4 ms·

Yes, seriously. The real question is : "Is environmental activism today more dangerous than it was yesterday". The typical way of computing "dangerosity" is th

by IMTDb 5y ago

Yes, seriously. The real question is : "Is environmental activism today more dangerous than it was yesterday". The typical way of computing "dangerosity" is through a ratio. Eg: number of death / kilometer for transportation systems, number of injury / game for sports, ... Why should the dangerosity of the "environmental activism" activity be computed differently, by only taking into consideration a numerator, and dismissing the denominator ?

coldtea 5y ago
>The real question is : "Is environmental activism today more dangerous than it was yesterday". Why would that be the "real question"? Just because all we have is the hammer of statistical analysis? More people are getting killed, whether they are environmental activists is not that relevant. What's relevant is that there is increased willingness to kill in favor of anti-environmnet interests. >Why should the dangerosity of the "environmental activism" activity be computed differently, by only taking into consideration a numerator, and dismissing the denominator ? It shouldn't be computed at all, the concern here is not to give people some dangerocity score to help them avoid being killed. The concern is to stop the interests that kill -- that is, to stop the murders and the murderers, not to avoid them by having people not be environmental activists or be more careful about it. (Same way we would want to reduce racist crime, not e.g. tell blacks to be more careful. We might also want that, but not as a first priority, as a treatment to the symptoms, not the cause).
yunohn 5y ago
Despite this weird sub-thread, the article isn’t talking about “dangerosity”. They’re reporting on the increase in evil activities by anti-environmental mega corps, who are also murdering opposing activists.
- andriesm 5y ago
  What indication do we have that environmentalally unfriendly companies are murdering activists? I cannot imagine that being their best PR strategy, not to mention the fact that murdering your opposition attracts a lot of scrutiny, investigation, and which corp exec would want to risk going to jail for ordering a hit on an activist. Far more practical to lobby or spread counter marketing spin.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    FTFY: PR is a product they buy from media agencies, not something they produce internally through the merits of their actions.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >I cannot imagine that being their best PR strategy The "backend" 80% of the world doesn't work with PR strategies. Nobody cares if an activist is murdered in Nigeria or Mexico etc., same way few care about journalists in those area. There will be some reports (if that), most will never even reach your preferred news outlets, and that's it. And in more subtle areas (outside the developing world) they can always make it look like a "mysterious" homicide case, despite e.g. known threats, beatings, etc, that had been reported prior to the murder. There are interests of billions to be made, from mega-corps, local lackeys, corrupt politicians and cops on their pockets, and so on. Same way nobody cares for 10-100 million dollar bribes all too common in big construction, supply, procurement, finance, and so on, tenders. One in 100 might get some scrutiny (usually after the party doing it is out of power with no way to be re-elected, so those affected don't have any clout anymore). >not to mention the fact that murdering your opposition attracts a lot of scrutiny, investigation, and which corp exec would want to risk going to jail for ordering a hit on an activist. Lol. No exec "orders a hit" (except if it's some local representative or director and knows the ropes in that area). Foreign execs convey a message that "this thing is an inpediment", "something must be done" and so on, in the vaguest (but clear) possible ways, and people with a lot to gain locally, paid for those deals, know how to take care of things, with several layers of indirection. Same way sweatshops and child labour (all the way to small kids working on cobalt mines) have "plausible deniability" from industry execs, and several layers of contractors between them.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Wow. Not sure I want to even try replying to this uninformed mess of a comment. I’ve never been more sure of the sad HN bubble.
    - rendall 5y ago
      > They’re reporting on the increase in evil activities by anti-environmental mega corps Is there an increase, though? The BBC has sadly become known to be rather loose with facts. The answer to the upstream question here would let us know if there is an increase and what kind. Absolute? Relative? How big of a problem is this, really, or is it more of the BBC fomenting noise and anxiety for clicks. We're trying to get information to understand the world better. People who run around insisting that x piece of information is irrelevant and how dare you ask either don't understand the question or have something to hide
- GongOfFour 5y ago
  The article isn't original reporting at all, it is basically a press release for a report generated by an NGO. It's fine to question the source material here.
watwut 5y ago
> The real question is : "Is environmental activism today more dangerous than it was yesterday". Why would that be a real question? The activism itself should not be life threatening activity. If the amount of killed activists is proportionally the same every year ... then there is still have real issue.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
goto11 5y ago
So if bands of luddites stated murdering software developers, this would not be a problem if the overall growth of the industry was larger than the rate of murders?

by IMTDb 5y ago

coldtea 5y ago

>The real question is : "Is environmental activism today more dangerous than it was yesterday". Why would that be the "real question"? Just because all we have is the hammer of statistical analysis? More people are getting killed, whether they are environmental activists is not that relevant. What's relevant is that there is increased willingness to kill in favor of anti-environmnet interests. >Why should the dangerosity of the "environmental activism" activity be computed differently, by only taking into consideration a numerator, and dismissing the denominator ? It shouldn't be computed at all, the concern here is not to give people some dangerocity score to help them avoid being killed. The concern is to stop the interests that kill -- that is, to stop the murders and the murderers, not to avoid them by having people not be environmental activists or be more careful about it. (Same way we would want to reduce racist crime, not e.g. tell blacks to be more careful. We might also want that, but not as a first priority, as a treatment to the symptoms, not the cause).

yunohn 5y ago

Despite this weird sub-thread, the article isn’t talking about “dangerosity”. They’re reporting on the increase in evil activities by anti-environmental mega corps, who are also murdering opposing activists.

andriesm 5y ago
What indication do we have that environmentalally unfriendly companies are murdering activists? I cannot imagine that being their best PR strategy, not to mention the fact that murdering your opposition attracts a lot of scrutiny, investigation, and which corp exec would want to risk going to jail for ordering a hit on an activist. Far more practical to lobby or spread counter marketing spin.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  FTFY: PR is a product they buy from media agencies, not something they produce internally through the merits of their actions.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >I cannot imagine that being their best PR strategy The "backend" 80% of the world doesn't work with PR strategies. Nobody cares if an activist is murdered in Nigeria or Mexico etc., same way few care about journalists in those area. There will be some reports (if that), most will never even reach your preferred news outlets, and that's it. And in more subtle areas (outside the developing world) they can always make it look like a "mysterious" homicide case, despite e.g. known threats, beatings, etc, that had been reported prior to the murder. There are interests of billions to be made, from mega-corps, local lackeys, corrupt politicians and cops on their pockets, and so on. Same way nobody cares for 10-100 million dollar bribes all too common in big construction, supply, procurement, finance, and so on, tenders. One in 100 might get some scrutiny (usually after the party doing it is out of power with no way to be re-elected, so those affected don't have any clout anymore). >not to mention the fact that murdering your opposition attracts a lot of scrutiny, investigation, and which corp exec would want to risk going to jail for ordering a hit on an activist. Lol. No exec "orders a hit" (except if it's some local representative or director and knows the ropes in that area). Foreign execs convey a message that "this thing is an inpediment", "something must be done" and so on, in the vaguest (but clear) possible ways, and people with a lot to gain locally, paid for those deals, know how to take care of things, with several layers of indirection. Same way sweatshops and child labour (all the way to small kids working on cobalt mines) have "plausible deniability" from industry execs, and several layers of contractors between them.
- yunohn 5y ago
  Wow. Not sure I want to even try replying to this uninformed mess of a comment. I’ve never been more sure of the sad HN bubble.
  - rendall 5y ago
    > They’re reporting on the increase in evil activities by anti-environmental mega corps Is there an increase, though? The BBC has sadly become known to be rather loose with facts. The answer to the upstream question here would let us know if there is an increase and what kind. Absolute? Relative? How big of a problem is this, really, or is it more of the BBC fomenting noise and anxiety for clicks. We're trying to get information to understand the world better. People who run around insisting that x piece of information is irrelevant and how dare you ask either don't understand the question or have something to hide
GongOfFour 5y ago
The article isn't original reporting at all, it is basically a press release for a report generated by an NGO. It's fine to question the source material here.

watwut 5y ago

> The real question is : "Is environmental activism today more dangerous than it was yesterday". Why would that be a real question? The activism itself should not be life threatening activity. If the amount of killed activists is proportionally the same every year ... then there is still have real issue.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

goto11 5y ago

So if bands of luddites stated murdering software developers, this would not be a problem if the overall growth of the industry was larger than the rate of murders?