Those are real words, that’s true. The following however is anywhere from not true to wild speculation without any factual basis.
>Global responsibility sounds like the direct opposite of self-determination.
>Some United Nations NGO bureaucrats being brought in to administer it, without acknowledging local knowledge. Getting UNESCO to administer it is not "honoring indigenous traditions"
>Also "store carbon", is more cargo cult pop science.
>They are probably trying to refer to trapping and reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but this is a misleading way of doing so.
It isn't speculation. The article talks about local tribes and UNESCO as if the two ever had much in common. That isn't wild speculation.
We also need to stop referring to carbon dioxide as carbon. It may be a compound of carbon but it is not the same thing. Elemental carbon is not the problem.
The problem is that almost everyone is now expected to get a degree which necessarily devalues the whole thing.
It is now necessary to get a doctorate if you want to really signal academic prowess, but that comes with an incredibly high opportunity and personal cost.
Society really needs to just accept that just over half of the population is never going to maka a good doctor, engineer, physicist, etc. and that is perfectly OK.
We readily understand that very few people can become professional athletes and don’t think any less of those that can’t.
Yes, it is—gp’s point being we do that all the time and often agree that it makes sense.
A baby doesn’t catch a sex pest charge for running around naked, but it also can’t get a gun license. A mom-n-pop doesn’t have to hire an auditor and file with the SEC, but it also can’t sell shares of itself to the public.
Why? The bigger you are, the more responsibility you bear: the bigger the impact of your mistakes, the subtler the complexities of your operation, the greater your sophistication relative to individual customers/citizens—and the greater your relative capacity to self-regulate.
But the conditions aren't here to annoy big companies but because we want to shape society in a specific way. Why would I allow small companies to disrespct author rights and steal, or gather more private information about citizens?
These entities facilitate value creation yes, but they do not create much value and certainly not in proportion to the profits they extract.
I have met people who sincerely seem to believe that if an entity makes money then it must be societally useful because otherwise the market would not reward them with profits.
This seems to me like a self-help belief for people in these lucrative but ultimately not very meaningful positions.
The Mafia makes (made?) a ton of profit but are a net negative on society. The better heuristic may be to consider what would be lost if the industry did not exist. Anything beyond subsistence agriculture would probably be impossible without financialization. There's a reason you had banks even in the middle ages when the average person was poor.
>Anything beyond subsistence agriculture would probably be impossible without financialization.
This is patently not true. The USSR had no financial markets and engaged in the production high value goods. Whether it did so more efficiently than its capitalist competition is another matter, and I believe the answer is likely no, but it clearly did more than subsistence farming.
This assessment is not based in historical reality. The last famine in the Soviet Union ended in 1947, more than 40 years before its dissolution, and with World War 2 being a major contributing factor.
The broader economic situation of the USSR is a very different question to whether or not they were able to progress beyond subsistence farming. One is a relatively nuanced topic, the other is a question that can be answered trivially by someone with the most basic historical knowledge, or even knowledge of modern Russia which clearly has not developed from subsistence farming to a developed economy in the time between 1991 and today.
I agree that banks and many financial instruments are valuable and do facilitate value creation in the world.
But that is the extent of it, they facilitate others to create value but do not make any on their own. They are however very well positioned to extract the profit from other industries and that is why the financial world can be so lucrative.
Also, even if some financialization is beneficial that does not mean all of it is. Too much can be very harmful.
I get your point, I believe I acknowledged the usefulness of financial instruments.
Nevertheless it is not exactly the same. A carpenter’s apprentice is useful only when paired with his master.
He facilitates the carpenter in his value creation but lacks the skills to do anything on his own.
Unlike the apprentice however, finance never actually learns the stuff.
Again, all of this has it’s uses and all, it’s just gotten a bit out of hand in terms of gambling like behaviour and the push the financial world creates towards harmful monopolies.
I think this is a different type of trust.
SpaceX had to prove their competence to be trusted for US government contracts (and other customers).
They did that and I would trust their technical competence.
However, after the events of the past few years, especially last 12 months, they have lost a more important kind of trust.
So those news agencies made the decisions to stay in the press corps just as a nice treat for those reporters (nice trips etc)? Is that what you're saying?
Can you first clarify what point you're trying to make in the context of these news agencies staying or going?
Edit: the equivocation about people not being cynical always in their roles in a corporation (a very trite claim to begin with) is extra funny in the context of the literal laws that bind employees of corporations to do exactly what we all already know they are bound to do:
> They must discharge their actions in good faith and in the best interest of the corporation, exercising the care an ordinary person would use under similar circumstances.
Well I don’t live in the US, maybe there are only cynical people there.
Somehow I doubt that though.
Also remember that “best interests of the corporation” doesn’t necessarily mean get money now and lose reputation for a long time.
Some people might interpret it that way, others not. It is all context dependent and there is no guarantee people would be convinced for taking the long view if they can provide justification.
You raise a valid point, the resources we will have to put towards climate mitigation and dealing with extreme events will be a drain on productivity in other areas.
However I think that will mostly be the case for “real” technology, I think capacity to produce software will be minimally affected even if there was no AI.
>Global responsibility sounds like the direct opposite of self-determination.
>Some United Nations NGO bureaucrats being brought in to administer it, without acknowledging local knowledge. Getting UNESCO to administer it is not "honoring indigenous traditions"
>Also "store carbon", is more cargo cult pop science.
>They are probably trying to refer to trapping and reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but this is a misleading way of doing so.
reply