forward1
What? This is just silly. You don't know the difference between hypothetical fantasy and real life, or are you just being hyperbolic?
> Secondly, the principles that underpin this scenario are highly active in the world today
Still, it is irrelevant since I asked for a real world example.
> Not too long ago my neighbor cleaned the carburetor on my lawn mower, and I fixed his router config in exchange
Another contrived example which excludes the entire world. Who made the lawn mower? Who made the router? Literal slaves in a third world country. Surely you are not so ignorant you know this?
> whether Person B can get enough protein from coconuts is entirely irrelevant
It is not irrelevant; it is hilarious you don't know this simple nutritional fact.
What is the basis of this opinion, though? What gives you this entitlement that companies must employ people if they're well off (according to you)?
> The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale.
Who cares? You think business isn't callous or even cutthroat? You think businesses care about "morale" over the bottomline? You would be so wrong.
> The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create.
According to ... the petulant ranting of HN readers? Or do you have a more authoritative or objective reason to believe this?
I guess that's why hedge fund managers have billions in assets and are paid millions of dollars, to deliver sub-market returns. Yep, makes total sense.
The majory of people are idiots, so this part is almost certainly expected and acceptable.
> If everything is unethical then nothing matters, but people don’t want nothing to matter so they construct shades of grey to make choices and judgements on. Your “um actually everything is unethical” is irrelevant to the game they’re playing.
Where did I say everything is unethical? Where did I say nothing matters? This is the way people want to re-frame the conversation because it is too difficult for them to break through their conditioning to apprehend how the world works.
What a silly and selfish opinion. I guess people will use fossil fuels because they "feel" like it too.
> Plenty of people are fine with killing animals to eat, and are also not fine with animals dying for no point. That should not be difficult to comprehend.
It is not difficult at all. The ideology is known as Carnism and it has been written about extensively. It seems like you're unaware of your own conditioning, which is ironic.
You haven't at all addressed the amount of resources and emissions 8 billion humans vs 100 billion animals create.
It does if you stop to consider it. For instance, do you think those 100 billion animals need food to eat? Water? Are they creating waste? How much compared to 8 billion people?
> agriculture is about 10% of our emissions
Not all emissions are equal though. Some, like methane produced by cows, are substantially harder on the environment. Moreover, the transportation and power emissions also include animal ag, which is less efficient than plant farming.
Now, what uses more fossil fuels: 8 billion humans or 100 billion animals? It is shocking most people cannot recognize this simple imbalance.
Put another way, we cannot reduce fossil fuel use without also reducing animal agriculture.
Where in the thread have I or anyone else done that?
> You know, the kind that fossil fuel consumption is causing.
So confidently incorrect. It is well known agriculture (and we really mean animal agriculture) produces more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel industry. Your anger at the state of the world has been misdirected at the wrong culprit.
What is the difference?
> you did not give me any criteria for a satisfactory "counter-argument".
I had. Many times. I asked for examples of ethical businesses. None were materialized. Therefore my assertion remains unchallenged and likely true.
FYI it is spelled Tor, not ToR and not TOR.