Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The lack of productivity in the conversation comes from voices like yours which compromise themselves internally before even facing the opposing side.

Obviously if all oil companies magically shutdown today human society would be cataclysmically affected. That would never going to happen short of a "Childhood's End" style alien invasion. Any change, even with extreme external pressure, would be gradual.

That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise. Shut down this pipeline, shut down the next one that comes up. Etc etc.

"Reasonable" perspectives have not helped the planet at all in the past 50 years.

==========

EDIT:

One more thought, let's consider how EFFECTIVE the oil industry has been. Continuous profits, continuous increase in production, great subsidies. How did they do this?

Well, for one thing, they knew about global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels decades before admitting it publicly. They argued from the strongest framing of their position: "fossil fuels don't cause global warning so nothing should change"

It's only in the past decade or so that they put on a face of caring about renewables. That's because public pressure grew enough that the strongest portrayal of their side was acting like they're already doing everything they can.

Moral of the story, if you want to be affective don't compromise. The benefit of caring about the environment is at least we don't have to lie about our side, just boldly state truths and what should happen.




> That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise.

If that is your perspective then don't expect anyone to compromise with you in return.

You drive away both the opposition, as well as people in the middle, like myself, with policy positions like the one you are giving.

You could not hope to convince much of anyone in the middle, if you are unwilling to recognize opposing arguments, or address points of criticism.

If you won't budge an inch, then you should expect to lose to status quo bias, from people who would just choose to do nothing, instead of taking on an extreme position.


If I was the president I would explain how, without drastic changes, most species on earth will go extinct in the next 50 years and that humans could be one of them. Then I'd explain that we need to immediately change from fossil fuels. Then, only then, when negotiating with companies, governors, etc, we would get to the brass tacks of how, when, and what compromises could be need to make it happen.

But we're both nobodies on a public forum arguing, why, oh why, should one start from a compromised position?


So you’re just going to contradict your reasoning about “of course nothing drastic will happen” by stating “if I were president there’d be drastic changes” in the same thread? This is exactly the superficiality I was arguing against. The only convincing you’re doing is that we shouldn’t listen to you.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: