3 ms·

No, you're trying to muddy waters that are objectively clear. It is objectively clear that Exxon knew that their activity was causing climate change. It is obje

No, you're trying to muddy waters that are objectively clear. It is objectively clear that Exxon knew that their activity was causing climate change. It is objectively clear that climate change, if left unchecked, would lead to the destruction of society and in the most extreme cases, the extinction of humanity. If they didn't know that, why did they start a 50 year campaign to discredit such claims? If a corporation was considering a direction where they knew this would be the case ahead of time, there is no conflict or disagreement possible that this direction should not be taken, even if it would decrease shareholder value. Calling the notion that corporations should be obliged to consider whether their activities would lead to the destruction of society a dictatorship is frankly ridiculous. If a corporation becomes aware of the destructiveness of their activities after they're already entrenched in the economy, then they should have a legal obligation to report this fact to regulators immediately, regardless of its impact on shareholder value. Any obfuscation or delay should be met with severe punitive measures, up to an including dissolution of the corporation and nationalization of its assets. That would properly realign corporate incentives with transparency and working to benefit society, at least in these extreme cases.

danbruc 4y ago
First paragraph, all true or at least reasonable. If a corporation was considering a direction where they knew this would be the case ahead of time, there is no conflict or disagreement possible that this direction should not be taken, even if it would decrease shareholder value. This is not true, you presuppose that people want to avoid the destruction of society or extinction of humans at some point in the future. Many - probably most - people would not want society to collapse or humans to go extinct during their lifetime, or that of their children or grandchildren, but the further those events are in the future, the more likely many are to prefer some gain now over some loss far in the future that does not affect them personally. You have decided for you that those catastrophic future costs have to be avoided and that you are willing to incur some cost for that now, but that does not make it true for everyone. Your position is essentially that your utility function is more reasonable than that of people preferring to make some money now over decreasing the probability or severity of some future event and therefore everyone should adopt or be forced to adopt your utility function.

danbruc 4y ago

First paragraph, all true or at least reasonable. If a corporation was considering a direction where they knew this would be the case ahead of time, there is no conflict or disagreement possible that this direction should not be taken, even if it would decrease shareholder value. This is not true, you presuppose that people want to avoid the destruction of society or extinction of humans at some point in the future. Many - probably most - people would not want society to collapse or humans to go extinct during their lifetime, or that of their children or grandchildren, but the further those events are in the future, the more likely many are to prefer some gain now over some loss far in the future that does not affect them personally. You have decided for you that those catastrophic future costs have to be avoided and that you are willing to incur some cost for that now, but that does not make it true for everyone. Your position is essentially that your utility function is more reasonable than that of people preferring to make some money now over decreasing the probability or severity of some future event and therefore everyone should adopt or be forced to adopt your utility function.