For sure. But right now we're in an era of change. Should addressing the existential threat of climate change be a goal for every company, or not? That's one example.
The Expensify CEO believed that democracy itself was on the line in the 2020 election, and that supporting democracy was relevant to the company's goal.
We can disagree with him but I respect him for exercising his judgement about the situation.
EDIT: I'd like to add, IMHO, workers should have more control over their own labor and see more of the profits of their labor, so, actually I'd like to see companies evolve to become less hierarchial institutions and thus decide priorities in a more democratic / consensus-based fashion.
I don't know how we'd do this. But I know we collectively are smart enough to figure out how to get closer than we are now : ).
I agree 100% politics should be a part of any company. I’d like to see time set aside to educate employees about their 2nd amendment rights and maybe the company can do a dollar for dollar match on NRA donations?
Oh wait, you meant you want to see your politics supported in the workplace. Not politics in general.
Google, which is not known as a bastion of right-wing thought, will indeed match dollar-for-dollar donations to the NRA. Up to a threshold, just like it does for any other charity.
The NRA Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that raises and donates money to outdoors groups and others such as ROTC programs, 4-H and Boy Scouts.
The NRA Foundation is a separate organization from the NRA. Obviously a related one, but the distinction is important because 501(c)(3) organizations can’t do political campaigning.
> Such talk has scared many young people. Shortly after the 2016 presidential election, a young Clinton volunteer named Zach was upset the Democrats failed to beat Trump. According to cbsnews.com, at a meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Zach yelled at a senior official: “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
> Do scientists agree with Zach? The federal government’s Fourth National Climate Assessment was released last November. Hundreds of scientists from 13 government agencies compiled the 1,500-page report. It finds no existential threat from climate change. Zach is likely to have a long life.
Fires, hurricanes, extreme heat, and drought are made more frequent & severe by climate change, and they certainly kill people. Climate change also disrupts food systems and will cause civil war and mass migrations. Millions will need to migrate just from coastal flooding, which I'd imagine will cause plenty of geopolitical strife and ultimately lead to many deaths.
"Existential threat" in my mind means humanity itself is threatened. The species will likely survive but millions if not billions will die due to climate change.
Current projections of the effect of an RCP 8.5 scenario (a “do nothing” approach) suggest severe impacts to the Florida and gulf coasts, creating significant migrations inland. But the projected GDP hit will be an estimated 5%—i.e. losing a few years of growth.
It will be bad and disruptive and many people will die. But based on what we know about the “science” it’s not going to be “existential.” For example the wildfires on the west coast killed 35-40 people. We could have a dozen of those a year and it wouldn’t threaten the existence of humanity or really even civilization as we know it.
“Existential threat” could also mean “something that threatens life as we know it.” Sea level rising above the entire country of Bangladesh certainly qualifies in my books.
Aside: Arguing the exact technical meaning of a term thrown around is kind of a bad faith argument. Maybe we don’t put the same meaning to the same term, which is entirely likely given that HN is an international community.
“Existential threat” means a threat that threatens the existence of something (civilization, humanity, etc). It doesn’t just mean “really bad.” If you have a different meaning, you’re using the term wrong.
And there is nothing “bad faith” about the argument. An “existential threat” warrants a different response than lesser threats. So establishing whether or not climate change is really an “existential threat” is really important to the debate.
Climate change isn’t “existential” even for Bangladesh. A third of the Netherlands is already under sea level. Technology compensates. Experts project that climate change could render 17% of Bangladesh under sea level in 40 years. 90% of Rotterdam is under sea level. The city was originally built using technology substantially more primitive than what Bangladesh might have in 40 years (when it is projected to be a middle-income country with a $3 trillion economy).
Most proposed anti-climate-change policies also threaten “life as we know it”. That’s literally the reason why e.g. the French were massively protesting gas tax hikes.
The Expensify CEO believed that democracy itself was on the line in the 2020 election, and that supporting democracy was relevant to the company's goal.
We can disagree with him but I respect him for exercising his judgement about the situation.
EDIT: I'd like to add, IMHO, workers should have more control over their own labor and see more of the profits of their labor, so, actually I'd like to see companies evolve to become less hierarchial institutions and thus decide priorities in a more democratic / consensus-based fashion.
I don't know how we'd do this. But I know we collectively are smart enough to figure out how to get closer than we are now : ).