4 ms·
My main problem with this argument is that I'm not sure what the alternative should have looked like. Exxon having a "oh fuck" moment where they told their wor
by Roritharr 6y ago
My main problem with this argument is that I'm not sure what the alternative should have looked like.
Exxon having a "oh fuck" moment where they told their workers to stop working, their customers that there is no product to sell etc. seems something so extremely hard to pull off even if all of upper and middle-management wanted to do the right thing, I can't see how they could have.
I always imagine what would happen if the "5G/Radio is bad for you" crowd was proven right by people at Nokia. What would a realistic while morally sound strategy have looked like?
- kirrent 6y agoIt's not so much that they continued operating. Everybody was still using their products after all and there was no alternative anyway. It's not even that they passively sat on it. It's that, in the same vein as the tobacco companies, they merchants of doubted us over the following decades, spending considerable amounts of money in questioning climate science and hindering action.
- Roritharr 6y agoWhile being a heinous thing to do, the only devils-advocatey thing I can't refute is that there are no examples of the inverse, e.g. companies not trying to protect their businessmodel via despicable tactics for the greater good of humanity. If this is just an inherent condition of humans working together in groups, shouldn't we rather put the blame on the regulators for ignoring the science and accepting the bribes for this long?