3 ms·

It's fascinating how the farmer by products from an industry, see it causes terrible problems, and then by more products from the same industry to solve the pro

It's fascinating how the farmer by products from an industry, see it causes terrible problems, and then by more products from the same industry to solve the problem it caused in the first place. At that point, it reads like Stockholm syndrome.

Dylan16807 6y ago
That's mostly because you shouldn't be treating an industry as if it's a single monolith. But I'm interested, could you elaborate on what you find fascinating? To start with, it seems pretty reasonable that someone would buy a product that has enormous positive effects but also causes a big problem. Then, for someone who is willing to buy the original product, why would it be fascinating for them to buy a product that mitigates the problem? Assuming the mitigation actually works, I can only think of two reasons not to buy it. One is spite. The other is the idea that because you played a big role in causing the problem you deserve to suffer and aren't allowed to use mitigations. Both of those are clearly bad reasons. I guess I could see farmers demanding that the mitigation product be merged into the original product, now that the technology exists? But these two products are so different that I don't see how you could actually do that.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  To me it's like buying a google product, complaining it secretly attacks your privacy, then buy a subscription from google that mitigates that. Or to buy drinkable water in bottle from the same company that polluted your river.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > To me it's like buy google product, complaining it secretly attacks your privacy, then buy a subscription from google that mitigate that. In that case the mitigations could be merged into the product. And it's not about "secretly" attacking your privacy; to make the analogy work you're someone that chooses to keep buying even though it's open knowledge that it attacks your privacy. > Or to buy drinkable water in bottle from the same company that polluted your river. Are you buying the pollution in the first place because it benefits you even more in some other way? If not then it's a completely different scenario.
    - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
      Ok, then buy insulin shots from the same company that sold you ice cream and soda. It creates all the wrong incentives and a dangerous positive feedback loop.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > Ok, then buy insulin shots from the same company that sold you ice cream and soda. > It creates all the wrong incentives and a dangerous positive feedback loop. It does create some bad incentives for that company. (While creating really good incentives for other companies to come along and offer their own insulin, or ice cream that doesn't make you need insulin.) But I don't find it strange that the customer decides they'd rather buy insulin than not have insulin! That's not stockholm syndrome! (And don't say "stop buying ice cream", for the analogy to work the original product has to benefit the buyer even with full knowledge of the consequences.)

Dylan16807 6y ago

That's mostly because you shouldn't be treating an industry as if it's a single monolith. But I'm interested, could you elaborate on what you find fascinating? To start with, it seems pretty reasonable that someone would buy a product that has enormous positive effects but also causes a big problem. Then, for someone who is willing to buy the original product, why would it be fascinating for them to buy a product that mitigates the problem? Assuming the mitigation actually works, I can only think of two reasons not to buy it. One is spite. The other is the idea that because you played a big role in causing the problem you deserve to suffer and aren't allowed to use mitigations. Both of those are clearly bad reasons. I guess I could see farmers demanding that the mitigation product be merged into the original product, now that the technology exists? But these two products are so different that I don't see how you could actually do that.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago
To me it's like buying a google product, complaining it secretly attacks your privacy, then buy a subscription from google that mitigates that. Or to buy drinkable water in bottle from the same company that polluted your river.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > To me it's like buy google product, complaining it secretly attacks your privacy, then buy a subscription from google that mitigate that. In that case the mitigations could be merged into the product. And it's not about "secretly" attacking your privacy; to make the analogy work you're someone that chooses to keep buying even though it's open knowledge that it attacks your privacy. > Or to buy drinkable water in bottle from the same company that polluted your river. Are you buying the pollution in the first place because it benefits you even more in some other way? If not then it's a completely different scenario.
  - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
    Ok, then buy insulin shots from the same company that sold you ice cream and soda. It creates all the wrong incentives and a dangerous positive feedback loop.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > Ok, then buy insulin shots from the same company that sold you ice cream and soda. > It creates all the wrong incentives and a dangerous positive feedback loop. It does create some bad incentives for that company. (While creating really good incentives for other companies to come along and offer their own insulin, or ice cream that doesn't make you need insulin.) But I don't find it strange that the customer decides they'd rather buy insulin than not have insulin! That's not stockholm syndrome! (And don't say "stop buying ice cream", for the analogy to work the original product has to benefit the buyer even with full knowledge of the consequences.)