a better place (consequentialism) it’s about not being associated with wrongness (a kind of virtue ethics). Once I understood this contemporary activism made much more sense.

rtkwe 7y ago
Somewhat. It is also that providing material support and services to these companies, making things cheaper and more efficient for them to operate, prolongs the time these companies are viable and thus prolongs the harms they're causing. That kind of fits under the "association with wrongness" but it's more than just association.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
kerkeslager 7y ago
I think it's a bit arrogant to think you can differentiate virtue ethics from consequentialism. 1. Consequentialism requires us to model reality in order to predict consequences. Thus two consequentialists with different models of reality might prescribe different actions even if they have the same goals. From the outside, it's impossible to understand their model of reality entirely, so you can't assume that they aren't consequentialists just because they have different prescriptions from you. 2. Virtue ethics isn't always an ethical belief system in itself. Virtue ethics can be a strategy of using social pressure to reach consequentialist goals. From the outside, you can't tell whether they're using virtue ethics as the basis for there beliefs, or merely as a strategy for implementing a consequentialist ethic. Combining these two, it's almost always premature to assume that people are virtue ethicists just because they prescribe different actions from what you would prescribe, on what appears to be a virtue ethics. In a more general sense, that feeling of smug superiority I feel when I think someone is just virtual signaling is a sign of bias in my own thinking. To quote Scott Alexander[1]: > I will make a confession. Every time someone talks about the stupidity of creationists, moon-hoaxers, and homeopaths, I cringe. > It’s not that moon-hoaxers, homeopaths et al aren’t dumb. They are. It’s not even that these people don’t do real harm. They do. > What annoys me about the people who harp on moon-hoaxing and homeopathy – without any interest in the rest of medicine or space history – is that it seems like an attempt to Other irrationality. > It’s saying “Look, over here! It’s irrational people, believing things that we can instantly dismiss as dumb. Things we feel no temptation, not one bit, to believe. It must be that they are defective and we are rational.” > But to me, the rationality movement is about Self-ing irrationality. > It is about realizing that you, yes you, might be wrong about the things that you’re most certain of, and nothing can save you except maybe extreme epistemic paranoia. TL;DR: Don't dismiss people because they appear to be implementing a virtue ethic; they may actually be implementing a consequentialist ethic. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/

kerkeslager 7y ago

> Having these companies use less efficient alternatives would seem to be a net loss for society. Maybe, if you only measure gain/loss for society in terms of money. But if you care about leaving a habitable planet for the next generation, having oil and gas companies become pariahs that are expensive, so that people switch to carbon-friendly alternatives, would be a net gain for society.

slumdev 7y ago

Deontological ethics can look perverse if you're only interested in the outcome and not the means. If the means to an end must be just, you'll make a lot of decisions that can look suboptimal to someone who doesn't share your frame of reference.

vanusa 7y ago

Having these companies use less efficient alternatives would seem to be a net loss for society. The point is that these companies (more specifically: their operations related to fossil fuel extraction) are already, intrinsically, a net loss to society. As such should they be shut down. It doesn't matter whose cloud their operations are running on.