5 ms·

The fuck? No he shouldnt. Not everything can be solved with fines and jail time. Imagine everything this does manages to push the earth into a 100 year ice age,

The fuck? No he shouldnt. Not everything can be solved with fines and jail time. Imagine everything this does manages to push the earth into a 100 year ice age, and it is irreversible on any other time scale. How much do you think that anything this company could do to repair it would be worth?

enraged_camel 4y ago
>> The fuck? No he shouldnt. Not everything can be solved with fines and jail time. On the contrary, companies and individuals should absolutely be responsible for the consequences of their actions.
- MikeDelta 4y ago
  They should, but I think parent means that companies should also be stopped from doing things before they damage the environment for generations... because all the fines in the world cannot fix that anymore.
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    Maybe it's less about the fixing part, and more about the redistribution of funds into the reelection coffers?
ailef 4y ago
> Imagine everything this does manages to push the earth into a 100 year ice age Looks like the plot of Snowpiercer, minus the perpetually moving train part.
- kolinko 4y ago
  I’m sure some startup is working on the train part already
- friesandties 4y ago
  Wilfred Industries was the first thing that came to mind for me. Seems unduly irresponsible to quench the heat entirely without first starting in the train, jeesh.
plaguepilled 4y ago
If you're not willing to accept risk in a business action, including legal risk, you should not do that action. Culpability for damaging the environment should rest on the person who caused the damage. This is basic stuff.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  By this logic, a company should be free to launch a nuclear missile at Russia from US soil, as long as they pinky promise to accept legal liability for what follows, right? When the potential damages of an action far outweigh what it is even conceivably possible that the entity doing the action could ever hope to repay, the standards for preventing that action change.
  - plaguepilled 4y ago
    Not sure what your hypothetical proves other than that we agree that launching nukes is bad. :P The company is still at fault and should still be legally punished within the local legal system. The difference is that the government has now got to accept liability on the international stage, since the company is incorporated in that country. The liability has "expanded", not changed from one entity to another.

enraged_camel 4y ago

>> The fuck? No he shouldnt. Not everything can be solved with fines and jail time. On the contrary, companies and individuals should absolutely be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

MikeDelta 4y ago
They should, but I think parent means that companies should also be stopped from doing things before they damage the environment for generations... because all the fines in the world cannot fix that anymore.
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  Maybe it's less about the fixing part, and more about the redistribution of funds into the reelection coffers?

ailef 4y ago

> Imagine everything this does manages to push the earth into a 100 year ice age Looks like the plot of Snowpiercer, minus the perpetually moving train part.

kolinko 4y ago
I’m sure some startup is working on the train part already
friesandties 4y ago
Wilfred Industries was the first thing that came to mind for me. Seems unduly irresponsible to quench the heat entirely without first starting in the train, jeesh.

plaguepilled 4y ago

If you're not willing to accept risk in a business action, including legal risk, you should not do that action. Culpability for damaging the environment should rest on the person who caused the damage. This is basic stuff.

tsimionescu 4y ago
By this logic, a company should be free to launch a nuclear missile at Russia from US soil, as long as they pinky promise to accept legal liability for what follows, right? When the potential damages of an action far outweigh what it is even conceivably possible that the entity doing the action could ever hope to repay, the standards for preventing that action change.
- plaguepilled 4y ago
  Not sure what your hypothetical proves other than that we agree that launching nukes is bad. :P The company is still at fault and should still be legally punished within the local legal system. The difference is that the government has now got to accept liability on the international stage, since the company is incorporated in that country. The liability has "expanded", not changed from one entity to another.