It's so enlightening to remember what one once didn't know.
Around 1996 I was programming in BASIC and reading about that thing, “the internet” (I used it for the first time one year later). I was so confused by the apparent ability of e-mail to live in the ether: how come one could send mail to someone whose computer was off, then shut down their own computer, and the message would still arrive hours or days later when the recipient switched on their computer again? Where had that mail been lurking in the meantime??
tripu
boosted
Enviro rant, Europe drought, fecking cows
In drought conditions, people consider the water usage of different crops, and you'll often hear opinions voiced about whether crop X or Y should be allowed because of high water use.
But cattle farming uses more water than practically any crop, indeed cattle will often require *drinking quality water*, and lots of it, but you don't hear people suggesting herd sizes be reduced.
Maybe they fecking well should, though. Ireland is close to a drought right now and we have far more cattle than people, competing with humans and with nature for premium quality water and air and food.
You can help, human! Incentivise fewer cattle by buying less of the associated produce. And maybe ship a letter to a representative about adjusting agri incentives. There are exciting alternatives that will improve your health and require a fraction of the water or land or carbon to produce.
tripu
boosted
RT @Rainmaker1973@twitter.com
In 1951, Adelbert Ames created the mind-boggling ‘Ames Window’. It’s so effective that even when you know how it works you can’t break the illusion [video from The Curiosity Show: https://buff.ly/36DvRNs]
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1556690024527273984
I know a couple who remind me of [Caleb](https://bigmouth.fandom.com/wiki/Caleb) from #BigMouth: they always speak in clichés and platitudes, so much so that it's hilarious.
> _“Humanity went from thinking that the sun was a hummingbird-shaped warrior god requiring human sacrifice to using solar radiation pressure to power interplanetary spacecraft. We credit most impressive achievements like that to science, and some to Al Gore.”_
@fidel Ah, I misunderstood. You asked about MS, but I answered thinking of TE. Yes, both are vandals.
@fidel Yes, it's clear that what they do is illegal. I said “bordering on vandalism”, but I concede they're vandals, OK.
> _“Any such measure will always be subjective.”_
Yes. Moral philosophy isn't objective the way maths are, or even chemistry.
> _“That is why I think imposing your view on somebody else by coercion is unethical.”_
That's a huge leap, a non sequitur. The ethical uses of coercion and violence are within the scope of ethics, too. In _all_ ethical frameworks, there are some cases when the right thing to do is to “impose your view by coercion”.
The fact that moral systems aren't clear-cut equations and that they sometimes (or even often) contradict each other doesn't mean that all forms of coercion are always wrong. You can't escape the messy conundrums of trying to live an ethical life by pretending that it's possible to never force others to do anything they don't want to do.
I think it was good to use force to free slaves from their masters. Remember: they weren't human beings but property to their lawful owners. Freeing slaves was theft. Using coercion (apart from persuasion) to free a slave is the moral thing to do, even if you haven't communicated with the slave and the slave hasn't asked for your help.
Using coercion to stop someone from torturing dogs for fun is the right thing to do, even if those dogs are their property.
If your neighbour insists on expanding his arsenal of heavy artillery and producing chemical weapons, in spite of the clear opposition of the whole community, you guys don't need to wait for him to produce a credible, specific threat before using violence to force him to stop.
In a world with great inequality, where famine killed millions and some individuals had the same resources as medium-sized countries, abstaining from any form of coercion (eg taxation) that could help ameliorate the injustice would be immoral, I think.
etc.
Oh, I see. Yes, the argument can work both ways: more people affected means both more (allegedly positive) impact and more annoyance. OK.
Yes, spoiling a product instead of putting stuff in people's stomachs would definitely be less objectionable for me. I think I would put _Meat Spoilers_ at the same level as _Tyre Extinguishers_: a campaign to cause minor annoyance/loss for potentially lots of people, against the law, across the board, ignoring personal circumstances and justified cases, not directly affecting people's health or body, most likely counterproductive and immoral in the end.
I identify (more or less) as a consequentialist, a (negative) utilitarian, and an (aspiring) rationalist.
My whole moral framework puts something very similar to “the greater good” at the centre. “Bad” to me is whatever increases suffering in the universe. “Good” is defined in opposition. Noting greater than the whole universe, and nothing more important than reducing suffering.
So, in a certain way, the greater good is the only thing I care about, and the only thing I think everyone else should care about!
(Of course I'm oversimplifying, and I'm not absolutely certain about this. But it's the closest I have at the moment to the beginning of a morality.)
Again, I totally get that, and sympathise with the idea. (You and I aren't that far apart in these matters, really!)
Worthy ideas are abused by demagogues and mass murderers. Peace, prosperity, security, freedom, children. They claim to care about all that. As Bryan Caplan says, we aren't cynical enough about politicians.
And yet.
Obviously worthy ideas are worthy per se.
Think of any indictment or policy that would actually improve public health, make children safer, raise living standards, or decrease violence. That's a proposal that would work towards the greater good, by definition. By simply stating that fact out loud, does that proposal become less good? does it switch from beneficial to evil? Obviously not.
No, I don't think your adulterating meat would be justified. As I said, putting stuff inside people's stomachs surreptitiously is way worse than forcing them to take public transportation or call a recovery vehicle.
I'm not supporting TE because what they do affect less than ~20% of people. I'm saying that your hypothetical MA would be worse because it would affect ~98% of people. That, together with the other argument (above) suffice for me to declare MA immoral.
Yes, I like that and use that rule most of the time 👍
Again, I just suspect that _sometimes_ it's justified to damage _some kinds_ of property _a little bit_ for a greater good, depending on many circumstances… 🤷
Contaminating meat in the supermarket would affect ~[97.8% of people in Spain](https://efeagro.com/veganos-vegetarianos-flexitarianos-espana/). The vast majority of people eat meat, and I think it's reasonable to think that a good chunk of those people do so for health reasons.
Deflating the tyres of large and medium SUVs in cities would affect way less than ~[27% of people in Spain](https://www.elespanol.com/motor/20200814/primera-vez-venden-suv-espana-coches-convencionales/512949002_0.html) (_Tyre Extiguishers_ denounce only “huge polluting 4x4[s] in the world’s urban areas”), and I think it's reasonable to think that many of those urbanites opted for a large or medium SUV out of vanity, not necessity.
**“Property” comes in gradations, too.**
My heart and lungs are my property, and so is my motorbike. I want ethics and the law to allow for seizure and expropriation of the latter under certain circumstances — but never the former.
A can of baby formula in your cupboard is your property, and so is the umpteenth billion dollars credited to an individual's bank account. They are taxed very differently (ie, those two kinds of property are “respected” to very different degrees), and I think that's good.
The food I buy for myself, and thus the atoms I put _inside my body_ are “my property” in a very different way that ~~my car~~ / ~~the tyres of my car~~ / _the air_ that once was inside the tyres of my car is “my property” — for very good reasons.
Nobody said “carte blanche”. I said “gradient”, “sometimes” and “could”, and expressed mostly doubts in the form of questions.
I can think of a couple ways _Tyre Extinguishers_ could be justified, while _Meat Adulterers_ should be condemned:
[…some/most people **think** are just.]
