151–160 of 229 posts
While this dumping is horrific you also have to understand how beneficial DDT was: > Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions-even tens of millions-of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical before or since. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/02/the-mosquito-k...
DDT is effectively harmless. You can eat it and be fine for a bet. In an ocean, even if you swapped these barrels for a real poison it doesn't matter. It dilutes to nothing. The insanity on HN about this, I hope clarifies their intelligence on everything. To go to these commentators for their view on say, Rust, is just as insane. And this isn't about stupidity, the banning of DDT was criminal, it killed many many peo…
Since humans are the ultimate apex predator that eats other stuff on this planet we need to be really careful about the chemicals we release into the environment, unless we want to end up poisoning ourselves. It's not complicated: creating and dumping large amounts of a long lived chemical that does not break down easily, and which causes increased cancer risk is a really bad idea.
It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…
The problem with your approach, besides the immorality of arbitrary post-hoc rationalization for punishment, is that it is not pragmatic. What's done is done, and you need people to get behind making it better. If you come out and push a policy that in part entails rooting and punishing those responsible (or even descendent of those responsible), you'll have people come out against it just for that reason and the env…
Often brought to us by the same people (present company not necessarily included) who previously insisted that "the science isn't settled".
It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, DDT is like "IBM". It might mean "International Business Machines", but many people wouldn't immediately recognize it unless the acronym is used (while the opposite is true: if you know what the acronym stands for, you usually know the acronym as well). And I'm sure Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane wouldn't add much for most people that read a newspaper :)
Even from the context, it was not clear to me what DDT was. I suspected it was some chemical. I would have appreciated a sentence or two explaining why it is bad and what it does. What IBM is would typically be clear from the context: "IBM reported record loss in 2nd quarter of 2020".
It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…
The problem with your approach, besides the immorality of arbitrary post-hoc rationalization for punishment, is that it is not pragmatic. What's done is done, and you need people to get behind making it better. If you come out and push a policy that in part entails rooting and punishing those responsible (or even descendent of those responsible), you'll have people come out against it just for that reason and the env…
What's your agreement threshold for collective action?
"there's a reason why the North, after winning the civil war, has largely chose not to collectively punish the South..."
And how'd that work out?
I'm befuddled by the false choice of "do nothing" and "make them pay".
What about Truth and Reconciliation? Conduct an honest accounting of what happened, what we've learned, and how we're going to fix it.
Think of it as a post mortem. Hopefully not literally.
I’d probably be more worried about the nerve gas and mustard gas munitions dumped into the ocean after WW2. Far more toxic.
While this dumping is horrific you also have to understand how beneficial DDT was: > Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions-even tens of millions-of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical before or since. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/02/the-mosquito-k...
Couldn't bug nets have achieved the same effect without poisoning the biosphere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>post-hoc punishment is the only reasonable punishment. Maybe a little charitable interpretation is warranted? I clearly meant, post hoc rationalization for the punishment. Typically you punish when AN EXISTING law is broken. In this case, OP is arguing for new punishment based on new laws that were broken in the past. >My guess, it was already illegal to poison the environment No. The devil is in the definition of '…
> All the rights that corporations have stem from the rights of the owners. Corporations have rights, because the owners have rights. This is simply not true. All of the rights that corporations have stem from a public-interest grant by the state. If the rights of corporations came from the owners, we 1) could jail stockholders for the crimes of the corporation, and 2) wouldn't need corporations, because all they are…
Go on...
"Corporations aren't actual people, they're statutory people. Little branches of the government."
Oh.
I'd be ecstatic if we resumed chartering of corporations. If corporations are "people", we should be able to "unpeople" (terminate) them.
I've long hoped that progressives and libertarians could find common ground over the need to reign in corporations.
I've always found it weird that "freedom from oppression" minded people prefer Big Corp over Big Govt. As you point out, corporations are just more government, but without all that troublesome accountability, transparency, and democratic oversight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.
This is not collective punishment. There are already laws where children have to give up inheritance because it was created with illegal activities. There are laws against illegal dumping of dangerous chemicals. It is not too far fetched idea that existing laws can be used to recover some of damages caused by this.
And yes, punishing a family member for a crime perpetrated by another is, by definition, collective punishment.