4 ms·

I’m pro growth and I don’t see any reason why that has to be done badly. Eg I also care about the environment being healthy, but think we can switch to solar a

by onos 3y ago

I’m pro growth and I don’t see any reason why that has to be done badly. Eg I also care about the environment being healthy, but think we can switch to solar and be smarter about other sorts of pollution etc and achieve both ends.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
I think Gresham’s Law applies here. The main problem is that caring about the environment becomes a competitive disadvantage to your business when your competitor doesn’t care and is willing to do anything to get ahead. Sometimes it’s fine if you’re a luxury brand trying incorporate sustainability into your brand, but that matters less in a B2B context. The “bad” money inevitably beats the “good” money.
- sologoub 3y ago
  While it starts out as an ethical choice, it is ultimately up to the society to define the minimum acceptable standard and prevent the “bad” money from “winning”. Unfortunately, that societal will requires greater societal and ethical cohesion.
  - LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
    The problem is that “bad” money eventually accumulates to undermine the political system. We see this now with dark money in US politics. “Bad” money works to circumvent society altogether and is not interesting in participating in a societally-driven dialogue about what’s ethical and what’s not. If it did, there would be no dark money or influencing-peddling in the system.
    - sologoub 3y ago
      That position assumes that society is relatively dumb and can be dupped into anything given enough money is spent. While in short term some of this might work, long term people tend to “wake up”, sometimes too late. This is where various checks and balances are vital and society needs to constantly remind its young people that ends do not justify the means. Something we are definitely losing these days.
- andrepd 3y ago
  Exactly. It's ridiculous to leave environmental protection to "the market". We need regulations that properly account for those externalities so that the market can do its thing.
newswasboring 3y ago
> I’m pro growth Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Because people mean different things by this. Do you mean it in the "the economy should keep becoming bigger" sense or "human experience should keep getting better" sense? Or do you think it's the same thing?
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  There's a significant amount of people that don't like growth because of possible disruption e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-65874170 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-65874... So probably they mean someone opposed to people like that.
NoRelToEmber 3y ago
Human impact on the environment = lifestyle * population. Just how gigantic do you think the improvements in the 'lifestyle' term are going to be, that you think we can ignore the other term? ...how big have the improvements been so far? If we dramatically change our lifestyles and industry for the sake of the environment, we would still, at current population numbers, have a huge, negative impact on the environment. Especially once more countries join the developed world. It's a fantasy to think we can sprinkle some solar and sustainable farming on our societies, and the environment will be just fine as the human population triples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...

by onos 3y ago

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago

I think Gresham’s Law applies here. The main problem is that caring about the environment becomes a competitive disadvantage to your business when your competitor doesn’t care and is willing to do anything to get ahead. Sometimes it’s fine if you’re a luxury brand trying incorporate sustainability into your brand, but that matters less in a B2B context. The “bad” money inevitably beats the “good” money.

sologoub 3y ago
While it starts out as an ethical choice, it is ultimately up to the society to define the minimum acceptable standard and prevent the “bad” money from “winning”. Unfortunately, that societal will requires greater societal and ethical cohesion.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  The problem is that “bad” money eventually accumulates to undermine the political system. We see this now with dark money in US politics. “Bad” money works to circumvent society altogether and is not interesting in participating in a societally-driven dialogue about what’s ethical and what’s not. If it did, there would be no dark money or influencing-peddling in the system.
  - sologoub 3y ago
    That position assumes that society is relatively dumb and can be dupped into anything given enough money is spent. While in short term some of this might work, long term people tend to “wake up”, sometimes too late. This is where various checks and balances are vital and society needs to constantly remind its young people that ends do not justify the means. Something we are definitely losing these days.
andrepd 3y ago
Exactly. It's ridiculous to leave environmental protection to "the market". We need regulations that properly account for those externalities so that the market can do its thing.

newswasboring 3y ago

> I’m pro growth Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Because people mean different things by this. Do you mean it in the "the economy should keep becoming bigger" sense or "human experience should keep getting better" sense? Or do you think it's the same thing?

dukeyukey 3y ago
There's a significant amount of people that don't like growth because of possible disruption e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-65874170 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-65874... So probably they mean someone opposed to people like that.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago

Human impact on the environment = lifestyle * population. Just how gigantic do you think the improvements in the 'lifestyle' term are going to be, that you think we can ignore the other term? ...how big have the improvements been so far? If we dramatically change our lifestyles and industry for the sake of the environment, we would still, at current population numbers, have a huge, negative impact on the environment. Especially once more countries join the developed world. It's a fantasy to think we can sprinkle some solar and sustainable farming on our societies, and the environment will be just fine as the human population triples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...