Hacker News Reader

Comment by Avicebron | Hacker News Reader

That's one way to speedrun war with all of asia simultaneously

War is irrelevant. No country is going to agree to cease impacting, harvesting, etc wildlife. It’s to hard to monitor, enforce, predict, etc wildlife harvesting.

I am not saying humanity needs to protect wildlife because it is the “nice thing” to do, saying it because I sincerely believe Earth and humanity need’s wildlife to have a habitable planet; anyone is welcome to feel free to explain how this is wrong.

The cynic in me says that long term habitability of the planet have very little impact on the quarterly revenue of most corporations.

If business school taught me anything, is that the only revenue that matters to execs is the quarterly one.

Corporations and ultra wealthy clearly have an over sized impact and influence on the world, but — when it comes to a topic like this, it’s 8 billion people saying, yummie, yummie, F the world; or the people not saying “yummie, yummie” refusing to enforce not impacting wildlife on those who clearly don’t care.

unionise. doesn’t matter what for. increase the counterweight to the corporations. make them think twice when they act

vegan population worldwide is likely close to 0.1% of the world’s population — how exactly are unions going to solve anything? This is a consumption issue by consumers; it’s like saying if you eliminate the drug dealers, it’ll solve a drug epidemic, no it won’t.

who said anything about vegans. unionise in any category. make the corporations think twice when they act. it doesn’t matter about what. politicians won’t, don’t and almost never have brought about lasting change for the whole, not without unions leaning on them

Fair enough, though still unclear how unions matter.

edited my comment further

Sorry, read the edits, but you’re ignoring the part where union members are contributing to the problem and have provided no explanation of how or why the union members would become part of the solution.

Happy to try to understand, here’s even link to list of the percentage of workers per country that are union workers, though that’s obviously not a global count of the number of union members worldwide as a percentage of world’s population:

https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/union-membership/

while, yes, you are right, unions do sometimes act against sustainability and the environment in order to protect jobs, they are also much more democratic and therefore much more sensitive to the issues of the people as a whole. when unions are strong, corporations have to be careful how they act. there becomes another factor to consider beyond legality and share price. this creates more accountability, especially when politicians are slow to act. and politicians are always slow to act

> going to agree to cease impacting, harvesting, etc wildlife

There is deep precedent for successful conservation programs. The anarchy of our international system makes this difficult. Filling the seas with toxic byproducts of war isn’t the answer.

It’s a stretch to think any country would go to war to prevent the crimes they to commit.

> a stretch to think any country would go to war to prevent the crimes they to commit

The buggy has lost the trailer. What? Is the claim there is no hypocrisy in war?

You proposed violence as a solution to the problem. I’m arguing that’s untenable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com