4 ms·

It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that is the heig

It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that is the height of arrogance. You say I should spend $250K to pad the walls and floor of my home with hypoallergenic 4 inch thick foam because then my kid won't get hurt when he falls. If I point out that I'd rather spend the $250K on his college, than I'm a bastard. You say I should spend $1000 as my share of the cost to paint a picture of a snow capped mountain on the ugly building next door. Everybody in the neighborhood will benefit from having such a beautiful mural, so what is my problem with coughing up the money? I would probably just waste it on fixing the transmission and brakes on my car anyway. It is not your resources that you are spending. It is MY resources you are spending. I choose to donate them to drilling wells for waterless villages in Africa. Who are you to tell me that I'm a bastard for wanting to do that instead of your project? Don't give me this moralistic sermon about greedy people demanding proof of a problem before coughing up the funds to fix it, when they should just smile and give the funds because it's "a good thing anyway". I reject this 100 times more than I reject somebody who is just too lazy to learn the true facts of the issue. Give me people honestly trying to reach an intellectual meeting of the minds any day over this sort of moralistic bullying.

graphene 17y ago
In most cases (and certainly your two examples) I would agree with you on "It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources". However, if you push it to the extreme, you can think of cases where I think society should be able to exert influence on an individual's resource-spending behavior. Say (for the sake of argument) that we are neighbours and you decide to dump nuclear waste in your back yard. Even though the chance that I will experience negative consequences from your actions is not strictly 1 (radioactivity being a statistical phenomenon after all), and that even if I do fall ill, you could point out that I can't prove it was radiation from YOUR pile that got to me, wouldn't you agree that society would be justified in preventing your waste dumping activities simply because it has a high enough chance of causing harm to others? I don't mean to equate the consequences of global warming to those of radiation sickness or cancer, but I hope you agree that both activities (emitting CO2 and dumping nuclear waste in your back yard) have nonzero, non-100% probability of causing harm, and at some point, society should intervene. Consider another example: what if we wake up tomorrow and all the computer models have vastly improved; showing in intricate detail the consequences of every ton of CO2 emitted in terms of rising temperature and sea level, changing rainfall patterns, etc., and that the economic and social costs worldwide are considerable. Assume also that the counter-anecdotes (such as those in the WSJ article) are explained by the models. Assume finally that the models show that the influence on your personal life is minimal. I'm curious as to what you'd do; would you try to decrease your emissions voluntarily, or would you support government efforts to turn things around, or would you continue as before; they are your resources to consume after all..? Would you perhaps even start trying to convince others to minimize their emissions as well, or would that fall under moralistic bullying?
- robotrout 17y ago
  I quit dumping toxic waste years ago. I can be persuaded by real science and economic analysis. Let me know when you have some. It's very acceptable for proven causes of proven societal ills to be handled by a consensus of that society. It's not acceptable to stampede, bully, exaggerate, and mislead to cause something to happen, just because in your opinion, it would be best.
calambrac 17y ago
Whoa, dude. Calm down. First: in some things, it is for society to decide how you spend your resources. For instance, you can't spend them on blowing up random buildings. How is limiting your emissions qualitatively different? Second: when the fuck did I say anything about spending $250k to pad your kids walls, or $1k to buy a fucking mural? Take your hyperbole back to reddit, please. Third: what moralistic bullying are you talking about? When I suggested it might be a cynical response from people who benefit from the current state of things? You really don't think there are people for whom that's true? I admit I probably could have picked a better phrase than "I wonder", but seriously, your response is way out of band.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  A meta observation from the peanut gallery: Instead of both of you using hyperbole to make your points, how about one/both of you outline exactly under which circumstances the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one? That might actually advance your discussion.
  - robotrout 17y ago
    From a species standpoint, I think the good of the many always trumps the good of the few. I also concede that the intentions of both sides are honorable. I think there are puppet masters who use environmental issues to effect trade negotiations or as cover to take more power, but the average hacker news reader, I think has honorable intentions. The disagreement lies in what constitutes the good of the many. What was so attractive about this article for me was that the articles author attempted to open up that discussion a little more than "is it warming or isn't it".
- robotrout 17y ago
  First, I'd like to note, that the whole broken-windows theory is alive and well. I said bastard, you said fuck. I bet you wouldn't have said it, if I hadn't said bastard. That's not anything more than an observation about humans in general, it's not meant as anything more. In regards to your protest at the level of my response. My response is appropriate, but it is, indeed, non-typical. I purposely chose to take off the gloves here, rather than water down my speech because the watered down speech that is so typically used in these kinds of discussions has confused you and many others. Just like abstraction in software, much of our society abstracts away the really important bits. Just like in software, this can be abused. Anytime you calmly and rationally talk about adding taxes to do this program or that program, you need to remember that there are men with guns that will deprive people of their lives or their liberty unless they comply. Too often, you forget that because it's abstracted away by the system we have. I feel that such a profound imposition of your will over mine is indeed cause for less watered down speech than usually used. If that made you uncomfortable, than I'm happy about that. That was it's intent. When you then go on to say that you want to use that awesome power regardless of whether or not the original catalyst is a valid one, because "it's a good idea", I have to do what I can to get through to you how dangerous that sort of thinking is.

graphene 17y ago

In most cases (and certainly your two examples) I would agree with you on "It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources". However, if you push it to the extreme, you can think of cases where I think society should be able to exert influence on an individual's resource-spending behavior. Say (for the sake of argument) that we are neighbours and you decide to dump nuclear waste in your back yard. Even though the chance that I will experience negative consequences from your actions is not strictly 1 (radioactivity being a statistical phenomenon after all), and that even if I do fall ill, you could point out that I can't prove it was radiation from YOUR pile that got to me, wouldn't you agree that society would be justified in preventing your waste dumping activities simply because it has a high enough chance of causing harm to others? I don't mean to equate the consequences of global warming to those of radiation sickness or cancer, but I hope you agree that both activities (emitting CO2 and dumping nuclear waste in your back yard) have nonzero, non-100% probability of causing harm, and at some point, society should intervene. Consider another example: what if we wake up tomorrow and all the computer models have vastly improved; showing in intricate detail the consequences of every ton of CO2 emitted in terms of rising temperature and sea level, changing rainfall patterns, etc., and that the economic and social costs worldwide are considerable. Assume also that the counter-anecdotes (such as those in the WSJ article) are explained by the models. Assume finally that the models show that the influence on your personal life is minimal. I'm curious as to what you'd do; would you try to decrease your emissions voluntarily, or would you support government efforts to turn things around, or would you continue as before; they are your resources to consume after all..? Would you perhaps even start trying to convince others to minimize their emissions as well, or would that fall under moralistic bullying?

robotrout 17y ago
I quit dumping toxic waste years ago. I can be persuaded by real science and economic analysis. Let me know when you have some. It's very acceptable for proven causes of proven societal ills to be handled by a consensus of that society. It's not acceptable to stampede, bully, exaggerate, and mislead to cause something to happen, just because in your opinion, it would be best.

calambrac 17y ago

Whoa, dude. Calm down. First: in some things, it is for society to decide how you spend your resources. For instance, you can't spend them on blowing up random buildings. How is limiting your emissions qualitatively different? Second: when the fuck did I say anything about spending $250k to pad your kids walls, or $1k to buy a fucking mural? Take your hyperbole back to reddit, please. Third: what moralistic bullying are you talking about? When I suggested it might be a cynical response from people who benefit from the current state of things? You really don't think there are people for whom that's true? I admit I probably could have picked a better phrase than "I wonder", but seriously, your response is way out of band.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
A meta observation from the peanut gallery: Instead of both of you using hyperbole to make your points, how about one/both of you outline exactly under which circumstances the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one? That might actually advance your discussion.
- robotrout 17y ago
  From a species standpoint, I think the good of the many always trumps the good of the few. I also concede that the intentions of both sides are honorable. I think there are puppet masters who use environmental issues to effect trade negotiations or as cover to take more power, but the average hacker news reader, I think has honorable intentions. The disagreement lies in what constitutes the good of the many. What was so attractive about this article for me was that the articles author attempted to open up that discussion a little more than "is it warming or isn't it".
robotrout 17y ago
First, I'd like to note, that the whole broken-windows theory is alive and well. I said bastard, you said fuck. I bet you wouldn't have said it, if I hadn't said bastard. That's not anything more than an observation about humans in general, it's not meant as anything more. In regards to your protest at the level of my response. My response is appropriate, but it is, indeed, non-typical. I purposely chose to take off the gloves here, rather than water down my speech because the watered down speech that is so typically used in these kinds of discussions has confused you and many others. Just like abstraction in software, much of our society abstracts away the really important bits. Just like in software, this can be abused. Anytime you calmly and rationally talk about adding taxes to do this program or that program, you need to remember that there are men with guns that will deprive people of their lives or their liberty unless they comply. Too often, you forget that because it's abstracted away by the system we have. I feel that such a profound imposition of your will over mine is indeed cause for less watered down speech than usually used. If that made you uncomfortable, than I'm happy about that. That was it's intent. When you then go on to say that you want to use that awesome power regardless of whether or not the original catalyst is a valid one, because "it's a good idea", I have to do what I can to get through to you how dangerous that sort of thinking is.