5 ms·

This article provides a different perspective. Lots of good information that I couldn't find elsewhere https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/ju

This article provides a different perspective. Lots of good information that I couldn't find elsewhere https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/justice-delayed-but-not-denied-corrupt-ecuadorean-process-fails-in-international-arbitration/?sh=7e1fa1301698 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/justic...

bryan0 6y ago
It’s always interesting to read 2 news articles which seem to disagree on the key points. but maybe reading between the lines on the guardian article it’s that this lawyer did commit fraud, but the punishment has been disproportionately harsh.
donmcronald 6y ago
> Untrue: I hope the Ecuadorean government will one day compensate them for the awful pollution it has caused This is the part that does it for me. If Chevron participated in the destruction of their environment then Chevron should have to compensate them. Even if the law says they were allowed to it should be the type of thing that’s not tolerated. You can’t give someone permission to murder you and I think it should be the same for the environment. A government or land owner shouldn’t be able to give the ok for environmental destruction and everyone who’s involved should be liable.
- simonh 6y ago
  Pretty much everything humans do to live involve environmental destruction. You’d end up outlawing being human.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    or, idk, radically change how we interact with the environment? Something that's desperately needed.
    - gameswithgo 6y ago
      we would need to drop population by a lot
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Sounds good to me. Edit: Oh, surprise. Nobody is interested in a serious discussion centered on lowering global population.
        shlant 6y ago
        I'm open to it. How would you suggest we go about it?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Globally raise standards of living, promote education, and empower women so that they don't feel the need to have zillions of kids. This would likely have to be done via wealth transfer from developed nations to less developed nations. In order to save the planet this way (the only sustainable way, IMO), standards of living in Western nations will need to decline for at least a couple of decades. After population stabilizes, standards of living can rise again. Anyone who has family members under 40 should be onboard with this plan, unless they prefer that their relatives' retirement plan be "die in the coming resource wars 30-50 years from now."
        shlant 6y ago
        > Globally raise standards of living, promote education, and empower women so that they don't feel the need to have zillions of kids. This would likely have to be done via wealth transfer from developed nations to less developed nations. That all sounds good to me and I think the vast majority would be on board with that. However, it's kind of odd to frame those ideas under the guise of "reducing population". Very few people talk about the need to actively reduce the global population because it's not something that needs to be talked about - plummeting fertility and replacement rates are going to accomplish the same thing much quicker and the actions you are proposing are already something people care about. By talking about lowering the global population you just risk getting lumped in with a mostly pro-eugenics or antinatalism crowd (which I'm not saying is fair, it's just how it is). There's a ton of more optically favorable angles from which you can advocate for those changes.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    I think you’re making a slippery slope argument here where none exists. The damage Chevron did In Ecuador was exceptional. It was not run of the mill stuff but really gross pollution of the natural world. If you’ve not learned about this case I suggest reading up on it. It’s worthwhile to understand what corporations are getting away with out there.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    That’s not true. If we could even just scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels, we’d be able to have a sustainable global civilization with enough of a buffer that we wouldn’t have to impose a hard cap on individual consumers. Instead, capitalism depends on constant growth to sustain itself, otherwise share prices won’t go up, which leads to all sorts of things that the capital class considers bad. Edit: Oh, I see we'd rather just make this argument go away rather than address it, still. This is why we can't have nice things, y'all.
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      > scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century. Blaming capitalism is easy, but the more nuanced, difficult, and important conversation about population still languishes as taboo.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        > Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century And that's a problem how? Fuck taboos when the continuation of global civilization depends on it. It's not like we've got another planet to fuck off to after we use this one up.
        h0l0cube 6y ago
        It makes a bunch of people feel uncomfortable. Those who've had children, those who want children, and those hoping for grandchildren. That and government, and most of the economic order, is interested in increasing GDP, available productivity, and consumer spending. I've seen more principled environmentalists raise the issue, only to be shot down by their peers for their 'abhorrent' views. Edit: Oh, and there's a conspiracy theory that floats around white supremacy groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theo... I hardly think white people will go extinct, but that might be a concern for some people in the western world. The best way I've encountered to reduce population growth is actually to empower women, particularly in the developing world or for poorer populations. Having better education and employment opportunities for women strongly correlates with fewer children (and of course those children will be vastly better off, as will national GDP with a better skilled labour pool)... but even this idea could be seen as 'imperialist' or 'colonialist' if such an agenda is driven by the western world, even if it's feminist and environmentalist at heart.
  - julienfr112 6y ago
    It's a crowded world

bryan0 6y ago

It’s always interesting to read 2 news articles which seem to disagree on the key points. but maybe reading between the lines on the guardian article it’s that this lawyer did commit fraud, but the punishment has been disproportionately harsh.

donmcronald 6y ago

> Untrue: I hope the Ecuadorean government will one day compensate them for the awful pollution it has caused This is the part that does it for me. If Chevron participated in the destruction of their environment then Chevron should have to compensate them. Even if the law says they were allowed to it should be the type of thing that’s not tolerated. You can’t give someone permission to murder you and I think it should be the same for the environment. A government or land owner shouldn’t be able to give the ok for environmental destruction and everyone who’s involved should be liable.

simonh 6y ago
Pretty much everything humans do to live involve environmental destruction. You’d end up outlawing being human.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  or, idk, radically change how we interact with the environment? Something that's desperately needed.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    we would need to drop population by a lot
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Sounds good to me. Edit: Oh, surprise. Nobody is interested in a serious discussion centered on lowering global population.
      - shlant 6y ago
        I'm open to it. How would you suggest we go about it?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Globally raise standards of living, promote education, and empower women so that they don't feel the need to have zillions of kids. This would likely have to be done via wealth transfer from developed nations to less developed nations. In order to save the planet this way (the only sustainable way, IMO), standards of living in Western nations will need to decline for at least a couple of decades. After population stabilizes, standards of living can rise again. Anyone who has family members under 40 should be onboard with this plan, unless they prefer that their relatives' retirement plan be "die in the coming resource wars 30-50 years from now."
        shlant 6y ago
        > Globally raise standards of living, promote education, and empower women so that they don't feel the need to have zillions of kids. This would likely have to be done via wealth transfer from developed nations to less developed nations. That all sounds good to me and I think the vast majority would be on board with that. However, it's kind of odd to frame those ideas under the guise of "reducing population". Very few people talk about the need to actively reduce the global population because it's not something that needs to be talked about - plummeting fertility and replacement rates are going to accomplish the same thing much quicker and the actions you are proposing are already something people care about. By talking about lowering the global population you just risk getting lumped in with a mostly pro-eugenics or antinatalism crowd (which I'm not saying is fair, it's just how it is). There's a ton of more optically favorable angles from which you can advocate for those changes.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I think you’re making a slippery slope argument here where none exists. The damage Chevron did In Ecuador was exceptional. It was not run of the mill stuff but really gross pollution of the natural world. If you’ve not learned about this case I suggest reading up on it. It’s worthwhile to understand what corporations are getting away with out there.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  That’s not true. If we could even just scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels, we’d be able to have a sustainable global civilization with enough of a buffer that we wouldn’t have to impose a hard cap on individual consumers. Instead, capitalism depends on constant growth to sustain itself, otherwise share prices won’t go up, which leads to all sorts of things that the capital class considers bad. Edit: Oh, I see we'd rather just make this argument go away rather than address it, still. This is why we can't have nice things, y'all.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    > scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century. Blaming capitalism is easy, but the more nuanced, difficult, and important conversation about population still languishes as taboo.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      > Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century And that's a problem how? Fuck taboos when the continuation of global civilization depends on it. It's not like we've got another planet to fuck off to after we use this one up.
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        It makes a bunch of people feel uncomfortable. Those who've had children, those who want children, and those hoping for grandchildren. That and government, and most of the economic order, is interested in increasing GDP, available productivity, and consumer spending. I've seen more principled environmentalists raise the issue, only to be shot down by their peers for their 'abhorrent' views. Edit: Oh, and there's a conspiracy theory that floats around white supremacy groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theo... I hardly think white people will go extinct, but that might be a concern for some people in the western world. The best way I've encountered to reduce population growth is actually to empower women, particularly in the developing world or for poorer populations. Having better education and employment opportunities for women strongly correlates with fewer children (and of course those children will be vastly better off, as will national GDP with a better skilled labour pool)... but even this idea could be seen as 'imperialist' or 'colonialist' if such an agenda is driven by the western world, even if it's feminist and environmentalist at heart.
- julienfr112 6y ago
  It's a crowded world