4 ms·

> That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of th

by sumy23 4y ago

> That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of the other 99.9999% of the world. Punishing the perpetrators won’t put the water back in the same way punishing a murderer won’t bring the victim back. We don’t punish to make right. We punish to deter.

robocat 4y ago
And in 20 years time, it will be your turn to be retroactively punished for currently belonging to a society that is burning the world?
- HWR_14 4y ago
  1) It's not group membership, it's targetted 2) I try to live in such a way that I'm not a wasteful glutton who misuses communal resources.
  - chii 4y ago
    it might be that you get punished despite trying to live properly as you claim in 2). Punishment doesn't work in this context, since it's not a repeated game. Murder is punished because everyone has the chance to do murder - it's a "repeated" game. Destroying the environment isn't.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Destroying various environmental resources is completely a repeated game (for example, look at superfund sites). If in the future it's decided that I made my money unethically and it needs to be redistributed, I guess I'm fine with that so long as the same standard is applied to everyone's money. I think it'll be close to a great reset, but whatever. I'm not thrilled by the idea, but it might have to happen.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Exploiting and destroying the commons is a repeated game. Moreover the spoils of doing it once make it easier to do so again. What possible reason is there not to take those spoils and return them to the commons from whence they were stolen?
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  If the people who are destroying our biosphere thought they would face appropriate consequences, they would behave very differently.
  - strogonoff 4y ago
    Bad motives will find their way. Punishment is not a sustainable measure, it only fosters more bad motives, and rules used to justify the punishment inform malicious actors on how to not get caught (a.k.a. how to follow the letter but not the spirit). To address the root cause, work out why bad motives exist (what compels people to violate the spirit in the first place) and eliminate those.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Eliminating the gains from theft and destruction isn't some cruel and unusual eye for an eye punishment.
      - strogonoff 4y ago
        I agree that punishment != punishment, and there seem to be many cases where evidence of intentional harm appears to be substantial enough that the majority would support if something was done about it legally, yet unfortunately nothing is done. That aside, I still doubt it would be a fundamental deterrent (it’ll deter some from doing this particular thing, but they’ll find another workaround).
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Well then the key is to align incentives. If the powerful bear consequences when something bad happens regardless of fault, then power will be wielded to prevent those outcomes rather than enact them. Anyone who does not wish to take that risk can dispose of their power.
        strogonoff 4y ago
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Notice the stark difference between “a few human owners of that agribusiness” and “belong to a society.”
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  If you have power and are wielding it to make things worse in order to gain more power, then yes. Stripping you of all of your power later is morally and strategically right.
csomar 4y ago
Are you suggesting the farmers are criminal? Unless they subverted the democratic institutions to benefit from bedrock water, punishing them IS the crime.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  > Are you suggesting the farmers are criminal? Yes! Enthusiastically, with vigor!
- singularity2001 4y ago
  under that definition the upper echelons of nestle are pretty certain to be criminals, so yes
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    You're right about executives of large firms, but you're wrong about farmers. Focusing on punishment for random small powerless people, most of whom are not still alive, while not assassinating every billionaire is what they want you to do.

by sumy23 4y ago

robocat 4y ago

And in 20 years time, it will be your turn to be retroactively punished for currently belonging to a society that is burning the world?

HWR_14 4y ago
1) It's not group membership, it's targetted 2) I try to live in such a way that I'm not a wasteful glutton who misuses communal resources.
- chii 4y ago
  it might be that you get punished despite trying to live properly as you claim in 2). Punishment doesn't work in this context, since it's not a repeated game. Murder is punished because everyone has the chance to do murder - it's a "repeated" game. Destroying the environment isn't.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Destroying various environmental resources is completely a repeated game (for example, look at superfund sites). If in the future it's decided that I made my money unethically and it needs to be redistributed, I guess I'm fine with that so long as the same standard is applied to everyone's money. I think it'll be close to a great reset, but whatever. I'm not thrilled by the idea, but it might have to happen.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Exploiting and destroying the commons is a repeated game. Moreover the spoils of doing it once make it easier to do so again. What possible reason is there not to take those spoils and return them to the commons from whence they were stolen?
TomSwirly 4y ago
If the people who are destroying our biosphere thought they would face appropriate consequences, they would behave very differently.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  Bad motives will find their way. Punishment is not a sustainable measure, it only fosters more bad motives, and rules used to justify the punishment inform malicious actors on how to not get caught (a.k.a. how to follow the letter but not the spirit). To address the root cause, work out why bad motives exist (what compels people to violate the spirit in the first place) and eliminate those.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Eliminating the gains from theft and destruction isn't some cruel and unusual eye for an eye punishment.
    - strogonoff 4y ago
      I agree that punishment != punishment, and there seem to be many cases where evidence of intentional harm appears to be substantial enough that the majority would support if something was done about it legally, yet unfortunately nothing is done. That aside, I still doubt it would be a fundamental deterrent (it’ll deter some from doing this particular thing, but they’ll find another workaround).
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Well then the key is to align incentives. If the powerful bear consequences when something bad happens regardless of fault, then power will be wielded to prevent those outcomes rather than enact them. Anyone who does not wish to take that risk can dispose of their power.
        strogonoff 4y ago
tshaddox 4y ago
Notice the stark difference between “a few human owners of that agribusiness” and “belong to a society.”
Schroedingersat 4y ago
If you have power and are wielding it to make things worse in order to gain more power, then yes. Stripping you of all of your power later is morally and strategically right.

csomar 4y ago

Are you suggesting the farmers are criminal? Unless they subverted the democratic institutions to benefit from bedrock water, punishing them IS the crime.

kristopolous 4y ago
> Are you suggesting the farmers are criminal? Yes! Enthusiastically, with vigor!
singularity2001 4y ago
under that definition the upper echelons of nestle are pretty certain to be criminals, so yes
- jessaustin 4y ago
  You're right about executives of large firms, but you're wrong about farmers. Focusing on punishment for random small powerless people, most of whom are not still alive, while not assassinating every billionaire is what they want you to do.