4 ms·

The article exemplifies a pretty common attitude among certain types of environmentalists, which is that there's something intrinsically and irredeemably evil a

by kijin 12y ago

The article exemplifies a pretty common attitude among certain types of environmentalists, which is that there's something intrinsically and irredeemably evil about the modern industrial society as a whole. Not surprisingly, it does not occur to them that we might be able to harness and redirect the formidable forces of the industrial economy to do good instead of evil under certain circumstances. Even though this would be easier and more effective than getting rid of it altogether. This is not a failure to think big. It's just what happens when you think big and only big. Nothing less than the entirety of the industrial economy can be the subject of their moral judgments, because they don't want to spend any time trying to find out which parts are okay and which parts are truly evil.

schiffern 12y ago
>which parts are okay and which parts are truly evil I don't know if I agree with your premise here. Why do destructive (or even self-destructive) systems have to have "evil parts"? These are systems problems, not the type of problem you can solve by taking out one kind of people and putting in another (or technology, or political party, or company, or…).
- kijin 12y ago
  I was using the word "parts" very loosely. In large systems, a problem might not be the fault of any specific part(s), but the result of complex interaction among parts. If so, that interaction as a whole, rather than its individual components, would be the "part" that is evil or buggy or (insert appropriately negative expression here). Systems based on faulty architectures tend to be the most difficult to fix, since changing the basic architecture will affect nearly everything else. But even in such cases, it's not helpful to claim that the system as a whole is evil. If the architecture is bad, the architecture is bad. Anything more or less than that is hyperbole.
  - schiffern 12y ago
    >the result of complex interaction among parts Agree 100%. The architecture is bad, and that causes suffering.

by kijin 12y ago

schiffern 12y ago

>which parts are okay and which parts are truly evil I don't know if I agree with your premise here. Why do destructive (or even self-destructive) systems have to have "evil parts"? These are systems problems, not the type of problem you can solve by taking out one kind of people and putting in another (or technology, or political party, or company, or…).

kijin 12y ago
I was using the word "parts" very loosely. In large systems, a problem might not be the fault of any specific part(s), but the result of complex interaction among parts. If so, that interaction as a whole, rather than its individual components, would be the "part" that is evil or buggy or (insert appropriately negative expression here). Systems based on faulty architectures tend to be the most difficult to fix, since changing the basic architecture will affect nearly everything else. But even in such cases, it's not helpful to claim that the system as a whole is evil. If the architecture is bad, the architecture is bad. Anything more or less than that is hyperbole.
- schiffern 12y ago
  >the result of complex interaction among parts Agree 100%. The architecture is bad, and that causes suffering.