4 ms·

The problem statement is simple: there needs to be lawful accounting for negative externalities, even when discovered after the fact. And the price to pay shoul

The problem statement is simple: there needs to be lawful accounting for negative externalities, even when discovered after the fact. And the price to pay should be roughly equal to the damage caused by the externality. Solve these two problems and you solve governance and capitalism. As for the implementation...

ip26 6y ago
You want to strike a balance between responsible development and paralyzing progress. If potential liabilities are unlimited and you can be held fully responsible for damages no one (including you) understood until decades after the fact, will any new chemical ever be introduced again? Under this regime, even the best, most diligent science with decades of study would not balance your liability. You'd be playing roulette. You need some bar of rigor they aim to clear that confers protection from damages. Whether that's field trials, drug trials, peer review, etc.
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  >will any new chemical ever be introduced again? You're saying this like it's a bad thing.
  - ip26 6y ago
    You prefer stopping the clock and sticking with our friends glyphosate, PFAS, 6PPD, PBDE, and R-22?
    - sooheon 6y ago
      I want the use of chemicals priced correctly for negative externalities so that I don’t need to prefer one or the other.
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  I want to agree with this but the article proves that good faith cannot be relied upon and that is endemic to both corporations and the state. A stronger hand might be needed. We need to impress upon corporations to look at the long term condequences and any executive looking to keep living the good life to prioritize environmental/social matters with a high level of awareness and scrutiny before any machinations relating to increasing topline growth (figuring things like this out is why C-Suite execs get paid more than the presidents of most states) To that we need a harsh route and I reckon the need for high profits will apply enough pressure for proper investment in R&D and allows new entrants to get a piece of the pie. Raising the bar will never stop progress -if it did we'd still be boarding some suspect aeroplanes amd driving ridiculous death traps we might call cars.
  - ip26 6y ago
    I think if you stack the game into a completely unwinnable position (unlimited liability, no statute of limitations, no sunset on discovery of previously unknown harm) then the efforts of these C-Suites will triple down on evasion. Shell companies, regulatory capture, passing the buck, and their own golden parachutes. Because you've made that the only viable option for them.
    - vagrantJin 6y ago
      > these C-Suites will triple down on evasion. Shell companies, regulatory capture, passing the buck, and their own golden parachutes This is the reality under the current regulatory frameworks. Which is I'm advocating for a firm hand just as in the aerospace/motor industry. Ofcourse there will be concessions as there will be non-obvious oversight and/or employees hiding bad information if it might damage their career. Regulators and civil organizations will have to figure out the meta information before proceeding to trial.
    - sooheon 6y ago
      It's only unwinnable if your definition of winning is to cause more harm to society than the value you create. Your arms race argument is valid, but I think there's a lot of progress to be made before that negative effect dominates. I don't think we're currently at the optimum equilibrium of regulation vs. evasion. If the punishment for murder causes murderers to evade capture, society matches their efforts; it doesn't just give up.
      - ip26 6y ago
        My definition of "winning" is making a useful product that sells & turns a profit. But if the liability is unlimited & unknowable, your new chemical might turn a profit & do some good - or you might be sued into bankruptcy, and you can't know for sure which it will be, no matter how much study you do. It's just gambling. With liability limits, you can do the math on whether a chemical is worth the risk because while some things are unknowable, your maximum liability is already established. That's why I favor a "due diligence" regulatory arrangement.
- sooheon 6y ago
  Protection from damages should come from due diligence. Potential liabilities are unlimited only because potential damage to humanity is unlimited, and its worth pricing that in. This would mean successful developments free from negative externalities are rewarded accordingly considering their scarcity.

ip26 6y ago

You want to strike a balance between responsible development and paralyzing progress. If potential liabilities are unlimited and you can be held fully responsible for damages no one (including you) understood until decades after the fact, will any new chemical ever be introduced again? Under this regime, even the best, most diligent science with decades of study would not balance your liability. You'd be playing roulette. You need some bar of rigor they aim to clear that confers protection from damages. Whether that's field trials, drug trials, peer review, etc.

NullPrefix 6y ago
>will any new chemical ever be introduced again? You're saying this like it's a bad thing.
- ip26 6y ago
  You prefer stopping the clock and sticking with our friends glyphosate, PFAS, 6PPD, PBDE, and R-22?
  - sooheon 6y ago
    I want the use of chemicals priced correctly for negative externalities so that I don’t need to prefer one or the other.
vagrantJin 6y ago
I want to agree with this but the article proves that good faith cannot be relied upon and that is endemic to both corporations and the state. A stronger hand might be needed. We need to impress upon corporations to look at the long term condequences and any executive looking to keep living the good life to prioritize environmental/social matters with a high level of awareness and scrutiny before any machinations relating to increasing topline growth (figuring things like this out is why C-Suite execs get paid more than the presidents of most states) To that we need a harsh route and I reckon the need for high profits will apply enough pressure for proper investment in R&D and allows new entrants to get a piece of the pie. Raising the bar will never stop progress -if it did we'd still be boarding some suspect aeroplanes amd driving ridiculous death traps we might call cars.
- ip26 6y ago
  I think if you stack the game into a completely unwinnable position (unlimited liability, no statute of limitations, no sunset on discovery of previously unknown harm) then the efforts of these C-Suites will triple down on evasion. Shell companies, regulatory capture, passing the buck, and their own golden parachutes. Because you've made that the only viable option for them.
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    > these C-Suites will triple down on evasion. Shell companies, regulatory capture, passing the buck, and their own golden parachutes This is the reality under the current regulatory frameworks. Which is I'm advocating for a firm hand just as in the aerospace/motor industry. Ofcourse there will be concessions as there will be non-obvious oversight and/or employees hiding bad information if it might damage their career. Regulators and civil organizations will have to figure out the meta information before proceeding to trial.
  - sooheon 6y ago
    It's only unwinnable if your definition of winning is to cause more harm to society than the value you create. Your arms race argument is valid, but I think there's a lot of progress to be made before that negative effect dominates. I don't think we're currently at the optimum equilibrium of regulation vs. evasion. If the punishment for murder causes murderers to evade capture, society matches their efforts; it doesn't just give up.
    - ip26 6y ago
      My definition of "winning" is making a useful product that sells & turns a profit. But if the liability is unlimited & unknowable, your new chemical might turn a profit & do some good - or you might be sued into bankruptcy, and you can't know for sure which it will be, no matter how much study you do. It's just gambling. With liability limits, you can do the math on whether a chemical is worth the risk because while some things are unknowable, your maximum liability is already established. That's why I favor a "due diligence" regulatory arrangement.
sooheon 6y ago
Protection from damages should come from due diligence. Potential liabilities are unlimited only because potential damage to humanity is unlimited, and its worth pricing that in. This would mean successful developments free from negative externalities are rewarded accordingly considering their scarcity.