4 ms·
What does any of that have to do with anything? > If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected comp
by terminalshort 7mo ago
What does any of that have to do with anything?
> If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected computing devices possible, then make that point.
It burns oil and emits CO2. Doesn't matter who makes it or if they are "greedy." Physics doesn't care about human emotions.
> If you want to insist that there could be no automobile or refueling system without a system in which corporate profits primarily are directed towards capital rather than labor, then make that point.
It burns oil and emits CO2. Physics doesn't care about accounting.
> If you find it impossible that powered flight would exist at a price where most people could afford it without specific laws controlling corporate liability and legal fiduciary responsibility, than make that point.
It burns oil and emits CO2. It doesn't matter what the price to the end user is or who liability. Physics does not care about lawyers.
> But "ah, so you use human-created technology while criticizing the organizations that make it" isn't really the winning argument that you appear to think it is.
If your criticism is about global warming, then yes it is a wining argument because the organizations are irrelevant. It burns oil and emits CO2. Physics doesn't care about human organizations.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7mo agoThe GP made an observation about "greedy corporations". You sarcastically wrote > Posted from your iphone while driving to the gas station to fill up? Where did you fly to for your last vacation? as if using any of those technologies means that you have no standing to criticize "greedy corporations". I've pointed out the (potential) disconnect between the technologies and the corporations, and you've now wandered off into "fossil fuels do stuff, physics matters" which of course is true but as before, has nothing to do with someone criticizing what they see as/claim are "greedy corporations".
- terminalshort 7mo agoNice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7mo agoOnce again, you're making an implicit claim about all the nice things in contemporary civilization (or least the list you gave), in this case that their mere existence is "destroying our planet". But you haven't made that case, and it is far from obvious that it is true. It could be true ... but I'm also to the imagined version of a political & economic system that had still produced portable hand-held network connected computing devices and long distance personal transportation vehicles without "destroying our planet". What I cannot imagine, however, is an alternative that still featured "greedy corporations" without the "destroying our planet" part.
- terminalshort 7mo agoCH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O Why can't you understand that this is the only thing that matters??
- southerntofu 7mo agoWell, corporations are destroying our planet, whatever our individual consumption patterns are. I could be living in the woods and that would not change. I'm not denying we have a share of personal responsibility in profiting from this ecocidal system: i'm saying individuals have no choice and no power over this, and social change is produced on a bigger level.
- terminalshort 7mo agoWe do have power over this. You said it yourself: > I could be living in the woods... And so could the rest of us. If we did, there would be no CO2 emissions and, therefore, no global warming. But we don't choose to do this because we would rather live with modern convenience.
- southerntofu 7mo agoThere's fallacies with your argument: - it's technically illegal for me to do that here in France, even if i'm the legal owner of the woods - it could be a choice to live low-tech alternative lifestyles, if there was not active attacks by the State and corporations to destroy any kind of alternative means of survival, such as the very violent processes over the past few centuries to destroy subsistance farming and non-monetary exchanges (laws & regulations, expropriations, imprisonment and murder of political opposition such as during the Paris Commune) - it doesn't matter what we personally and individually do: this is a problem at scale that can only be addressed at scale, and pretending otherwise is a bad faith argument on either side ("recycle your plastic bottles to save the planet") - there's a wide range of possibilities for durable/repairable goods and sustainable lifestyles in between primitivism and our current ecocidal nightmare: to frame political choices as a binary is very limited or dishonest from an intellectual perspective