4 ms·

I'm curious if those pushing the "it's the bad guys keeping everything bad!" model actually believe it, or if it's just a narrative that helps people vent about

by 0thgen 3y ago

I'm curious if those pushing the "it's the bad guys keeping everything bad!" model actually believe it, or if it's just a narrative that helps people vent about their political frustrations. And who knows, their model could be correct. But the unwillingness to consider "tradeoffs" makes me think it's just political angst and not a serious take

somenameforme 3y ago
I'd take a nuanced half and half approach. I think the majority of who people think are just the generic "bad guys" is largely out of ignorance and/or naivete of surrounding circumstance. But I also do think there are people who are pretty fine with doing some sociopathic things to enrich themselves. The typical example is big pharma. Imagine tomorrow a magic genie offered a big pharma exec a cure to cancer, and he got to pick which form it took: 1) A one time pill that not only cured any existing cancers in a user, but also permanently prevented any further ones. And to make it even better, it also is somehow relatively simple meaning it could be easily cloned and made extremely and globally affordable. 2) A complex (enabling a defacto monopoly on production), lengthy, and expensive treatment program that is 100% effective at curing any 1 type of cancer - that must be repeated per cancer and per individual as they emerge. I do genuinely think that all big pharma execs would choose #2. They'd probably rationalize it as something like 'Well I'm curing cancer, and now I'll ensure we have the funds to continue working to solve even more illnesses, and everybody wins." So I'm sure in their minds they aren't villains, but that's because humans are just really really good at cognitive dissonance.
- 0thgen 3y ago
  fair point, and there are more real-world examples we could list (big tax services lobbying for more complicated tax codes) I guess the question then is: what major world problems can be fixed by eliminating / preventing bad actors, and what problems require a different solution? I'm not claiming to know the answer

by 0thgen 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

I'd take a nuanced half and half approach. I think the majority of who people think are just the generic "bad guys" is largely out of ignorance and/or naivete of surrounding circumstance. But I also do think there are people who are pretty fine with doing some sociopathic things to enrich themselves. The typical example is big pharma. Imagine tomorrow a magic genie offered a big pharma exec a cure to cancer, and he got to pick which form it took: 1) A one time pill that not only cured any existing cancers in a user, but also permanently prevented any further ones. And to make it even better, it also is somehow relatively simple meaning it could be easily cloned and made extremely and globally affordable. 2) A complex (enabling a defacto monopoly on production), lengthy, and expensive treatment program that is 100% effective at curing any 1 type of cancer - that must be repeated per cancer and per individual as they emerge. I do genuinely think that all big pharma execs would choose #2. They'd probably rationalize it as something like 'Well I'm curing cancer, and now I'll ensure we have the funds to continue working to solve even more illnesses, and everybody wins." So I'm sure in their minds they aren't villains, but that's because humans are just really really good at cognitive dissonance.

0thgen 3y ago
fair point, and there are more real-world examples we could list (big tax services lobbying for more complicated tax codes) I guess the question then is: what major world problems can be fixed by eliminating / preventing bad actors, and what problems require a different solution? I'm not claiming to know the answer