←back to thread

U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

(www.ishn.com)
386 points z991 | 9 comments | 23 Jun 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.941s | source | bottom
Show context
drjolly ◴[24 Jun 25 01:15 UTC] No.44361936[source]▶
I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. Yeah, dump in the rivers, dump in the woods, just drive around in circles dumping in an empty lot. You don’t need masks- give everyone cancer and blow some shit up, maybe get some acid burns. Super-fund sites? When was the last one we had anyway- we need more of ‘em- lots more! Let’s let the kids eat the lead paint and complain of the smells wafting into their cars from the chemical, paper, etc. plants on road trips, just like the olden days!
replies(8): >>44361996 #>>44362018 #>>44362062 #>>44362130 #>>44364765 #>>44365724 #>>44369115 #>>44402602 #
nerdsniper ◴[24 Jun 25 01:37 UTC] No.44362062[source]▶
I wrote elsewhere:

> Please note that the CSB is not an enforcement agency - they don’t assign fault or levee fines or bring any charges or write any regulation.

replies(3): >>44362099 #>>44362122 #>>44362147 #
rectang ◴[24 Jun 25 01:47 UTC] No.44362122[source]▶
CSB investigations still represent an objective source of truth which competes with the PR that companies put out absolving themselves of blame in the event of any mishap. Removing the CSB frees up companies to "self-regulate" and blast out bogus framings.
replies(2): >>44362209 #>>44368906 #
monkeyelite ◴[24 Jun 25 02:02 UTC] No.44362209[source]▶
> an objective source of truth

An alternative source with different incentives and culture, not an objective one.

replies(3): >>44362249 #>>44362351 #>>44362413 #
rectang ◴[24 Jun 25 02:09 UTC] No.44362249[source]▶
That's technically true but underplays the extent to which company self-enforcement PR is malicious nonsense at odds with reality. Companies are amoral piles of money which will do anything to become larger piles of money, and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.
replies(1): >>44362340 #
1. monkeyelite ◴[24 Jun 25 02:23 UTC] No.44362340[source]▶
> and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.

I don’t know any group who intentionally acts against their interests.

replies(4): >>44362361 #>>44362442 #>>44362504 #>>44369089 #
2. spauldo ◴[24 Jun 25 02:29 UTC] No.44362361[source]▶
Voters?
3. vharuck ◴[24 Jun 25 02:46 UTC] No.44362442[source]▶
People who donate money or time to charity. Volunteer firefighters. There's a massive list, really. Overall, kindness is a very common trait. Why else would we have so many countries with welfare programs, even for classes of citizens the majority will never belong to?
replies(1): >>44363004 #
4. ordu ◴[24 Jun 25 02:56 UTC] No.44362504[source]▶
Altruism is very real thing, with very real examples of behavior influenced by altruism. Moreover it altruism is not just something that people do, because they are culturally programmed to believe, that altruism exists. Examples of altruistic behavior are known for many species, including those, that cannot pass complex concepts from one generation to the next by telling fairy tales to their offspring.

Economics tends to use model where every agent is a total egoistic rationalist, and likely it is one of the reasons why the society tolerate totally egoistic corporations. You claimed in other comment that you believe that everything is biased? Don't you think that economics biased you toward egoism?

replies(1): >>44362980 #
5. monkeyelite ◴[24 Jun 25 05:04 UTC] No.44362980[source]▶
> Don't you think that economics biased you toward egoism?

Yes. Economists and critics often do not recognize intangible rewards and incentives.

> Altruism is very real thing, with very real examples of behavior influenced by altruism.

Now do second order reasoning. I didn’t say nobody ever does anything for anybody else. I said organizations do not generally act and support information which is not in their interests.

replies(2): >>44365205 #>>44365589 #
6. monkeyelite ◴[24 Jun 25 05:10 UTC] No.44363004[source]▶
Do you have any articles about firefighters voting to close or downsize the fire house?
7. zimpenfish ◴[24 Jun 25 11:59 UTC] No.44365205{3}[source]▶
Minor nit - the word "generally" was not in "I don’t know any group who intentionally acts against their interests" which makes it a weaker (and more easily defended) claim than your original.
8. ordu ◴[24 Jun 25 12:45 UTC] No.44365589{3}[source]▶
> I said organizations do not generally act and support information which is not in their interests.

I can agree with this statement, but not with your original claim.

9. feoren ◴[24 Jun 25 18:16 UTC] No.44369089[source]▶
> I don’t know any group who intentionally acts against their interests.

I do. I know a group of people that would happily let you shatter every window in their home if you also agreed to burn down the house of their brown-skinned neighbor next door. The same group of people that would cheerfully let you grope their own daughter's genitals if it meant that trans people suffered far worse. The same group of people who would gleefully give up their rights to due process if it meant that people who talk differently from them can be sent to prison camps en masse. The same group of people who cheer at the idea of letting the poor and sick die alone on the street, even as you do everything you can to keep them poor and sick themselves. This group will take any bargain against their own interests as long as others are suffering worse, and they will brag and cheer about it the whole time. And there are tens of millions of them.