3 ms·

While people will be quick to judge, it’s necessary to remember how much of a boon refrigeration and high octane gasoline was for human progress. Humanity is f

While people will be quick to judge, it’s necessary to remember how much of a boon refrigeration and high octane gasoline was for human progress. Humanity is full of mistakes like DDT and lead makeup. We continue to make these mistakes today, but it’s important to know that we progress with technology. CFCs are no longer necessary and high octane unleaded now can be had at the pump.

afavour 3y ago
IIRC the gas company execs were absolutely aware of the dangers of leaded gasoline and made sure that information never became public. Yes, it allowed a lot of progress. But society should have been able to make an informed decision about whether it was worth it.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "IIRC the gas company execs were absolutely aware of the dangers of leaded gasoline and made sure that information never became public." Sounds like most disruptors, PI-based, and food companies today - Facebook algorithms, Uber's early safety/compliance/sexism issues, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if certain food related things become a big deal in a couple of decades. Stuff like hormones and meds in animals and xenohormones in packaging. Even things like synthetic food dyes have some evidence of hyper activity in children, to the point the EU is putting warning labels on some things. When the CEOs have their families avoiding their own products, that's a damn big warning that they know. It shouldn't be a surprise.
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    The cycle keeps repeating in part because the people who do this kind of move fast and break (other people's) things crap in the beginning, whose behavior we excuse and paper over in the name of progress later on, are the ones who also accumulate commanding, NSA wealth and influence offstage. They thereby greatly contribute to setting the stage for future behavior like this, through their soft power influence - what sort of people they endorse, promote, and financially sponsor. It should matter who gets rich. People have for too long been naively (or foolishly) swallowing the elite-favored narrative that someone else's money is none of anyone's business; a dynamically imbalanced moral which may have been weakly defensible in a byegone world that was far less tightly integrated, consolidating and wealth-connected than it has become.

afavour 3y ago

IIRC the gas company execs were absolutely aware of the dangers of leaded gasoline and made sure that information never became public. Yes, it allowed a lot of progress. But society should have been able to make an informed decision about whether it was worth it.

giantg2 3y ago
"IIRC the gas company execs were absolutely aware of the dangers of leaded gasoline and made sure that information never became public." Sounds like most disruptors, PI-based, and food companies today - Facebook algorithms, Uber's early safety/compliance/sexism issues, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if certain food related things become a big deal in a couple of decades. Stuff like hormones and meds in animals and xenohormones in packaging. Even things like synthetic food dyes have some evidence of hyper activity in children, to the point the EU is putting warning labels on some things. When the CEOs have their families avoiding their own products, that's a damn big warning that they know. It shouldn't be a surprise.
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  The cycle keeps repeating in part because the people who do this kind of move fast and break (other people's) things crap in the beginning, whose behavior we excuse and paper over in the name of progress later on, are the ones who also accumulate commanding, NSA wealth and influence offstage. They thereby greatly contribute to setting the stage for future behavior like this, through their soft power influence - what sort of people they endorse, promote, and financially sponsor. It should matter who gets rich. People have for too long been naively (or foolishly) swallowing the elite-favored narrative that someone else's money is none of anyone's business; a dynamically imbalanced moral which may have been weakly defensible in a byegone world that was far less tightly integrated, consolidating and wealth-connected than it has become.