3 ms·

Does nobody realize the enormous value of oil? Less investment in it would lead to less production and higher prices. That would push up the price of just about

Does nobody realize the enormous value of oil? Less investment in it would lead to less production and higher prices. That would push up the price of just about everything. That would primarily hurt the poorest people in the world, pushing some over the edge of survival. The question isn't "Should we use less fossil fuels?". It's "How many people should we kill to reduce the effect of global warming?" The answer is not "as many as it takes" or "zero". It's some difficult balance we don't know.

jfktrey 5y ago
Impressive how this completely ignores the effect that oil already has in terms of human cost.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  It doesn't. What nonsense thinking. Sometime people are probably killed by computers falling on them but computers are still overall good.
okwubodu 5y ago
> "How many people should we kill to reduce the effect of global warming?" About 50 would do the job and their names and addresses are public record. They are not poor.
- solveit 5y ago
  I would like to see less of this kind of content on HN. What a hateful comment.
  - okwubodu 5y ago
    I’m not advocating for violence I’m just emphasizing that those 50 are much more responsible for our climate issue than the global poor. This is entirely in the hands of those that make the decisions. I should have elaborated.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      There's no 50 people that you could kill to stop the world using fossil fuels. No matter how many people you kill, the remaining people will use fossil fuels just as rapidly as they already did.
  - doggodaddo78 5y ago
    Thought experiment: If a group of around 20k-800k ultra-rich people became so blinded by greed that their actions were the equivalent of aiming a gun and squeezing on a trigger at every other human today, every future human, and every other living thing, wouldn't murdering 50 people to make a sufficient point to change the course of enough corrupt plutocracies around the world to ensure the survival of the species, wouldn't that be morally-justified? Does pacifist non-violence solve everything when the opposition responds to nothing short of threats to their personal security and cedes nothing without a harsh and bitter fight? Should the American Revolutionaries have held hands and hoped the British would leave out of the kindness of their hearts? In this context, your comment seems like self-righteous moralizing on the wrong side of history.
    - solveit 5y ago
      > wouldn't murdering 50 people to make a sufficient point This has been tried. Many, many times. With decidedly mixed results. Convince me you'll do better.
      - doggodaddo78 5y ago
        Do you have a better answer? If someone threatens your life, your children's lives, your friends' lives, your neighbor's life, and you do nothing, what does that make you? A coward, yes? Petitions, strong language, holding hands, sitting in the street, and singing will definitely light a fire under their asses when they're in power, won't it? Nothing has been "tried" in climate emergency except gentle suggestions and begging that has fallen on deaf ears. This isn't big tobacco milking profits from a dangerous product with delay tactics; it's the big, omnicidal Holocene extinction. Dead as in everything and everyone.

jfktrey 5y ago

Impressive how this completely ignores the effect that oil already has in terms of human cost.

exporectomy 5y ago
It doesn't. What nonsense thinking. Sometime people are probably killed by computers falling on them but computers are still overall good.

okwubodu 5y ago

> "How many people should we kill to reduce the effect of global warming?" About 50 would do the job and their names and addresses are public record. They are not poor.

solveit 5y ago
I would like to see less of this kind of content on HN. What a hateful comment.
- okwubodu 5y ago
  I’m not advocating for violence I’m just emphasizing that those 50 are much more responsible for our climate issue than the global poor. This is entirely in the hands of those that make the decisions. I should have elaborated.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    There's no 50 people that you could kill to stop the world using fossil fuels. No matter how many people you kill, the remaining people will use fossil fuels just as rapidly as they already did.
- doggodaddo78 5y ago
  Thought experiment: If a group of around 20k-800k ultra-rich people became so blinded by greed that their actions were the equivalent of aiming a gun and squeezing on a trigger at every other human today, every future human, and every other living thing, wouldn't murdering 50 people to make a sufficient point to change the course of enough corrupt plutocracies around the world to ensure the survival of the species, wouldn't that be morally-justified? Does pacifist non-violence solve everything when the opposition responds to nothing short of threats to their personal security and cedes nothing without a harsh and bitter fight? Should the American Revolutionaries have held hands and hoped the British would leave out of the kindness of their hearts? In this context, your comment seems like self-righteous moralizing on the wrong side of history.
  - solveit 5y ago
    > wouldn't murdering 50 people to make a sufficient point This has been tried. Many, many times. With decidedly mixed results. Convince me you'll do better.
    - doggodaddo78 5y ago
      Do you have a better answer? If someone threatens your life, your children's lives, your friends' lives, your neighbor's life, and you do nothing, what does that make you? A coward, yes? Petitions, strong language, holding hands, sitting in the street, and singing will definitely light a fire under their asses when they're in power, won't it? Nothing has been "tried" in climate emergency except gentle suggestions and begging that has fallen on deaf ears. This isn't big tobacco milking profits from a dangerous product with delay tactics; it's the big, omnicidal Holocene extinction. Dead as in everything and everyone.