Comment by Nevermark
10 days ago
I am talking about getting support for regulations or even law that constrain damage.
Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote? Thats not more market “freedom”.
To make big changes, good changes, you do need both widespread grassroots support, and the cooperation and competencies of big players.
The military has labeled climate change a global destabilizer for years. Insurance companies and farmers are dealing with the fallout already.
Despite growing corruption, there are still competent people in these organizations to work with.
Neither surrender by blanket cynicism, or the incompetence of apathy, are going to solve anything.
> Despite growing corruption, there are still competent people in these organizations to work with.
This is the part I strongly doubt. Well, not the competence exactly. But the motives. These people don't make their own decisions, they do what the board and shareholders want. And all they want is money. It's the only thing that counts for them. So the only solution is making these externalities have a cost. Business won't collaborate on that because it's only a negative for them.
I don't believe in public/private collaboration anymore. In Holland that was tried way too long.
> The military has labeled climate change a global destabilizer for years. Insurance companies and farmers are dealing with the fallout already.
Yet they continue to run full steam to meddle in oil-producing countries. I doubt they will keep this climate change classification up anyway as it is directly in contradiction to the dogmas of the current administration.
> Yet they continue to run full steam to meddle in oil-producing countries.
That isn't military strategy. That is the politicians choosing oil over alternatives and delegating action accordingly.
The military can warn about the threat of climate change or China's growing technical, manufacturing, scientific and potential AI dominance. But it can't (and shouldn't) set the elected leaders' agenda, or refuse to implement it.
A non-governing military is an anti-corruption firewall.
> This is the part I strongly doubt. Well, not the competence exactly. But the motives
There have been streams of people in power resigning as their particular role gets pinched between corruption or resisting. When that stops, maybe there won't be anyone competent with good motives left. But many people are quietly doing the best they can in the meantime, and hoping for a turnaround in the future.
> And all they want is money.
Yes, for those directly profiting from damage, we are going to have to address that directly if we want to acheive change.
But large segments of the economy are being financially hurt by that damage. So there are many natural allies.
For social media, I think we need some hard laws, to give regulators some teeth. For energy, where the damagers are also value producers (we can't just cut off fossil fuels instantly), whatever financials it takes to straighten that out will result in a net benefit.
People on the right often want companies to be able to do whatever they want, ignoring the damage. People on the left often want to eliminate damage, without any cost. Neither of those viewpoints leads us anywhere but off a cliff.
Boldness here is our friend. The sirens of making little changes, or imagining a big change won't take tremendous coordination or cost something, are mirages.
> I don't believe in public/private collaboration anymore. In Holland that was tried way too long.
That leaves a coupe, which isn't going to produce any improvement. "Tear it down" rarely morphs into building anything. "MAGA" as a soft coupe (democratically elected, undemocratic policies) is a mild example.
It's easy to shoot down the potential for change. But that isn't a plan, a step, or a mindset that has any chance of achieving anything.
Although I 1000% relate to the many reasons we have for cynicism and apathy.