3 ms·

> Right now it is us that is destroying life around us Speak for yourself. I'm not destroying anything. If you are, can I suggest you stop please? In all ho

> Right now it is us that is destroying life around us Speak for yourself. I'm not destroying anything. If you are, can I suggest you stop please? In all honesty, what I think is going on is that corporations are the ones taking actively negative actions - their owners/ceos/etc destroy etc with knowledge that what they do is wrong. Consumers aren't - we have a limited set of options and do what seems right to us. However, in a new wheeze, corporations and governments are trying to 'socialise' the risk. Rather than change or be responsible for their actions, they are lobbying and publicising the wrong causes of destruction. If we believe we are responsible and are prepared to pay for it, in taxes, fines, lack of transport options, additional restrictions, higher costs, etc - they are happy to charge us! In fascism (ie corporations and governments) the rulers don't mind if we (the governed) foot the bill. In fact, there's more money to be made that way! I do not accept the corporate blame being deflected on to 'the people'. Its not all people - the culpability is specific and can be ascribed in each case. Global warming and environmental degradation is nothing to do with me. I do not accept blame being laid at my door - I'm not prepared to accept a martyr's role. I don't believe in original sin either. If there is destruction of something, well someone did that - we should ascribe blame where it is due.

antattack 5y ago
Through mere existence, one is increasing entropy. It's up to a person/organization what they do with resulting energy - pursue actions that cause accelerated destruction or else.
- verisimi 5y ago
  That's original sin! I don't believe in that (as I said above!). Humans are a blessing to this place, not a curse. My existence is not a problem. But if you think that, follow it through as a line of reasoning. You will live in a world of self-hate, with the ultimate solution being to take your own and others lives. It is an anti-life position. I personally don't agree with that position. But I do see signs of this sort of 'death-cult' thinking all around me! Its well promoted in the MSM.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    It is, when your benchmark is permanence and immortality. If you change the benchmark, to something that is adopted to the nature of man, then the original sin of entropy doesn't exist. Imagine measuring humans by using a unit of account that doesn't change like gold. From the eyes of an accountant, unemployed humans shouldn't exist. Due to their tendency to increase entropy, they are defective by birth. Modern fiat currency tries to solve this problem by having a changing unit of account. The currency becomes defective to account for the defective humans. But as I said, if your benchmark were a negative interest rate, then the fact that money represents a pristine slice of human time would not result into an original sin because the amount of pristine human time shrinks over time, to represent aging and your limited lifespan. Humans would no longer be defective. Every single human on this planet would be needed. You can even call them a blessing if you want. However, there is no bias toward any specific population. You imply, more humans = better, which I disagree with. People should be allowed to decide how many humans they want on this planet.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ganzuul 5y ago
  You obviously make an exception for yourself. Why is that?
ansible 5y ago
> > Right now it is us that is destroying life around us > > Speak for yourself. I'm not destroying anything. By your very existence you are destroying life, or at least preventing it from existing. This is true for the average coyote, snail, and tree, because it is the nature of life in general, and isn't inherently evil. Assuming you live in a building, have ever purchased anything made from plastic, eaten any food produced with artificial fertilizers or pesticides, used fossil fuel-based transportation... basically done anything involving modern life (which includes accessing the Internet), you have contributed to the destruction of life and habitats for other creatures, and done so in a way that is disproportionate to the destruction wrought by other lifeforms. That should in no way stop us from questioning how we live, and to what extent we destroy the environment for our own benefit. But we will have to live with the fact that we do affect things by our very existence.
- verisimi 5y ago
  > Assuming you live in a building, have ever purchased anything made from plastic, eaten any food produced with artificial fertilizers or pesticides, used fossil fuel-based transportation... basically done anything involving modern life (which includes accessing the Internet), you have contributed to the destruction of life and habitats for other creatures, and done so in a way that is disproportionate to the destruction wrought by other lifeforms. Was I wrong to eat, travel or use the internet? Should I wring my hands and flagellate myself for my existence? Do you understand what 'wrong' is? Did I mean harm by the actions I took? No. Did corporations act without care in providing me those things more cheaply? Yes. Did governments wave their behaviour through, while lobbyists re-wrote the laws to ensure that corporations are able to make the people pick up the bill? Yes. So, who is responsible again? Instead of allowing yourself to be sent on a guilt-trip for your existence, you should stop playing the martyr and take a closer look at the causes of the problems. There are specific companies, people, actions (governmental and corporate) that have caused problems. If you take the leadership roles, you can't abstain your responsibilities to the weak. Governments and corporations should bear the responsibility for their actions.
  - ansible 5y ago
ethbr0 5y ago
> If we believe we are responsible and are prepared to pay for it, in taxes, fines, lack of transport options, additional restrictions, higher costs... That seems reductive in an inaccurate way. A consumer product which fully accounts for all negative externalities (or attempts to offset them via action) will cost more than one that doesn't, ceteris paribus. So "paying more" (for a less destructive product) is literally the cost of that much less destruction. Consumers can choose that choice, or not, and the vast majority don't (and can't). (Whether that price is ultimately paid in taxes, fines, or product cost is irrelevant, as they all reduce to the same thing)
imtringued 5y ago
Consumers voluntarily choose to let those corporations get away with anything. It's that boring. They do it, because of the horror of lowering their living standard even a tiny bit to something that isn't unethical. We need to get off oil and gas and what did the government do in Germany? They literally removed taxes from oil to boost dependence on Russia because populism is just that strong. Heck, just look at homeowners, they vote in the exact laws that mega corporations need to corner the housing market. There are no conspiracy theories. Every single human on earth is responsible for the mess we are in. I'm the problem and so are you.

antattack 5y ago

Through mere existence, one is increasing entropy. It's up to a person/organization what they do with resulting energy - pursue actions that cause accelerated destruction or else.

verisimi 5y ago
That's original sin! I don't believe in that (as I said above!). Humans are a blessing to this place, not a curse. My existence is not a problem. But if you think that, follow it through as a line of reasoning. You will live in a world of self-hate, with the ultimate solution being to take your own and others lives. It is an anti-life position. I personally don't agree with that position. But I do see signs of this sort of 'death-cult' thinking all around me! Its well promoted in the MSM.
- imtringued 5y ago
  It is, when your benchmark is permanence and immortality. If you change the benchmark, to something that is adopted to the nature of man, then the original sin of entropy doesn't exist. Imagine measuring humans by using a unit of account that doesn't change like gold. From the eyes of an accountant, unemployed humans shouldn't exist. Due to their tendency to increase entropy, they are defective by birth. Modern fiat currency tries to solve this problem by having a changing unit of account. The currency becomes defective to account for the defective humans. But as I said, if your benchmark were a negative interest rate, then the fact that money represents a pristine slice of human time would not result into an original sin because the amount of pristine human time shrinks over time, to represent aging and your limited lifespan. Humans would no longer be defective. Every single human on this planet would be needed. You can even call them a blessing if you want. However, there is no bias toward any specific population. You imply, more humans = better, which I disagree with. People should be allowed to decide how many humans they want on this planet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ganzuul 5y ago
You obviously make an exception for yourself. Why is that?

ansible 5y ago

> > Right now it is us that is destroying life around us > > Speak for yourself. I'm not destroying anything. By your very existence you are destroying life, or at least preventing it from existing. This is true for the average coyote, snail, and tree, because it is the nature of life in general, and isn't inherently evil. Assuming you live in a building, have ever purchased anything made from plastic, eaten any food produced with artificial fertilizers or pesticides, used fossil fuel-based transportation... basically done anything involving modern life (which includes accessing the Internet), you have contributed to the destruction of life and habitats for other creatures, and done so in a way that is disproportionate to the destruction wrought by other lifeforms. That should in no way stop us from questioning how we live, and to what extent we destroy the environment for our own benefit. But we will have to live with the fact that we do affect things by our very existence.

verisimi 5y ago
> Assuming you live in a building, have ever purchased anything made from plastic, eaten any food produced with artificial fertilizers or pesticides, used fossil fuel-based transportation... basically done anything involving modern life (which includes accessing the Internet), you have contributed to the destruction of life and habitats for other creatures, and done so in a way that is disproportionate to the destruction wrought by other lifeforms. Was I wrong to eat, travel or use the internet? Should I wring my hands and flagellate myself for my existence? Do you understand what 'wrong' is? Did I mean harm by the actions I took? No. Did corporations act without care in providing me those things more cheaply? Yes. Did governments wave their behaviour through, while lobbyists re-wrote the laws to ensure that corporations are able to make the people pick up the bill? Yes. So, who is responsible again? Instead of allowing yourself to be sent on a guilt-trip for your existence, you should stop playing the martyr and take a closer look at the causes of the problems. There are specific companies, people, actions (governmental and corporate) that have caused problems. If you take the leadership roles, you can't abstain your responsibilities to the weak. Governments and corporations should bear the responsibility for their actions.
- ansible 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

> If we believe we are responsible and are prepared to pay for it, in taxes, fines, lack of transport options, additional restrictions, higher costs... That seems reductive in an inaccurate way. A consumer product which fully accounts for all negative externalities (or attempts to offset them via action) will cost more than one that doesn't, ceteris paribus. So "paying more" (for a less destructive product) is literally the cost of that much less destruction. Consumers can choose that choice, or not, and the vast majority don't (and can't). (Whether that price is ultimately paid in taxes, fines, or product cost is irrelevant, as they all reduce to the same thing)

imtringued 5y ago

Consumers voluntarily choose to let those corporations get away with anything. It's that boring. They do it, because of the horror of lowering their living standard even a tiny bit to something that isn't unethical. We need to get off oil and gas and what did the government do in Germany? They literally removed taxes from oil to boost dependence on Russia because populism is just that strong. Heck, just look at homeowners, they vote in the exact laws that mega corporations need to corner the housing market. There are no conspiracy theories. Every single human on earth is responsible for the mess we are in. I'm the problem and so are you.