4 ms·
I think protecting privacy to prevent the government from becoming oppressive tyrant seems like it applies to more people and in more indirect way than fishing
by bitcharmer 3y ago
I think protecting privacy to prevent the government from becoming oppressive tyrant seems like it applies to more people and in more indirect way than fishing limits. But maybe my priorities just aren't right.
- __blockcipher__ 3y agoIt seems that way to you because you're mired in it. But to someone who isn't, such policy doesn't have a tangible impact on their life, or more accurately it doesn't seem to. In much the same way that the impact of overfishing doesn't feel like it impacts you.
- troutwine 3y agoI think what the OP is getting at is that not knowing about something in great detail doesn't mean it's not important. Folks'll hew to what they find immediately pressing or have an inclination toward. Which is to say, the world is monstrously complicated and we are small and there's only so much an individual can focus on in their life. The collapse of fish populations due to overfishing will cause starvation, a lot of it. The erosion of personal privacy will abet a certain kind of tyranny. I don't think these are different scales of important but they are different problems that require detailed knowledge to comprehend to a good degree, which implies time and interest.
- micromacrofoot 3y agolack of privacy probably won’t eradicate entire species and irrevocably change the ecosystem... all a matter of perspective
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]