3 ms·

That's a non-sequitur. No one claimed there is a conspiracy or willful neglect. Why would you even make that argument? What possible help could that be? It do

That's a non-sequitur. No one claimed there is a conspiracy or willful neglect. Why would you even make that argument? What possible help could that be? It doesn't matter WHY governments are causing the extinction of the human species. All that matters is that THEY ARE. If some institution, system, person, class, group is accidentally causing the extinction of the species, it matters not what their motive is. Any violence toward them that could be successful is morally obligatory. Even killing 90% of the human species is preferable to extinction--destroying all technology for instance is preferable to extinction. Why are you making dumb arguments that we should do nothing in the face of scientifically proven extinction threat? Do you WANT the species to end?!

dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Eh, I think you are too wound up about it.
- wibkemarianne 13y ago
  Yeah you're right. Extinction of our species is not really something anyone should speak passionately about. We should all just be non-chalent. Ya know, like middle schoolers trying desperately to be cool. You are actually so threatened by what I'm saying that you feel the need to follow me around on HN and add your worthless 2 cents. It's actually rare to see your kind of empty, mindless blabber here on HN. But it does make me laugh.
  - wat0 13y ago
    you're worried about an eventuality, right? Are you more concerned the extinction will be at the hand of humans themselves, or nature? This species hasn't been around very much, but the Sun is eventually going to die. Some spectacular even between now and then could also do it.... so, there are far better things to think about: it's the equivalent of worrying about your own death: that's bound to happen too.
    - wibkemarianne 13y ago
      Your argument is beyond stupid. You might as well say that murder is OK because the person you murder would have eventually died of old age anyway. Are you a psychopath, or just an idiot? Human pollution is causing the short-term extinction of all life of Earth. This is a scientific fact.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    No, I just comment when I see posts I want to respond. I don't always look at the usernames. It just so happens you made two weird, hyperbolic posts on the same thread. :)
    - wibkemarianne 13y ago
      You remind me of David Cross' imitation of 13 year old Metallica fans in the 80s. "Hey, are you weird?" What's weird is you saying I'm "weird" as if that has any value or meaning. Weird as in...what.. genius? Smarter than everyone else? Talking about stuff in a reality oriented way that is completely lacking in the cult of Silicon Valley that is at the forefront of destroying the species?
dj-wonk 13y ago
wibkemarianne: I wrote what I did because the who and the why matter tremendously. I can't give you an exact definition of my morality, but I know that it involves a mix of both practicality and intention. Generally speaking, I don't find it moral to harm a person or group who is not intentionally causing harm to others. In many definitions of morality, there is a high bar to justifying harm. There is an even higher bar to justify violence. I will happily live with a range of people with a range of moralities, but I would not be comfortable living with people who easily justify violence on utilitarian grounds, even if they are claims about the extinction of a species. These claims have to be vetted. Appropriate responses have to be weighed and considered. Unfortunately, a lot of immoral action has been justified "for the good of the many". wibkemarianne, I'm not saying that I understand your views on morality, nor am I saying that you are necessarily a utilitarian. But what you've said implies some possible overlap. Here is how I would frame the problem. Climate change is a collective action problem involving individuals, governments, businesses, and many kinds of incentives and moralities. What are some practical, moral, feasible ways to address the problem? wibkemarianne, you wrote above "Any violence towards [some institution, system, person, class, group is accidentally causing the extinction of the species] that could be successful is morally obligatory." What is your basis for this? What is your definition of morality? The who and why matter because they give important information on how to make change. They also weigh in on morality. Many (most?) people try to make choices that advance their goals. Let's say that a set of groups is part of some arbitrary problem. Let's say that no one of them is fully responsible, but they all contribute to the problem. At what point, if any, is the problem serious enough to justify harming the groups somehow? How confident are you that you understand the problem well enough to justify the harm? Who decides? You have said that in some cases violence is morally obligatory? Whose morality? The above paragraph is only one way to view the problem. Another important perspective is to focus on "how we fix the problem" while working with the groups involved as partners. I'm not saying that men are angels. Neither are their organizations. But often fixing a problem is more important than assigning blame. Blame, by the way, is a computationally difficult, if not impossible, thing to estimate. Sometimes, the blame calculation (e.g. the process of determining who is at fault) is uncertain, computationally expensive, and biased. It is no surprise that many moralities have some notion of "forgive and move on". It often channels your energy in more productive ways. Lastly, even if there are cases where violence is warranted, one has to ask if it will have the desired effect. Practicality matters very much. I made my point because collective action problems, in my experience, are unlikely to be solved by violence. Collective action problems are often best solved by leadership or changing the rules of the game.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

Eh, I think you are too wound up about it.

wibkemarianne 13y ago
Yeah you're right. Extinction of our species is not really something anyone should speak passionately about. We should all just be non-chalent. Ya know, like middle schoolers trying desperately to be cool. You are actually so threatened by what I'm saying that you feel the need to follow me around on HN and add your worthless 2 cents. It's actually rare to see your kind of empty, mindless blabber here on HN. But it does make me laugh.
- wat0 13y ago
  you're worried about an eventuality, right? Are you more concerned the extinction will be at the hand of humans themselves, or nature? This species hasn't been around very much, but the Sun is eventually going to die. Some spectacular even between now and then could also do it.... so, there are far better things to think about: it's the equivalent of worrying about your own death: that's bound to happen too.
  - wibkemarianne 13y ago
    Your argument is beyond stupid. You might as well say that murder is OK because the person you murder would have eventually died of old age anyway. Are you a psychopath, or just an idiot? Human pollution is causing the short-term extinction of all life of Earth. This is a scientific fact.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  No, I just comment when I see posts I want to respond. I don't always look at the usernames. It just so happens you made two weird, hyperbolic posts on the same thread. :)
  - wibkemarianne 13y ago
    You remind me of David Cross' imitation of 13 year old Metallica fans in the 80s. "Hey, are you weird?" What's weird is you saying I'm "weird" as if that has any value or meaning. Weird as in...what.. genius? Smarter than everyone else? Talking about stuff in a reality oriented way that is completely lacking in the cult of Silicon Valley that is at the forefront of destroying the species?

dj-wonk 13y ago

wibkemarianne: I wrote what I did because the who and the why matter tremendously. I can't give you an exact definition of my morality, but I know that it involves a mix of both practicality and intention. Generally speaking, I don't find it moral to harm a person or group who is not intentionally causing harm to others. In many definitions of morality, there is a high bar to justifying harm. There is an even higher bar to justify violence. I will happily live with a range of people with a range of moralities, but I would not be comfortable living with people who easily justify violence on utilitarian grounds, even if they are claims about the extinction of a species. These claims have to be vetted. Appropriate responses have to be weighed and considered. Unfortunately, a lot of immoral action has been justified "for the good of the many". wibkemarianne, I'm not saying that I understand your views on morality, nor am I saying that you are necessarily a utilitarian. But what you've said implies some possible overlap. Here is how I would frame the problem. Climate change is a collective action problem involving individuals, governments, businesses, and many kinds of incentives and moralities. What are some practical, moral, feasible ways to address the problem? wibkemarianne, you wrote above "Any violence towards [some institution, system, person, class, group is accidentally causing the extinction of the species] that could be successful is morally obligatory." What is your basis for this? What is your definition of morality? The who and why matter because they give important information on how to make change. They also weigh in on morality. Many (most?) people try to make choices that advance their goals. Let's say that a set of groups is part of some arbitrary problem. Let's say that no one of them is fully responsible, but they all contribute to the problem. At what point, if any, is the problem serious enough to justify harming the groups somehow? How confident are you that you understand the problem well enough to justify the harm? Who decides? You have said that in some cases violence is morally obligatory? Whose morality? The above paragraph is only one way to view the problem. Another important perspective is to focus on "how we fix the problem" while working with the groups involved as partners. I'm not saying that men are angels. Neither are their organizations. But often fixing a problem is more important than assigning blame. Blame, by the way, is a computationally difficult, if not impossible, thing to estimate. Sometimes, the blame calculation (e.g. the process of determining who is at fault) is uncertain, computationally expensive, and biased. It is no surprise that many moralities have some notion of "forgive and move on". It often channels your energy in more productive ways. Lastly, even if there are cases where violence is warranted, one has to ask if it will have the desired effect. Practicality matters very much. I made my point because collective action problems, in my experience, are unlikely to be solved by violence. Collective action problems are often best solved by leadership or changing the rules of the game.