3 ms·

Yep. It's genuinely shocking to me that people lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that oil extraction is a function of society as a whole. Oil comp

Yep. It's genuinely shocking to me that people lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that oil extraction is a function of society as a whole. Oil companies are the ones who get their hands dirty, but society as a whole benefits and encourages the oil extraction. Take factory farming as another example - you can blame the factory farms, but good luck telling the average American they'll have to pay 3x as much for chicken and hamburgers because the animals were treated well.

letmeinhere 2y ago
These are people in said society operating on another part of the whole. They are not idly "blaming", they are attempting to directly increase the cost function to reduce the extraction. Obviously you disagree with them taking action ("the average American" has to spontaneously demand 3x prices for resistance to be legitimate), but that has nothing to do with a lack of critical thinking ability in your political foes.
voisin 2y ago
> Oil companies are the ones who get their hands dirty, but society as a whole benefits and encourages the oil extraction. Take factory farming as another example - you can blame the factory farms, but good luck telling the average American they'll have to pay 3x as much for chicken and hamburgers because the animals were treated well. The argument “we’re just doing the dirty work to give you what you want” is horse shit. They actively hid information about climate change for decades, they work to ensure continued subsidies to avoid actual competition, they work to add regulations to competing technologies and run disinformation campaigns. They work to entrench themselves so that “giving you what you want” is really “you’ll take what we give since we’ve undermined the alternatives”. Same with factory farming. The only reason people think chicken and burgers should be 1/3 the true cost is because the four big ag companies have worked the government into subsidizing things and reducing labour laws, etc etc etc. Honestly, when your argument starts with being an apologist for big corporations with a profit rather than social motive, I think you should check what first principles you are working with. Our society is a hunger games hellscape and it is because of whatever first principles you are using.
- therobots927 2y ago
  I'm sure they did everything you describe and more. I'm well aware of how corporations externalize costs to increase profit margins, and I'm a huge proponent of stronger regulation and government involvement in corporate day-to-day. It's likely that we would agree on quite a bit. Where we disagree is on the solution to the problems society faces. The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil. This would have profound geo-political implications and would significantly weaken America's standing. Saudi Arabia and Russia will never stop drilling for oil. Like it or not the only way out of this mess is further investment in technologoy and access to energetic resources. The government needs to be subsidizing construction of nuclear power plants in every state of the nation. It needs to be building solar farms all over the western US and hanging high voltage cables from coast to coast. It needs a train network like China. I could go on and on.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil > Saudi Arabia and Russia will never stop You are contradicting yourself - either the global economy won’t grind to a halt, because activist is ineffective, or activism is too effective? The west should be cleaning up its own house and leading by example - instead it has spent decades pointing fingers at China and other countries shouting ‘you first’. Well, guess what, China is now worlds leading user and producer of eclectic cars, has electric busses and most of USA doesn’t. We are the ones behind now, and in fact neither you nor the media have realised it yet. In the next 2 years it will become clear that the king is banked, and that the leadership is no longer with the west, and I am afraid the consequences for us will be significant. The Sputnik moment has already happened, you just aren’t watching.
    - Slava_Propanei 2y ago
      [dead]
    - no_exit 2y ago
UtopiaPunk 2y ago
Isn't this, then, an example of taking responsibility for the harm caused by fossil fuels? Microsoft benefits from them, in this case, very directly by selling their services for a profit. Wouldn't Microsoft denying fossil fuel companies services be a way to deny benefits (profit) in order to discourage oil extraction? I don't think anyone involved lacks the critical thinking skills to understand what you laid out - that our society encourages and depends oil extraction. So what's next? How do you move society to discourage and depend less on oil extraction?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  It's not Microsoft's job to moralize about what businesses need service. They have no problem giving software to authoritarian murderers around the world by the way, yet they have a problem with providing software to an industry we all desperately need for at least decades to come?

letmeinhere 2y ago

These are people in said society operating on another part of the whole. They are not idly "blaming", they are attempting to directly increase the cost function to reduce the extraction. Obviously you disagree with them taking action ("the average American" has to spontaneously demand 3x prices for resistance to be legitimate), but that has nothing to do with a lack of critical thinking ability in your political foes.

voisin 2y ago

> Oil companies are the ones who get their hands dirty, but society as a whole benefits and encourages the oil extraction. Take factory farming as another example - you can blame the factory farms, but good luck telling the average American they'll have to pay 3x as much for chicken and hamburgers because the animals were treated well. The argument “we’re just doing the dirty work to give you what you want” is horse shit. They actively hid information about climate change for decades, they work to ensure continued subsidies to avoid actual competition, they work to add regulations to competing technologies and run disinformation campaigns. They work to entrench themselves so that “giving you what you want” is really “you’ll take what we give since we’ve undermined the alternatives”. Same with factory farming. The only reason people think chicken and burgers should be 1/3 the true cost is because the four big ag companies have worked the government into subsidizing things and reducing labour laws, etc etc etc. Honestly, when your argument starts with being an apologist for big corporations with a profit rather than social motive, I think you should check what first principles you are working with. Our society is a hunger games hellscape and it is because of whatever first principles you are using.

therobots927 2y ago
I'm sure they did everything you describe and more. I'm well aware of how corporations externalize costs to increase profit margins, and I'm a huge proponent of stronger regulation and government involvement in corporate day-to-day. It's likely that we would agree on quite a bit. Where we disagree is on the solution to the problems society faces. The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil. This would have profound geo-political implications and would significantly weaken America's standing. Saudi Arabia and Russia will never stop drilling for oil. Like it or not the only way out of this mess is further investment in technologoy and access to energetic resources. The government needs to be subsidizing construction of nuclear power plants in every state of the nation. It needs to be building solar farms all over the western US and hanging high voltage cables from coast to coast. It needs a train network like China. I could go on and on.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil > Saudi Arabia and Russia will never stop You are contradicting yourself - either the global economy won’t grind to a halt, because activist is ineffective, or activism is too effective? The west should be cleaning up its own house and leading by example - instead it has spent decades pointing fingers at China and other countries shouting ‘you first’. Well, guess what, China is now worlds leading user and producer of eclectic cars, has electric busses and most of USA doesn’t. We are the ones behind now, and in fact neither you nor the media have realised it yet. In the next 2 years it will become clear that the king is banked, and that the leadership is no longer with the west, and I am afraid the consequences for us will be significant. The Sputnik moment has already happened, you just aren’t watching.
  - Slava_Propanei 2y ago
    [dead]
  - no_exit 2y ago

UtopiaPunk 2y ago

Isn't this, then, an example of taking responsibility for the harm caused by fossil fuels? Microsoft benefits from them, in this case, very directly by selling their services for a profit. Wouldn't Microsoft denying fossil fuel companies services be a way to deny benefits (profit) in order to discourage oil extraction? I don't think anyone involved lacks the critical thinking skills to understand what you laid out - that our society encourages and depends oil extraction. So what's next? How do you move society to discourage and depend less on oil extraction?

wakawaka28 2y ago
It's not Microsoft's job to moralize about what businesses need service. They have no problem giving software to authoritarian murderers around the world by the way, yet they have a problem with providing software to an industry we all desperately need for at least decades to come?