talking to people about my obsessions pretending im just a casual fan
If you’re poor, the only way you’re likely to injure someone is the old traditional way: artisanal violence, we could call it – by hands, by knife, by club, or maybe modern hands-on violence, by gun or by car.
But if you’re tremendously wealthy, you can practice industrial-scale violence without any manual labor on your own part. You can, say, build a sweatshop factory that will collapse in Bangladesh and kill more people than any hands-on mass murderer ever did, or you can calculate risk and benefit about putting poisons or unsafe machines into the world, as manufacturers do every day. If you’re the leader of a country, you can declare war and kill by the hundreds of thousands or millions. And the nuclear superpowers – the US and Russia – still hold the option of destroying quite a lot of life on Earth.
So do the carbon barons. But when we talk about violence, we almost always talk about violence from below, not above.
Or so I thought when I received a press release last week from a climate group announcing that ” scientists say there is a direct link between changing climate and an increase in violence”. What the scientists actually said, in a not-so-newsworthy article in Nature two and a half years ago, is that there is higher conflict in the tropics in El Nino years, and that perhaps this will scale up to make our age of climate change also an era of civil and international conflict.
The message is that ordinary people will behave badly in an era of intensified climate change."
From a public policy perspective, the fear that an incumbent industry won’t make as much money is irrelevant; in fact, incumbent industries having to adapt to change is evidence of innovation. It’s evidence of the system working.
We should not be particularly surprised by their fear, as these actors do not like users to have any level of control over their own content. The content industry was vehemently against the first VCR when it appeared in the United States, allowing individuals to have any control of their own media. The content industry went to war to kill the idea of individuals recording live television, and argued that an individual recording live television for home consumption was copyright infringement - even though the broadcasters put their content on the airwaves for free. They argued that time-shifting over the airwaves content was copyright infringement, and that average citizens could be liable for $150,000 per recording.
Then-MPAA President Jack Valenti testified before Congress and argued, “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”"
Having a hard time feeling sorry for any industry whose sole argument is “the reality of technological progress is an impediment to our business model. Please change reality.”(via spytap)