6 ms·

> Now... the leadership folks who commissioned these predictions and then ignored them... That's another matter! Ok, you made me curious. What were they suppos

> Now... the leadership folks who commissioned these predictions and then ignored them... That's another matter! Ok, you made me curious. What were they supposed to do? Stop drilling and selling oil? Ask the government for increased taxes to take care of externalities? Dismantle the corporation? Just resign and go find a job in a different industry?

cycomanic 4y ago
Well stop funding anti-(climate)-science disinformation campaigns would be a good start. Many of the current state of divisive politics and the incredible rise of conspiracy theories can be traced to the campaigns funded by big tobacco and big oil.
abdullahkhalids 4y ago
You know how when school budgets are cut, underpaid teachers spend money out of their own pockets to ensure students get what is needed? Or nurses stay far past their shifts to ensure critical patients get the care they need? Unethical people don't realize that there are countless ethical people who make the right choices every day. The answer to your questions, is yes to all of them.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  That's not exactly apples to apples, but you got me thinking about the leaders that cut school budgets and under-staff hospitals (while getting bonuses, no doubt). When it comes to ethics, it appears most organizations are bottom-heavy. Isn't it weird how budget cuts and under-staffing[1] have nebulous attribution, or are seen as an unstoppable force of nature in whose face the embattled, heroic, under-resourced teachers and nurses must make their stand 1. Read 'profit-taking'
- dadoomer 4y ago
  I agree with the spirit of this take. Of course they should have. We should structure society so that the average person has agency at the workplace, and not just blindly abides by the decisions and orders of the board of directors. If democracy were to expand to the workplace, perhaps we would be in a better position to avoid the situations that lead to the situation described by the OP.
idontwantthis 4y ago
[flagged]
secretsatan 4y ago
I've been noticing this shift for a while now, from it's not happening, to, well, it's happened now, and there was nothing that could have been done.
FranzFerdiNaN 4y ago
Yes what were they supposed to do with the information that their business would end up cooking the earth??? If only I could think of something, but i can’t. So let’s just fund denialism if it all instead.
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
If you look at your kids every day and their future. Yes. I guess. Or reinvest, to pump the funds into future tech to replace the disaster.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Not go out and publicly try to discredit work they know to be true? Start shifting their companies aggressively towards energy sources which will not kill us all decades earlier by using their insane benefits to invest in R&D? Anything which is not akin to sacrificing millions and handing a terrible situation to the next generation to make a quick buck? Have a soul?
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  We've seen the same thing with tobacco, asbestos, lead, etc.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Yes, I know. You would believe that at some point in the past decades, with the multiple crisis caused by failure of leadership in the financial sector and with the numerous scandals in both auditing, energy production, manufacturing and shipping, people might have started to question if there might not be something fundamentally wrong with the way we do corporate governance and more generally how we have organised our society and economy. But apparently no, it’s really going to be denial up to and over the edge of the cliff. I remember as a kid being fascinated by the idea that while decline was felt throughout the Roman Empire, something which once stood so powerful had then become powerless and was rendered unable by its own structure to restore what used to be and prevent what was to come. I kept wondering how it was even possible. Now I know.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      Indeed, that was my point: it's not an isolated incident, but a pattern. The people in charge (in politics or business) are in charge due to the current system, so they have very little incentive to change it and have a lot of incentive to keep it as it is. Why doesn't Labour push for a fairer electoral system even though the current system is generally biased towards the Tories (and has for many decades)? Because when they are in power they are in power due to the current system. This also works through to the middle class: if you're having a good life then you're having that due to the current system. Why change it? It's not a coincidence that people who are least established (the underclass, students, oppressed groups) tend to be the ones advocating for change, but they're also the worst positioned to actually enact such change. So change happens through drastic events such revolutions, which brings their own risks and often don't change things for the better. You'd expect that people are familiar enough with history to pre-empt this, but it seems not. "Ah, I'm sure it'll work out in the end" seems to be the prevailing attitude. Maybe, or ... maybe not?
ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
Remain employed and sabotage the business as much as possible whilst also carefully leaking information. A business that is seeking profits over the continued existence of human life is clearly something that must be destroyed before it destroys us.
safety1st 4y ago
I mean the answer here is actually pretty simple and it doesn't require leadership to be ethical, just to take a long-term view. If you find out your product is bad for the environment, for people's health, etc. then you go and quietly do R&D on the solution. You know shit is going to hit the fan sooner or later so you get ahead of it. Then when it starts to become a PR problem you double down on the alternative you came up with and you start publicizing it. With any luck you'll be ahead of your competitors and able to transition to the new thing better and faster than they do. You don't really have to be a moral paragon to think this way, you certainly don't need to die on any hills, you just have to be smart enough to hedge your bets and think about where your profits may come from in 25 years, instead of just in the next 5. These are not resource strapped companies, they are companies that can afford to do generational R&D and whose executives lacked vision.

cycomanic 4y ago

Well stop funding anti-(climate)-science disinformation campaigns would be a good start. Many of the current state of divisive politics and the incredible rise of conspiracy theories can be traced to the campaigns funded by big tobacco and big oil.

abdullahkhalids 4y ago

You know how when school budgets are cut, underpaid teachers spend money out of their own pockets to ensure students get what is needed? Or nurses stay far past their shifts to ensure critical patients get the care they need? Unethical people don't realize that there are countless ethical people who make the right choices every day. The answer to your questions, is yes to all of them.

sangnoir 4y ago
That's not exactly apples to apples, but you got me thinking about the leaders that cut school budgets and under-staff hospitals (while getting bonuses, no doubt). When it comes to ethics, it appears most organizations are bottom-heavy. Isn't it weird how budget cuts and under-staffing[1] have nebulous attribution, or are seen as an unstoppable force of nature in whose face the embattled, heroic, under-resourced teachers and nurses must make their stand 1. Read 'profit-taking'
dadoomer 4y ago
I agree with the spirit of this take. Of course they should have. We should structure society so that the average person has agency at the workplace, and not just blindly abides by the decisions and orders of the board of directors. If democracy were to expand to the workplace, perhaps we would be in a better position to avoid the situations that lead to the situation described by the OP.

idontwantthis 4y ago

[flagged]

secretsatan 4y ago

I've been noticing this shift for a while now, from it's not happening, to, well, it's happened now, and there was nothing that could have been done.

FranzFerdiNaN 4y ago

Yes what were they supposed to do with the information that their business would end up cooking the earth??? If only I could think of something, but i can’t. So let’s just fund denialism if it all instead.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

If you look at your kids every day and their future. Yes. I guess. Or reinvest, to pump the funds into future tech to replace the disaster.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

Not go out and publicly try to discredit work they know to be true? Start shifting their companies aggressively towards energy sources which will not kill us all decades earlier by using their insane benefits to invest in R&D? Anything which is not akin to sacrificing millions and handing a terrible situation to the next generation to make a quick buck? Have a soul?

Beltalowda 4y ago
We've seen the same thing with tobacco, asbestos, lead, etc.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Yes, I know. You would believe that at some point in the past decades, with the multiple crisis caused by failure of leadership in the financial sector and with the numerous scandals in both auditing, energy production, manufacturing and shipping, people might have started to question if there might not be something fundamentally wrong with the way we do corporate governance and more generally how we have organised our society and economy. But apparently no, it’s really going to be denial up to and over the edge of the cliff. I remember as a kid being fascinated by the idea that while decline was felt throughout the Roman Empire, something which once stood so powerful had then become powerless and was rendered unable by its own structure to restore what used to be and prevent what was to come. I kept wondering how it was even possible. Now I know.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Indeed, that was my point: it's not an isolated incident, but a pattern. The people in charge (in politics or business) are in charge due to the current system, so they have very little incentive to change it and have a lot of incentive to keep it as it is. Why doesn't Labour push for a fairer electoral system even though the current system is generally biased towards the Tories (and has for many decades)? Because when they are in power they are in power due to the current system. This also works through to the middle class: if you're having a good life then you're having that due to the current system. Why change it? It's not a coincidence that people who are least established (the underclass, students, oppressed groups) tend to be the ones advocating for change, but they're also the worst positioned to actually enact such change. So change happens through drastic events such revolutions, which brings their own risks and often don't change things for the better. You'd expect that people are familiar enough with history to pre-empt this, but it seems not. "Ah, I'm sure it'll work out in the end" seems to be the prevailing attitude. Maybe, or ... maybe not?

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

Remain employed and sabotage the business as much as possible whilst also carefully leaking information. A business that is seeking profits over the continued existence of human life is clearly something that must be destroyed before it destroys us.

safety1st 4y ago

I mean the answer here is actually pretty simple and it doesn't require leadership to be ethical, just to take a long-term view. If you find out your product is bad for the environment, for people's health, etc. then you go and quietly do R&D on the solution. You know shit is going to hit the fan sooner or later so you get ahead of it. Then when it starts to become a PR problem you double down on the alternative you came up with and you start publicizing it. With any luck you'll be ahead of your competitors and able to transition to the new thing better and faster than they do. You don't really have to be a moral paragon to think this way, you certainly don't need to die on any hills, you just have to be smart enough to hedge your bets and think about where your profits may come from in 25 years, instead of just in the next 5. These are not resource strapped companies, they are companies that can afford to do generational R&D and whose executives lacked vision.