4 ms·

> Not to be too reductive, but companies that make wrenches, welders, milling machines, steel, trucks etc. are all complicit in the same thing. We're literally

> Not to be too reductive, but companies that make wrenches, welders, milling machines, steel, trucks etc. are all complicit in the same thing. We're literally talking the end of life on this planet as we know it. The companies you mention are also complicit in creating the upcoming climate-caused world wars and their executives should similarly be held responsible. If you think this position is extreme, you are not paying attention.

driverdan 6y ago
Calling for a tool manufacturer to be responsible for how a tool is used is absurd.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It's true, but it gets fuzzier when the tool is a service. If Autodesk has a cloud component, it's up to them whether they vend that component to fossil fuel prospectors or miners.
  - driverdan 6y ago
    How is it fuzzier? If someone stores illegal content on Google Drive should Google be prosecuted? Of course not. And in this case we're not even talking about something that's illegal.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      It's not whether they should be prosecuted, it's about what their ethical / moral stance is on the topic. Some people think cloud services should be like fire or water; available to everyone agnostic of what they choose to do with it. But that's a moral stance, and one reasonable people can have disagreement over. Google employees, for example, pushed company leadership on weather they were comfortable with the notion the company would provide machine learning services to the US military for target identification purposes in drone video. Software as a service gives technology companies incredible power, and it is possible that in a world of potential existential risk to humanity, it is power they should leverage. Possible. I have no idea if it is a good idea.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    Whether it's a desktop solution or a cloud component isn't really a big difference in my eyes. With both of them they will be purchasing (use-case agnostic) "customer support" as the main service. What I do think is more problematic, is when the company goes out of their way to help develop the tools specifically for questionable industries, which is exactly what they are highlighting in the linked PDF (which is still a hotlink to Autodesk servers...).
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  Legally they all already are. Any tool which is required for the production of nuclear weapons is regulated. Things like hammers are easily available and not tracked, but precise enough CNC machines have built-in always on GPS and cell/satellite links to report their locations. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the machine cannot be used outside its licensed geofenced area.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    I think you are referring to dual-use technologies [1], where the "dual" use means civilian and military. The list of technologies that are deemed "dual-use" is quite explicit and can be found in the Wassenaar Arrangement document [2]. In that document you'll find out there are plenty of paragraphs about software, for example on page 139 "software application programs designed to be hosted on general purpose computers located at Air Traffic Control centres and capable of accepting radar target data from more than four primary radars". I would be extraordinarily surprised if Autodesk were not in compliance with this rule. Similarly, as soon as a rule were passed to limit the use of a technology to ecologically damaging activities, Autodesk's Legal department would start combing through it and make sure they are in compliance, and if not, they'll see what steps to take to fall in compliance at the earliest date possible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology [2]https://www.wassenaar.org/app/uploads/2019/12/WA-DOC-19-PUB-002-Public-Docs-Vol-II-2019-List-of-DU-Goods-and-Technologies-and-Munitions-List-Dec-19.pdf https://www.wassenaar.org/app/uploads/2019/12/WA-DOC-19-PUB-...
abakker 6y ago
I agree, and do not think your position on the state of our planet is extreme. I do not think that asking autodesk to suspend licensing to a coal mine is going to stop coal mining. Nor will Autodesk adopting honest PR solve the climate crisis. It is great when companies act, but it is not sufficient. If we are to solve the climate crisis, we need to put in place government regulations and price incentives to solve it. It is the only thing that has ever worked and we are not trying it.
- teachrdan 6y ago
  These are not mutually exclusive strategies. Back during the 1980s, activists in the US tried to get the Reagan administration to pass sanctions against apartheid South Africa. While Reagan stalled, they successfully got individual companies to stop doing business with South Africa. None of these individual actions stopped white-only rule in South Africa. Nor did anyone involved in the process think it would. But it was part of a worldwide movement that did ultimately lead to US sanctions and the end of apartheid. In fact, one of the things that encourages government action is seeing that the change being suggested has become mainstream. Businesses boycotting the oil and gas industries could be an effective part of that.
pstuart 6y ago
It's maddening isn't it? There's plenty of opportunities for money to be made by abandoning fossil fuels. Russia and Saudi Arabia might disagree, as well as the Kochs and their friends.
tjohns 6y ago
Where do you draw the line? Is a company that manufactures mechanical pencils complicit, because they might be used as writing instruments at a coal plant? I agree that accountability is a good thing, and we need to be doing more as a society to protect the planet. But at some point one has to come to terms with the idea that they're building a generic tool and simply can't be responsible for how others use it. (I'd argue the blame primarily belongs on the plant itself, those who buy coal from it, and the government that allowed it to operate.)
- gramstrong 6y ago
  A better question is where do you draw the line in terms of companies supplying actors that are directly contributing to human suffering? We (America, but others as well) cut trade and enact sanctions exactly for that reason, all the time. This idea that capitalism should be entirely apolitical is farce, people only want it to be apolitical as far as they are personally comfortable. they're building a generic tool and simply can't be responsible for how others use it AutoDesk is undoubtedly aware of its sales with a massive coal plant, unless they are a horribly run and incredibly lucky company. Beyond that, it seems like AutoDesk has gone as far as promoting their involvement in developing the excavators, no? Would you sell hammers to a sweat shop?
ummonk 6y ago
Please read up on the science. Climate change is bad (as is particulate pollution from coal mining) but it is hardly the end of life as we know it.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  Do you consider quarantine and other responses to covid a, say, pause or temporary "end" of "life as we know it"? What would you consider an "end of life as we know it"? Edit: Another good comparison point would be the Great Depression. Was that a (temporary) "end of life as we know it", in your view?
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    Reading the phrase "the end of life on this planet as we know it" to describe depressions or quarantines is a painfully big stretch.
baggy_trough 6y ago
This kind of absolute nonsense is the sign of an ideologue.
lliamander 6y ago
> The companies you mention are also complicit in creating the upcoming climate-caused world wars and their executives should similarly be held responsible. It seems just as likely to me that the economic deprivation caused by an end (or dramatic reduction of) fossil fuel consumption would also lead to world wars (and likely vast ecological destruction). How does one effectively weigh those risks against each other?

driverdan 6y ago

Calling for a tool manufacturer to be responsible for how a tool is used is absurd.

shadowgovt 6y ago
It's true, but it gets fuzzier when the tool is a service. If Autodesk has a cloud component, it's up to them whether they vend that component to fossil fuel prospectors or miners.
- driverdan 6y ago
  How is it fuzzier? If someone stores illegal content on Google Drive should Google be prosecuted? Of course not. And in this case we're not even talking about something that's illegal.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    It's not whether they should be prosecuted, it's about what their ethical / moral stance is on the topic. Some people think cloud services should be like fire or water; available to everyone agnostic of what they choose to do with it. But that's a moral stance, and one reasonable people can have disagreement over. Google employees, for example, pushed company leadership on weather they were comfortable with the notion the company would provide machine learning services to the US military for target identification purposes in drone video. Software as a service gives technology companies incredible power, and it is possible that in a world of potential existential risk to humanity, it is power they should leverage. Possible. I have no idea if it is a good idea.
- hobofan 6y ago
  Whether it's a desktop solution or a cloud component isn't really a big difference in my eyes. With both of them they will be purchasing (use-case agnostic) "customer support" as the main service. What I do think is more problematic, is when the company goes out of their way to help develop the tools specifically for questionable industries, which is exactly what they are highlighting in the linked PDF (which is still a hotlink to Autodesk servers...).
SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
Legally they all already are. Any tool which is required for the production of nuclear weapons is regulated. Things like hammers are easily available and not tracked, but precise enough CNC machines have built-in always on GPS and cell/satellite links to report their locations. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the machine cannot be used outside its licensed geofenced area.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  I think you are referring to dual-use technologies [1], where the "dual" use means civilian and military. The list of technologies that are deemed "dual-use" is quite explicit and can be found in the Wassenaar Arrangement document [2]. In that document you'll find out there are plenty of paragraphs about software, for example on page 139 "software application programs designed to be hosted on general purpose computers located at Air Traffic Control centres and capable of accepting radar target data from more than four primary radars". I would be extraordinarily surprised if Autodesk were not in compliance with this rule. Similarly, as soon as a rule were passed to limit the use of a technology to ecologically damaging activities, Autodesk's Legal department would start combing through it and make sure they are in compliance, and if not, they'll see what steps to take to fall in compliance at the earliest date possible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology [2]https://www.wassenaar.org/app/uploads/2019/12/WA-DOC-19-PUB-002-Public-Docs-Vol-II-2019-List-of-DU-Goods-and-Technologies-and-Munitions-List-Dec-19.pdf https://www.wassenaar.org/app/uploads/2019/12/WA-DOC-19-PUB-...

abakker 6y ago

I agree, and do not think your position on the state of our planet is extreme. I do not think that asking autodesk to suspend licensing to a coal mine is going to stop coal mining. Nor will Autodesk adopting honest PR solve the climate crisis. It is great when companies act, but it is not sufficient. If we are to solve the climate crisis, we need to put in place government regulations and price incentives to solve it. It is the only thing that has ever worked and we are not trying it.

teachrdan 6y ago
These are not mutually exclusive strategies. Back during the 1980s, activists in the US tried to get the Reagan administration to pass sanctions against apartheid South Africa. While Reagan stalled, they successfully got individual companies to stop doing business with South Africa. None of these individual actions stopped white-only rule in South Africa. Nor did anyone involved in the process think it would. But it was part of a worldwide movement that did ultimately lead to US sanctions and the end of apartheid. In fact, one of the things that encourages government action is seeing that the change being suggested has become mainstream. Businesses boycotting the oil and gas industries could be an effective part of that.

pstuart 6y ago

It's maddening isn't it? There's plenty of opportunities for money to be made by abandoning fossil fuels. Russia and Saudi Arabia might disagree, as well as the Kochs and their friends.

tjohns 6y ago

Where do you draw the line? Is a company that manufactures mechanical pencils complicit, because they might be used as writing instruments at a coal plant? I agree that accountability is a good thing, and we need to be doing more as a society to protect the planet. But at some point one has to come to terms with the idea that they're building a generic tool and simply can't be responsible for how others use it. (I'd argue the blame primarily belongs on the plant itself, those who buy coal from it, and the government that allowed it to operate.)

gramstrong 6y ago
A better question is where do you draw the line in terms of companies supplying actors that are directly contributing to human suffering? We (America, but others as well) cut trade and enact sanctions exactly for that reason, all the time. This idea that capitalism should be entirely apolitical is farce, people only want it to be apolitical as far as they are personally comfortable. they're building a generic tool and simply can't be responsible for how others use it AutoDesk is undoubtedly aware of its sales with a massive coal plant, unless they are a horribly run and incredibly lucky company. Beyond that, it seems like AutoDesk has gone as far as promoting their involvement in developing the excavators, no? Would you sell hammers to a sweat shop?

ummonk 6y ago

Please read up on the science. Climate change is bad (as is particulate pollution from coal mining) but it is hardly the end of life as we know it.

RangerScience 6y ago
Do you consider quarantine and other responses to covid a, say, pause or temporary "end" of "life as we know it"? What would you consider an "end of life as we know it"? Edit: Another good comparison point would be the Great Depression. Was that a (temporary) "end of life as we know it", in your view?
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  Reading the phrase "the end of life on this planet as we know it" to describe depressions or quarantines is a painfully big stretch.

baggy_trough 6y ago

This kind of absolute nonsense is the sign of an ideologue.

lliamander 6y ago

> The companies you mention are also complicit in creating the upcoming climate-caused world wars and their executives should similarly be held responsible. It seems just as likely to me that the economic deprivation caused by an end (or dramatic reduction of) fossil fuel consumption would also lead to world wars (and likely vast ecological destruction). How does one effectively weigh those risks against each other?