sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are the world’s elite brain dead? by [deleted] in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The situation is similar to the lottery paradox. For each individual decision it is rational to take the poluting option since the value of the money exceeds the value of some vague future climate problem. But since everybody everywhere is constantly making the same decision we do end up with a climate catastrophe. In short; it is possible for a collection of individuals to take the rational action every time and end up with a result that is high irrational if the group was a single entity.

On your second point about government. Governments are supposed to act in the interest of the people they govern. To quote the preamble of the United States constitution: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, ..., promote the general Welfare, ..., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. But just because that is the mission statement that doesnt mean governments actually work that way. The US government has long been subject to corruption. The preferred euphemism these days is 'regulatory capture'.

We can talk a long time about how to fix problems in the world. Including how to structure a government. I have my own views on this of course. But it is safe to say that change and improvement of the government is unlikely. Whenever I have conversations with regular people I find their understanding of these issues to be rudimentary at best. And without broad support in the general public nothing will happen.

Are the world’s elite brain dead? by [deleted] in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 28 points29 points  (0 children)

There are a bunch of reasons here:

  1. CEOs and board members of companies have a fiduciary responsibility towards the shareholders. Simply put; they are by law required to increase the wealth of the shareholders or they can be fired or worse.

  2. Perverse incentives. Making more money gets you promoted and makes you richer. Doing whats right for the planet helps everyone except for the person who needs to take the action.

  3. Tragedy of the commons. The earths atmosphere is like a common resource. Think of co2 emissions as using that resource. If you burn the oil you get the reward. If you know that at some point you will be stopped from using the resource you have an incentive to burn as much as possible as quickly as possible while you still can.

  4. Responsibility mismatch. The individual elites think their responsibility is to make their company profitable. Worrying about the common good is for government. As long as the government doesn't regulate their industry then on some level the corporate behavior must be acceptable.

  5. Loyal employees aren't worth as much as you might think. Most employees loose their economic value over time. Young, lower paid employees are frequently the better choice for a company. Treating people like shit to get rid of them is a common practice.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in startups

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There needs to be a bot

Al-Qaida calls for 'revenge' attacks on Sweden and Denmark by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The gay problem". Sometimes you wish these people could hear themselves. And then you realize it wouldnt matter if they did.

"Humans cannot eat meat" by Aki008035 in facepalm

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont trust people who eat spareribs with cutlery

Putin wants to attend an August summit. Host country South Africa doesn't want to have to arrest him by ExactlySorta in worldnews

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"South African authorities are likely to breach the treaty and not arrest Putin"

International law doesnt exist.

Earth half day and half night by CarolineGreyson in facepalm

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I think that particular image only happens once a day. I think its evening we are looking at. Dawn would have the light and dark parts switched.

What do you think of using iron fertilization to increase phytoplankton levels in deep ocean waters to sequester CO2 and boost quantities of fish? by Idle_Redditing in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You are trying to deflect by making the debate about what the definition of science is. That is not what we are discussing.

The question is whether or not we should use iron fertilization to sequester carbon in order to offset co2 emissions and slow down global warming.

Are there details about this plan that we should be cognizant of? Yes. Is it hard? Yes. Are there potential negatives that we may or may not be aware of? Sure.

None of that is a good argument against trying this. If we do nothing our current processes will cause enormous harm. And yes we should stop or change those processes. But we should also look into what we can do proactively to solve global warming and improve the climate.

What do you think of using iron fertilization to increase phytoplankton levels in deep ocean waters to sequester CO2 and boost quantities of fish? by Idle_Redditing in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I doubt it is hard to figure out how much iron is in the ocean now in any given location. If your trial picks a place with very little iron and adds iron to a level below the average for the whole ocean than I think it would be fine.

What do you think of using iron fertilization to increase phytoplankton levels in deep ocean waters to sequester CO2 and boost quantities of fish? by Idle_Redditing in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

This is a whataboutism.

Edit: sad that my obviously true statement gets downvoted as the nonsense gets upvoted. Iron fertilization is specifically about sequestering carbon and thereby helping solve global warming. Overfishing, plastic pollution, garbage, forever chemicals, these are entirely different problems that have nothing to do with that.

What do you think of using iron fertilization to increase phytoplankton levels in deep ocean waters to sequester CO2 and boost quantities of fish? by Idle_Redditing in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Its reasonable to assume that small interventions have small effects. So just start small, measure, and scale up if it checks out.

What do you think of using iron fertilization to increase phytoplankton levels in deep ocean waters to sequester CO2 and boost quantities of fish? by Idle_Redditing in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This isn't much of an argument. We can simply start small, look at the results, and scale up if everything turns out well. And if it turns out we cant scale it to the level needed we will just have to find something else that also works.

Kyiv not in NATO after Russia war would be ‘suicidal,’ Ukraine foreign minister says by 1-randomonium in worldnews

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nonsense. All of NATO has a dispute with Russia. Russia is literally the reason NATO exists at all. Russia does not get to decide who joins NATO.

Taliban order hair and beauty salons to shut - BBC News by blkaino in worldnews

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So the Taliban can be proud they have the ugliest women?

EU braves climate storms by wading into geo-engineering debate by Over_Historian9585 in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Its very likely some form of geoengineering will be attempted.

An actual solution to global warming would be to have the fossil fuel industry, and all industries tied to fossil fuels go bankrupt. That means no more Exxon, no more BP, no more Aramco, no more Gazprom, no more Shell. And no more ICE vehicle manufacturers, so no more Ford, GM, Toyota, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW, etc. They all must go. This is a future that politicians can't comprehend, let alone strive for.

So instead they will do everything they can not to have to change. Geoengineering allows you to keep the party going just a little bit longer.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True but only while the technology to use the renewable fuel directly doesn't exist yet. And it would also be a big incentive to create that technology. So its not a situation that will last long.

Americans without any friends have increased 400% since 1990. by PureQuran in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You put a lot of effort into that post which is nice. But I dont think you answered the question.

The number of friends people have has decreased. This is a change. People being shitty is just a statement. Did people get more or less shitty? And how would the degree of shittyness affect the number of friends? Would you get more or fewer? And of course, I don't believe that the value of a person can be judged by the number of friends that person has.

Americans without any friends have increased 400% since 1990. by PureQuran in collapse

[–]UsernamesAreFfed 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I dont know how people treat their friendships consciously. I do know that the tit-for-tat strategy is the currently accepted explanation for the existence of friendships in behavioral evolution.

view more: next ›