4 ms·

Are they doing science? Or are they litigating to influence their government based on the science. I'd argue that, contextually, they do have people with formal

by yareal 3y ago

Are they doing science? Or are they litigating to influence their government based on the science. I'd argue that, contextually, they do have people with formal training on the cause - influencing governmental change. Those folks can hire experts to interpret white papers if needed, but they aren't participating in science, they are consuming it. (I don't need to be an excellent musician to advocate for the belief that Spotify doesn't equitably pay musicians. If I wanted to legislatively address that, I'd need lawyers and politicians, not musicians. And I could build a data driven case without many musicians at all.)

zmgsabst 3y ago
I don’t take a group that’s all advocacy, zero expertise as a serious attempt to solve a complex challenge facing society. If you wanted to be taken seriously about “equitable pay for musicians”, then you’d absolutely need people who understand the economics and market dynamics of the music industry. Only having legal expertise makes it seem like you’re merely lobbying your personal feelings — not about a real problem. > And I could build a data driven case without many musicians at all. But not without data scientists, economists, and probably music industry insiders to provide data. And that’s not a job for lawyers and lobbyists; which was the original question.
- fsflover 3y ago
  The difference here is that there is nothing unclear about the climate change. Opinion of the experts is available online, without a need to involve them in every action.
Rochus 3y ago
Would you buy stocks in a biochemistry or medicine company without a single biochemist or physician on the board?
- fsflover 3y ago
  A biochemistry or medicine company must do something novel to be relevant. In this case it's not necessary.
  - Rochus 3y ago
    Then you haven't understood that direct democracy works by convincing fellow citicens to vote for a new idea or direction. People are critical, especially if the new idea or direction restricts their comfort. So you can't just claim anything, you have to win trust with authority and evidence. But it seems that this committee would rather go to court than convince fellow citizens of the validity of their arguments.
    - yareal 3y ago
      Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, apathy, disenfranchisement, and multiple concerns that compete for head space. It's also slow, and the legal system exists specifically to address concerns like this. If a cop is busting heads, you don't wait to elect a new sheriff, you bring a lawsuit to fix the acute problem. If a department is systematically harming a group, you can try to elect someone who will make this their project, or you can get an intervention to prevent further harm via the legal system. Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable, even in a democracy.
      - Rochus 3y ago
        > Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority Democracy is about the majority; and in Switzerland - in contrast to most other democracies - it's the majority of the real population, not just an elite class, and the people directly decide about real problems, not just who should represent them. And there are even provisions which assure that local concerns are sufficiently considered. You should inform yourself about this great political system. > Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable In the present case, it's clearly a misuse; it's a lobby organization with a lot of money that pro forma puts forward an association of old women so that with this sleight of hand the complaint is accepted by the court at all on a subject where the court has no jurisdiction at all. The aim is to undermine a democratically made decision against the will of the people, i.e. exactly the opposite of a democratic process.
- yareal 3y ago
  Apples and oranges. The people aren't attempting to do climate science in this case. Would I buy stock in a company that uses biochemistry products, but did not have a biochemist? Yes, of course.
  - Rochus 3y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39979272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39979272 And they obviously didn't convince Swiss voters, but made them angry instead and more sceptical towards European institutions. See e.g. https://www.20min.ch/story/schweiz-verurteilt-klimaseniorinnen-svp-findet-urteil-gaga-und-will-emrk-kuenden-103081400 https://www.20min.ch/story/schweiz-verurteilt-klimaseniorinn... which includes a poll where 80% of currently ~15k people regard Swiss climate measures as sufficient and the interference of foreign judges as an impertinence.

by yareal 3y ago

zmgsabst 3y ago

I don’t take a group that’s all advocacy, zero expertise as a serious attempt to solve a complex challenge facing society. If you wanted to be taken seriously about “equitable pay for musicians”, then you’d absolutely need people who understand the economics and market dynamics of the music industry. Only having legal expertise makes it seem like you’re merely lobbying your personal feelings — not about a real problem. > And I could build a data driven case without many musicians at all. But not without data scientists, economists, and probably music industry insiders to provide data. And that’s not a job for lawyers and lobbyists; which was the original question.

fsflover 3y ago
The difference here is that there is nothing unclear about the climate change. Opinion of the experts is available online, without a need to involve them in every action.

Rochus 3y ago

Would you buy stocks in a biochemistry or medicine company without a single biochemist or physician on the board?

fsflover 3y ago
A biochemistry or medicine company must do something novel to be relevant. In this case it's not necessary.
- Rochus 3y ago
  Then you haven't understood that direct democracy works by convincing fellow citicens to vote for a new idea or direction. People are critical, especially if the new idea or direction restricts their comfort. So you can't just claim anything, you have to win trust with authority and evidence. But it seems that this committee would rather go to court than convince fellow citizens of the validity of their arguments.
  - yareal 3y ago
    Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, apathy, disenfranchisement, and multiple concerns that compete for head space. It's also slow, and the legal system exists specifically to address concerns like this. If a cop is busting heads, you don't wait to elect a new sheriff, you bring a lawsuit to fix the acute problem. If a department is systematically harming a group, you can try to elect someone who will make this their project, or you can get an intervention to prevent further harm via the legal system. Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable, even in a democracy.
    - Rochus 3y ago
      > Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority Democracy is about the majority; and in Switzerland - in contrast to most other democracies - it's the majority of the real population, not just an elite class, and the people directly decide about real problems, not just who should represent them. And there are even provisions which assure that local concerns are sufficiently considered. You should inform yourself about this great political system. > Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable In the present case, it's clearly a misuse; it's a lobby organization with a lot of money that pro forma puts forward an association of old women so that with this sleight of hand the complaint is accepted by the court at all on a subject where the court has no jurisdiction at all. The aim is to undermine a democratically made decision against the will of the people, i.e. exactly the opposite of a democratic process.
yareal 3y ago
Apples and oranges. The people aren't attempting to do climate science in this case. Would I buy stock in a company that uses biochemistry products, but did not have a biochemist? Yes, of course.
- Rochus 3y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39979272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39979272 And they obviously didn't convince Swiss voters, but made them angry instead and more sceptical towards European institutions. See e.g. https://www.20min.ch/story/schweiz-verurteilt-klimaseniorinnen-svp-findet-urteil-gaga-und-will-emrk-kuenden-103081400 https://www.20min.ch/story/schweiz-verurteilt-klimaseniorinn... which includes a poll where 80% of currently ~15k people regard Swiss climate measures as sufficient and the interference of foreign judges as an impertinence.