5 ms·

It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people [late c

It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people [late clarification: in leadership roles] and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much. I feel for the people highlighted in the article, and everybody wants to feed there family so I don't begrudge people working hard on land rigs in the Bakken, semi-submersibles in the Gulf, or even the development teams writing Exxon's reservoir modeling software or IT teams running them. But it is a company that has contributed to unbelievable harm to the planet and I would expect them to treat their line employees worse than an average employer for the same reason.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
prottog 4y ago
You're comparing two fossil fuel companies (Exxon and Peabody) to a tobacco company (Marlboro). I get calling the latter a "fundamentally harmful company", but to say that fossil fuel companies are fundamentally harmful is ridiculous the point of satire. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the planet.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  I'm happy to stand by my comment. Tobacco by comparison causes negligible harm, it's just the callous disrespect for harm to others in comparison to profit that they have in common. Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century, at current rates. Saying that it has lifted people out of poverty is like saying heroin makes people happy.
  - politician 4y ago
    The device you are typing on is made from materials mined from the planet using the fuel sources you despise.
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      To me this comment falls somewhere between "No true Scotsman" and whataboutism. Just because we're benefiting from history, doesn't mean we can't criticize it. Just today, this [1] came out. It's time we use our oil-derived products and wealth to demand change. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-close-to-irreversible-climate-breakdown-warn-major-studies https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-cl...
      - UIUC_06 4y ago
        > To me this comment falls somewhere between "No true Scotsman" and whataboutism. Just because we're benefiting from history, doesn't mean we can't criticize it. To me, that's somewhat like: your parents went to college, got good jobs, and sacrificed, all so you could have a better life than they did. But hey, that doesn't mean you can't criticize them for being heteronormative.
  - prottog 4y ago
    > Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century And New Yorkers in the 1900s thought that the existential crisis facing their city was too much horseshit in the streets, and scientists in the 1960s thought an ice age was imminent. But sure! Civilization will collapse because of fossil fuels. Mark my words: more people will suffer and die in the coming decades from the fallout of so-called "green" policies and the increasingly authoritarian approach to achieve those objectives, than ever will from climate-related disasters. Just look at Sri Lanka for a sneak peek.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I think Fossil Fuels are one of the most incredible things that we made and used from Human flourishing standpoint. Oil is objectively amazing as a fuel.
- drewrv 4y ago
  The harms of a tobacco company are mostly limited to their users, especially since smoking bans have been implemented in restaurants and bars. The harms of an oil company literally effect every human on earth. There is nothing I can do and nowhere I can go to avoid their harms. I'd consider Exxon among the worst of the worst, since they knew about climate change since the 70's and denied/buried the science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
- thefaux 4y ago
  > Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the planet. I would actually argue that cheap energy has been one of the dominant factors in _creating_ poverty in the first place. It seems extremely unlikely that we could sustain the current global population without cheap fossil fuels, and other modern technologies. This created extreme dependency and contingency. The ideology that cheap energy is an unalloyed good, lifting people from poverty, assumes that unfettered growth on human population is always a good thing. Also, who is deciding what poverty is? The north american indigenous people certainly do not seem to view modern life as progress. With 7 billion people on earth, I speculate that the absolute amount of human suffering has never been higher than it is at this moment both in material and spiritual terms. How do we celebrate that there are "only" one billion people living in poverty when three hundred years ago, there weren't even one billion people alive? And we are now living with the potential for suffering and mass death on a scale that would never have been possible without these technologies. All of this discussion also takes a completely anthrocentric perspective. If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning, it's hard to see modern life, facilitated by cheap fossil fuels, as anything less than a catastrophe. So, yeah, I am with the parent commenter.
  - prottog 4y ago
    > If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning Would you have been against cavemen cutting down trees and burning them to stay warm, then? Would you stop cows from eating grass, to alleviate the suffering of plants? Why exist at all, when existence itself consumes resources that some other creature might have used?
  - Tozen 4y ago
    The concept that the Earth is overpopulated, and that "convenient technology" is the cause and the solution is rapid "depopulation", is a very dangerous path. You didn't say that was where you were going, but it appears that's what you are alluding to. There are other answers to the problem of overpopulation and poverty. We have to be careful about the "scarcity mindset". Which can cause a toxic and warped view of the world, that leads to creating even more problems. Technology can very much be an answer, among others. Colonizing Mars because of advancements in space related technologies, can mean plenty of room for growth. Solar, nuclear, and other alternative energy can change the structure and direction of societies. New kinds of birth control, can gradually decrease populations. And the answer isn't always technology. For instance women who go to college and work, are less likely to have children or a relative decrease in children and family size. Being more financially well-off or even rich, doesn't mean an end to human suffering. There is no limit on greed, envy, hate, fear, prejudice, theft, etc... Which can cause conflicts, war, death, and various forms of suffering.
mjr00 4y ago
> It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much. I don't really buy this. Have you seen Palantir's commitment to DEI?[0] How about Lockheed-Martin's commitment to the LGBT community?[1] On the flip side, I've heard plenty of people say Intel is a nightmare to work in, and they're (for the most part) fairly neutral in terms of "harmfulness." And hey, Blizzard-Activision just makes video games, certainly they have a positive and welcoming culture that cares about the wellbeing of their employees, right? My point is, company culture is completely orthogonal to the industry a company serves. Pretending that big oil or tobacco employs exclusively people wearing 19th century robber baron outfits holding big sacks with dollar signs painted on them is naive. Everyone below the executive level is a person trying to feed their family before anything else. [0] https://blog.palantir.com/tagged/diversity-and-inclusion https://blog.palantir.com/tagged/diversity-and-inclusion [1] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/16-years-of-pride-business-resource-group.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/16-y...
- benwad 4y ago
  > Have you seen Palantir's commitment to DEI? Two blog posts from January last year? Slow down there Palantir, you're making the rest of us look bad.
politician 4y ago
Energy isn't fundamentally harmful. It's your opinion that carbon-based energy sources are evil.
hindsightbias 4y ago
That’s how I feel about anyone who owns a car.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

prottog 4y ago

You're comparing two fossil fuel companies (Exxon and Peabody) to a tobacco company (Marlboro). I get calling the latter a "fundamentally harmful company", but to say that fossil fuel companies are fundamentally harmful is ridiculous the point of satire. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the planet.

throwaway5752 4y ago
I'm happy to stand by my comment. Tobacco by comparison causes negligible harm, it's just the callous disrespect for harm to others in comparison to profit that they have in common. Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century, at current rates. Saying that it has lifted people out of poverty is like saying heroin makes people happy.
- politician 4y ago
  The device you are typing on is made from materials mined from the planet using the fuel sources you despise.
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    To me this comment falls somewhere between "No true Scotsman" and whataboutism. Just because we're benefiting from history, doesn't mean we can't criticize it. Just today, this [1] came out. It's time we use our oil-derived products and wealth to demand change. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-close-to-irreversible-climate-breakdown-warn-major-studies https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-cl...
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      > To me this comment falls somewhere between "No true Scotsman" and whataboutism. Just because we're benefiting from history, doesn't mean we can't criticize it. To me, that's somewhat like: your parents went to college, got good jobs, and sacrificed, all so you could have a better life than they did. But hey, that doesn't mean you can't criticize them for being heteronormative.
- prottog 4y ago
  > Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century And New Yorkers in the 1900s thought that the existential crisis facing their city was too much horseshit in the streets, and scientists in the 1960s thought an ice age was imminent. But sure! Civilization will collapse because of fossil fuels. Mark my words: more people will suffer and die in the coming decades from the fallout of so-called "green" policies and the increasingly authoritarian approach to achieve those objectives, than ever will from climate-related disasters. Just look at Sri Lanka for a sneak peek.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
systemvoltage 4y ago
I think Fossil Fuels are one of the most incredible things that we made and used from Human flourishing standpoint. Oil is objectively amazing as a fuel.
drewrv 4y ago
The harms of a tobacco company are mostly limited to their users, especially since smoking bans have been implemented in restaurants and bars. The harms of an oil company literally effect every human on earth. There is nothing I can do and nowhere I can go to avoid their harms. I'd consider Exxon among the worst of the worst, since they knew about climate change since the 70's and denied/buried the science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
thefaux 4y ago
> Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the planet. I would actually argue that cheap energy has been one of the dominant factors in _creating_ poverty in the first place. It seems extremely unlikely that we could sustain the current global population without cheap fossil fuels, and other modern technologies. This created extreme dependency and contingency. The ideology that cheap energy is an unalloyed good, lifting people from poverty, assumes that unfettered growth on human population is always a good thing. Also, who is deciding what poverty is? The north american indigenous people certainly do not seem to view modern life as progress. With 7 billion people on earth, I speculate that the absolute amount of human suffering has never been higher than it is at this moment both in material and spiritual terms. How do we celebrate that there are "only" one billion people living in poverty when three hundred years ago, there weren't even one billion people alive? And we are now living with the potential for suffering and mass death on a scale that would never have been possible without these technologies. All of this discussion also takes a completely anthrocentric perspective. If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning, it's hard to see modern life, facilitated by cheap fossil fuels, as anything less than a catastrophe. So, yeah, I am with the parent commenter.
- prottog 4y ago
  > If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning Would you have been against cavemen cutting down trees and burning them to stay warm, then? Would you stop cows from eating grass, to alleviate the suffering of plants? Why exist at all, when existence itself consumes resources that some other creature might have used?
- Tozen 4y ago
  The concept that the Earth is overpopulated, and that "convenient technology" is the cause and the solution is rapid "depopulation", is a very dangerous path. You didn't say that was where you were going, but it appears that's what you are alluding to. There are other answers to the problem of overpopulation and poverty. We have to be careful about the "scarcity mindset". Which can cause a toxic and warped view of the world, that leads to creating even more problems. Technology can very much be an answer, among others. Colonizing Mars because of advancements in space related technologies, can mean plenty of room for growth. Solar, nuclear, and other alternative energy can change the structure and direction of societies. New kinds of birth control, can gradually decrease populations. And the answer isn't always technology. For instance women who go to college and work, are less likely to have children or a relative decrease in children and family size. Being more financially well-off or even rich, doesn't mean an end to human suffering. There is no limit on greed, envy, hate, fear, prejudice, theft, etc... Which can cause conflicts, war, death, and various forms of suffering.

mjr00 4y ago

> It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much. I don't really buy this. Have you seen Palantir's commitment to DEI?[0] How about Lockheed-Martin's commitment to the LGBT community?[1] On the flip side, I've heard plenty of people say Intel is a nightmare to work in, and they're (for the most part) fairly neutral in terms of "harmfulness." And hey, Blizzard-Activision just makes video games, certainly they have a positive and welcoming culture that cares about the wellbeing of their employees, right? My point is, company culture is completely orthogonal to the industry a company serves. Pretending that big oil or tobacco employs exclusively people wearing 19th century robber baron outfits holding big sacks with dollar signs painted on them is naive. Everyone below the executive level is a person trying to feed their family before anything else. [0] https://blog.palantir.com/tagged/diversity-and-inclusion https://blog.palantir.com/tagged/diversity-and-inclusion [1] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/16-years-of-pride-business-resource-group.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/16-y...

benwad 4y ago
> Have you seen Palantir's commitment to DEI? Two blog posts from January last year? Slow down there Palantir, you're making the rest of us look bad.

politician 4y ago

Energy isn't fundamentally harmful. It's your opinion that carbon-based energy sources are evil.

hindsightbias 4y ago

That’s how I feel about anyone who owns a car.