Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives. Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth. > you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased…
You believe in multiple sources to verify truth. Then why are you arguing against one of these sources? Why are you (effectively) saying that we should just trust a single source of truth - the companies who have explicit financial incentives to deceive?
U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
231–240 of 257 posts
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#232I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. Yeah, dump in the rivers, dump in the woods, just drive around in circles dumping in an empty lot. You don’t need masks- give everyone cancer and blow some shit up, maybe get some acid burns. Super-fund sites? When was the last one we had anyway- we need more of ‘em- lot…
> I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. This is not from the 1950s, but from the 1970s, most famously (though others piled on after Friedman's (in)famous NYT letter): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine In the mid-twentieth century corporate management's focus was more broad: > This view was sh…
I think part of the reason for this decline in thinking was that government regulators came into the picture and so they became the "public" that needed pleasing and over time they all got bought or otherwise captured via revolving door and other mechanisms.
>The fact that people do not know this history, and think that corporation and capitalism was 'always' about only making money,
There's no incentive for anyone who stands to advance their ideology by point out the abuse of corporations to inject such nuance.
This is SOP for policy extremists. They'll never show you any potential middle ground, they want you to skip over it toward the solution they're peddling.
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Democratic societies get the leaders they deserve as they are a mirror of the people themselves. Don't confuse things being soiled by capitalism as democracy somehow is the bad part. There are plenty of examples of democracies that haven't succumbed to capitalism as badly as the US has.
Which are those? Other than Nordic EU countries, most other capitalist countries on the planet are doing worse than the US when you look at stuff like youth unemployment, housing affordability or birth rates, all things that show economic outlook. Capitalism is bad sure, but so far it's the least bad system we ever had and the US is one of the least bad implementations. Capitalism got a lot of countries out of extrem…
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#234Much more cutting is required to balance the budget.
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny as it sounds, the real problem (or at least one of them) is that no one cares about long run profits anymore.
Why do profits, and the stock market, continue going up then? I've heard this nonsense about corporate short termism for decades, and the long term just never seems to arrive.
If I make short term profits off doing the wrong things I have more money to buy up my competition that incurs the cost now. By the time something bad happens there will only be a small bump down on the market.
Antitrust is important.
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's technically true but underplays the extent to which company self-enforcement PR is malicious nonsense at odds with reality. Companies are amoral piles of money which will do anything to become larger piles of money, and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.
> and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest. I don’t know any group who intentionally acts against their interests.
I do. I know a group of people that would happily let you shatter every window in their home if you also agreed to burn down the house of their brown-skinned neighbor next door. The same group of people that would cheerfully let you grope their own daughter's genitals if it meant that trans people suffered far worse. The same group of people who would gleefully give up their rights to due process if it meant that people who talk differently from them can be sent to prison camps en masse. The same group of people who cheer at the idea of letting the poor and sick die alone on the street, even as you do everything you can to keep them poor and sick themselves. This group will take any bargain against their own interests as long as others are suffering worse, and they will brag and cheer about it the whole time. And there are tens of millions of them.
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#237I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. Yeah, dump in the rivers, dump in the woods, just drive around in circles dumping in an empty lot. You don’t need masks- give everyone cancer and blow some shit up, maybe get some acid burns. Super-fund sites? When was the last one we had anyway- we need more of ‘em- lot…
Hmmm, 1950s attitudes, hmm. What if we consider the hypothesis that the animus towards the CSB is for the absolute stupidest reasons possible? Here are the 3 current CSB board members [1-3].
[1] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-catherine-sandoval-...
[2] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-sylvia-e-johnson-ph...
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty important for anyone working around chemicals. I work around truck racks and pump houses and giant fuel tanks all day, and I'm rather glad I don't need to worry about being blown 100 feet in the air in an explosion and leave my family behind like my great uncle did. The reason I don't worry is because, partly due to the CSB, we're pretty good at knowing how to work around explosive liquids safely. Everyon…
The stated motivation is that the bureaucratic structure is redundant, so ideally the good work they do will be continued in another agency.
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#239Chesterton's Fence moment
The people in charge KNOW what the CSB does, that's why they want it gone
The CSB makes it known how much your employer is willing to kill you over saving like ten bucks.
Chemistry industry executives don't like that.
Do you HONESTLY believe that these people who have spent the past 60 years crying about how much the EPA makes their business "harder" (literally 1% more expensive) don't know exactly how the EPA protects the public from them?
They don't care that their actions literally kill people. They don't care.
Dupont did not care at all that they were dumping PFOAs that they confirmed were acutely and chronically toxic to mammals upstream of a small town's drinking water.
They do not care. Executives don't make money for caring.
Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, it is all about dumb people who cannot navigate the current informational landscape. Or about people who relies on informational processing disabilities of others. It doesn't mean that smart people should reject the notions of truth and false.
Brilliant people make absolutely stupid decisions all the time - thinking you're not going to is the trap. It's not possible you could get caught in bullshit you _want_ to believe and _know_ is right, yeah? You and everybody else buddy.
People don't have an innate ability to distinguish truths from lies, they need to learn this skill. Before Internet and LLMs they were relying on authorities to dictate what was truth and what was falsehoods. Those authorities included newspapers and other media, but there were also courts, government officials, politicians and others. There were no easy way to spread misinformation wide, so people were shielded from them. The system worked to some extent.
Now, however, people are swimming in an ocean of lies. They haven't magically acquired skills needed to navigate in this environment. Their own judgments about truthfulness are no better then coin flips. The results are obvious: people experience learned helplessness[1], they avoid making judgments altogether. People instead are picking some "authority" and stick to it. In USA politics, for example, there are two authorities Democrats and Republicans, so it comes to choosing your side. It allows people to avoid psychological burden of making a judgement (they are afraid of failing again). Consequently, people never feel that they were mistaken, because even if they are, it is not their fault, but the fault of an authority. At the same time they see other people who firmly believe in opposite views. Here comes "post truth world". Truth is no longer universal, you can choose any "truth" you like.
However, it is possible to avoid learned helplessness, all you need is to be better than a coin flip at predicting in advance which statements are true and which are false. You need an ability to avoid traps at least in cases when you make an effort. I make an effort when I feel it is important. Moreover in the most cases I do not need to make an effort, because all previous efforts trained my skills that works by themselves. I just see symptoms and guess, and my guessed are often correct.
I think, I need to add one more important ability to have: one needs to get rid of an irresistible urge to have an opinion. It is ok to have no opinion on some topic, to keep yourself in undecided state. Moreover it is a preferred state, if you are not 100% sure or if the topic is not important enough to you to invest time to do some research and to keep an eye on it.
In light of this I do not see the world to be "post truth". I see the most of people seeing the world as a "post truth world", but it is just their rough approximation of the world, their model of it. My model-approximation is not the real thing either, I don't know a lot of truths and keep myself undecided. Yes, I make mistaken judgements also. But the probability of my mistake goes down when I make an effort to avoid it. I feel myself in control. I don't experience learned helplessness. I know that the Truth exists and oftentimes I could reach it, if I wanted to.
So your sarcastic tone is misplaced. I know my limitations and I strive to know them more.