leicsmac

I can see the benefit of appealing to self interest in that way. If it's more effective (and it could well be), then I'm all for it.

Interesting way of looking at it. There's an argument to be made that what the ignorers (won't say "deniers" because you may as well deny the force of gravity) think doesn't matter right now, but also it's a sad fact that those industry leaders spoken of and governments too, simply aren't doing enough to stop there being some nasty (though perhaps not catastrophic) consequences around the corner. So trusting to base principles like money to solve this one might do the job, but it will also likely be more costly - in terms of money and lives and civlisational change itself - than getting folks to think further ahead than their line of sight, their next pay packet and next year.

I guess this all comes down again to something we've talked about before - what the worst case scenario for a human being really is. Now, I would insist on it being death/cessation of existence, but I can see why people might think differently and allow that to drive their view on this particular matter.

Of course, you're asking people to address a problem that is abstract to them. To paraphrase Jon Snow: "How do I convince people who don't know me that an enemy they don't have direct physical evidence for yet is coming to kill them all, because by the time they're here it's too late?" (Tyrion didn't have an answer for that either, and he's a smart guy.) At some point, people are going to have to take at least a few things on faith or, quite frankly, get out of the way. NB. If things do go way south, believe me, there will be a reckoning - and I think the people asking why their lives are in vastly reduced circumstances compared to those who came before them aren't going to be too picky about who they blame for it.

Quite, which as per above is going to be difficult to ascertain because we can't run the "experiment" again. I reckon the bolded second paragraph here is something of a false dichotomy because it at least should have been possible to preserve the lives of those older people while maintaining quality of life for the younger. NB. I'm with you in that Cummings is a proper reptile (and perhaps that's an insult to the reptilian population), but what he has said about the discussion, at least, doesn't surprise me.

Both situations involve a total lack of consideration of a proven natural threat that can, did and does take lives and livelihoods, which it why I made the equivalence. Kudos for acknowledging the threat that climate change represents, but quite frankly in my own experience there is a large overlap between those who treat one and the other with nowhere near the seriousness they require. And that line of thinking becoming popular enough to set policy leads nowhere good. Yeah, of course it needed to be discussed. But again, it needn't be a particularly long discussion and one with an obvious conclusion to anyone with any kind of moral compass - which really should be expected of those in leadership positions.

And again while that's "practical" it's still not a discussion any person with a proper moral compass should be looking to have (rather, improving the system so that such decisions are reduced to a minimum) and as long as it saved more lives and preserved than it took, it should again be a short discussion. Of course, it's difficult to ascertain that to any level of accuracy because there's no control group that will control for the amount of variables that existed, so speaking personally I'm OK with the more cautious route chosen when what you're dealing with is a force of nature that cannot be bribed, intimidated or negotiated with. Edit: I see similar arguments made regarding short-term self-interest and "personal freedom" in the climate change discussions, too. They're equally flawed there as they are here when it's obvious that "natural" consequences such as viruses or increased incidences of flooding, drought and famine, even when contributed to by human events, don't care about such discussions and will happily kill, maim and render homeless as they see fit. I honestly do not get why some folks will not choose to fight such things using whatever means we have at our disposal, in the name of some incredibly nebulous concepts that are meaningless in the face of those consequences.

True. And it should be a reasonably short discussion ending with the conclusion that valuing money over human life and health is "practical" in some circles but also morally abhorrent in all of them.

I would say that's mostly true, but at the same time I'm not buying the idea that "ordinary" people are entirely powerless on this one - such powerful figures can be driven to change by the public if such pressure is applied accurately. In any case, as I've said before, I'm not overly fussy about the mechanics of the solution as long as it is effective, because the simple fact is that the consequences of any such mechanic will still be better than the alternative of letting things play out to their catastrophic conclusion.

Frustrating, isn't it? That being said, don't need to convince those so wantonly blind about the future and other people, just as long as you convince enough people to get what needs to be done, done, in a democratic system.

Guess it just goes to show that office politics screws even cutting edge techbro outfits.

Got it, thank you. A CEO who doesn't know what he's doing in charge of a big business in the most bleeding edge tech sector of our time (which if used poorly could have rather nasty consequences). I can see the concern.

Can you possibly elaborate a little on why this isn't a good thing? I'm interested but don't know much about the particulars.

Yeah, a polite reminder for them that it is in fact past the 9pm watershed. Enjoyable watch with the dark comedy, too.

Planet Earth III. Superb again, with a reminder that what we as a species are doing to the natural world is utterly abhorrent.

Accurate.

Hmmmm...I remember John Howard and his face of thunder giving the RWC trophy to Martin Johnson in 2003. The Aussies aren't always great losers.

Fair play to the Aussies. Ugh.

Nah, I can't get there. The Aussie players and most of the fanbase are to a man insufferable.

I'm guessing there may be a few neutrals, including myself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67360929 A good bit of analysis from the Beeb here.

FWIW my own opinion on both Indian and Australian teams and general fanbase (with a few laudable exceptions) is pretty much equivalent so I'm just looking for a controversial thriller here.

I love how the same thought process produced the same result at the same time here. Very agreeable symmetry.

.... and for just a moment, the Modi stadium resembles a library.

Self interest taken to (one of) its logical conclusion, I think.