3 ms·
> Why not spend the effort in actual species currently at risk instead of what seems like a vanity project or publicity stunt? This type of logic is pretty iff
by boxed 2y ago
> Why not spend the effort in actual species currently at risk instead of what seems like a vanity project or publicity stunt?
This type of logic is pretty iffy. That's the same logic as people who say "Why go to the moon when we have poor people at home?". Except we now know that the moon program made the US and the world much richer due to innovations in tech, AND we also know that the US politicians wouldn't have put that money to the poor if it didn't go to Apollo AND we also know that fixing poverty is actually harder than going to the moon AND we have to accept people solving problems without complaining about other problems that might or might not be worse.
Solving problems is a GOOD THING. It doesn't matter if there are worse problems. Complain about people making shit worse.
- the_af 2y agoWhich problem is this solving? This isn't resurrecting extinct species or truly helping those at risk (both misleading claims made by the company involved), since it doesn't address the root causes. Solving problems is not always a good thing if they aren't the right problems, or if it's more of a publicity stunt. Especially when the topic is resource-constrained. At this point, I'm just repeating that the article makes a valid point. I think otherwise, and so I disagree with you on this point. Let me stress, once again, this isn't about "not playing god" -- not yours, but the sibling commenter's remark about Nautilus -- which I'm in full agreement it'd be a silly thing to claim (and which the article doesn't, as far as I can tell). It does seem technological hubris though, and it doesn't really seem about "trying to do good".