Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | Synaesthesia's comments login

If we believe in democracy, yes! We are totally responsible.

The fact that there is such a disconnect between the actions of government and the will of the population shows how flawed "democracy" is.

> ...shows how flawed "democracy" is.

As compared to what?

Well democracy is supposed to be citizens participating directly in the political process. What we have is a very watered down version of democracy - we elect officials every few years, but don't really participate in law making or ratification.

Thereafter black americans since the 1970s

Chomsky's output before the mid-70's was very highbrow, but most of it subsequently is very readable and straightforward.

Decent score there

"and all this time I've been smoking harmless tobacco he he he" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL25r7QxFMU

Activist groups were heavily infiltrated throughout the 60's and 70's by US police, there's every reason to believe they still are.

That much is obvious, I'm just saying that there's no absolutely no reason to believe that the Brits are or ever were any better. The comment I replied to seemed to suggest that if the Brits are doing this, then just imagine what the Americans are doing, because it must be worse. The Germans, too, have used similar tactics recently against environmental groups.

The fishing of Tuna itself is morally questionable. We are busy wiping out the oceans of life. Tuna fish are at the top of the food chain, fishing Tuna has been likened to hunting tigers.

Many tuna species do need help, but that's a really hyperbolic comparison:

A) Every single species of tiger is at least IUCN Endangered, and many are Critically Endangered, or Extinct. [1]

B) Whereas tuna species have a spectrum of IUCN ratings from Least Concern to Critically Endangered, with "Near Threatened" looking like the mean, and with no extinction of any tuna species witnessed yet in documented human history.[2]

C) Tuna are high predators, but are rarely apex predators like tigers. (For example, predators of albacore: [3][4])

D) I can only find one example of tuna extirpation: the North Atlantic Bluefish.[5] Whereas tiger territories have diminished 93%.[2]

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna#True_tuna_species

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies

3 http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2011/bularz_noah/interactions...

4 https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?ParentMenuId=136&id=11...

5 https://www.google.com/search?q=tuna+extirpation

Well the analogy may be hyperbolic and loose, the point is that very little attention is given comparatively to the wiping out of oceanic life, which is very large in scale. We are fishing the ecology into extinction very rapidly.

No - we're eating tuna, as in most cases, humans are at the top of the food chain.

Comments like yours give me reason to look forward to the day humans become extinct.

We're not meant to rule over nature, we're meant to be part of it. We are part of it. Damaging the capacity of the planet to support life will ultimately cause us problems, and that includes draining the oceans of its wildlife.

And from what magic scrolls did you divine these universal truths about human purpose?

Explain how a human could live outside nature.

Being part of nature comes with no moral qualifications. The fact that can't "live outside nature" implies that everything you do is living inside nature, whether you find it morally repugnant or not. We have (social) responsibilities to each other and to ourselves, and that includes taking care of our environment, but we do not have any metaphysical responsibility to nature itself, including such things as "not ruling over it."

Why would you want to rule over something that you destroy in the process?

I don't see how that question has any bearing on anything at all. Your word choices in this discussion are strongly indicative of a none-too-thought-out black-vs-white worldview.

Don't ask me why I would want to rule. Perhaps I would like to rule over your mind to destroy this propensity for dumb questions to be asked of me. The world would be a better place for it.

If you answered the question you'd have seen why it was relevant, but if you'd rather not then allow me to elaborate.

Imagine someone is fascinated by seeing a butterfly moving between the plants in their garden. Does the person own the butterfly? Naturally, it has no allegiance to any person. Can they own the butterfly? The only ownership possible appears to result in the butterfly being held captive, either alive or dead. The captivity robs both the person and the butterfly, the butterfly is robbed of its freedom, and the person is robbed of the joy of seeing the butterfly live naturally, which is what they may have found fascinating in the first place.

This is a hard thing to explain, because it requires a different mindset. If someone is of the ownership mindset then it doesn't matter to them what existed before that ownership, or what happens after their ownership. However, with a less individualistic mindset, different values emerge. For example, is a tree worth more than the paper it can produce?

Who's talking about ownership? We're talking about control. You can control something that you don't own.

If you were using land to grow food, do you control it or own it?

No, I don't know the price of tea in China.

Let me explain then.

In a scenario where you use land to grow food, if you don't own the land you can't say you control it. How this that the case? You can state you control it without owning it, and use that land to grow food. However, that control only lasts if only one person has access to the land. If I decide to dig up all of your crops and use the land for my own use, then do you really have control of the land? No. Neither would I in this scenario, anyone could undo the changes I made as well.

Ownership enables exclusive control. When it comes to managing resources, there is no reliable control without exclusive control.

In other words, in this case, there's no point in making the distinction between ownership and control.

> Damaging the capacity of the planet to support life will ultimately cause us problems

At that point, we can always eat each other and keep our population in control.

If other life forms are made extinct, why do you suppose there'll be enough humans to eat?

Also, cannibalism isn't particularly good for our health...


The one metric which nVidia is beating AMD handily in is gaming performance/power consumption.

Make way for the oligopoly!

The diffraction grating is super rad, and the agar gel too.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact