Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 04-Apr-2025 06:34:18 JST Paul Cantrell

   I know the headline-based gut reaction is “destroy capitalism, oh no, please continue,” but what the guy’s actually saying is wild and truly terrifying:

   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/03/climate-crisis-on-track-to-destroy-capitalism-warns-allianz-insurer

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 04-Apr-2025 06:42:11 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     The argument is roughly that the costs of climate change will be so large and come in such rapid, chaotic succession that society won’t be able to handle those costs, and won’t be able to function.

     He’s saying that in language that people steeped in businessthink can actually hear, and honestly I appreciate that.

   • Embed this notice
     Darrin West (obviousdwest@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 04-Apr-2025 06:50:22 JST Darrin West

     in reply to

     @inthehands Insurance can operate where there is predictability, even when the prediction is very negative. They just charge more than most customers would like to pay. But not having an insurance market at all…that means the risks are no longer predictable over the periods of time the insurance company requires. That’s the part that should get our attention. Now, I don’t think this is all bad. Corporations are supposed to embrace business risk and get returns that are greater. If the expectation is now that there is no possibility of profit after factoring in risk…that is saying even more. What if the business if growing food, though. Doesn’t that mean we all starve?

   • Embed this notice
     David Smith (catfish_man@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 04-Apr-2025 06:50:40 JST David Smith

     in reply to

     @inthehands one of the deeply frustrating things about being an anticapitalist is the realization that it's so deeply entwined into our systems that just tearing it down naively will do a lot of harm, while also acknowledging that an orderly transition is orders of magnitude harder than an already herculean task :(

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 04-Apr-2025 06:50:40 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • David Smith

     @Catfish_Man
     Yeah. I think this general family of problem is why the idea of revolution is so enticing to so many of the left, even at the expense of making good and concrete progress: building things is •hard•, really hard, and just seems daunting. And the seductive appeal of the greenfield rewrite never ends.

     (Saying that, I realize how much I tend to view socioeconomic change from my engineering viewpoint: “It’s important to try things, I assume I’m wrong at least half the time, vision should be grand but implementation should be incremental, all grand philosophies should be subject to change based on experience, etc.”)

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 04-Apr-2025 06:52:06 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Darrin West

     @obviousdwest
     I think it’s pretty close to all bad. It’s the wealthy who have the greatest tolerance for risk; insurance protects the small players most. And if anyone thinks the damage will be limited to corporations and not people, well…yeah, nope.