*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, January 18th, 2011 10:17am PST - promote requested by enoch.

I don't quite agree with this sentiment. I say These catastrophic incidents happened because of greed and narrow self interest, but not because taking risk is bad.

I was brought up from the old world with accompanying mentality. A conservative mentality where most old world societies such as North Africa, Middle east, Scotland/Ireland, India and Fast East identify with. We prioritize tradition and stability. We don't like new things nor do we like failures. We criticize those who experiment, and blame them for failing.

And in most of these countries we subjugate women and value the strength of community more than the individual liberty. There's no significant technological or social breakthrough because nobody wants to take a risk, and want to keep things the way they are.

So I don't know. Is risk such a bad thing? It's okay to take risks as long as you're prepared to take on the consequences. And that requires thought and self reflection of your own available resources. But when in an institution that blindingly drives you towards profit and huge outcome, you are bound to take big risks you probably cannot handle.

I really appreciated this speech. The twenty minutes flew by. She makes many good points and did a great job explaining "terrestrial skinning". The conclusion however emotionally powerful is somewhat ironic. That in order to do anything about the momentum of big industry is to shove yourself against it and get run over. If direct action organizations like Earth First! amassed a huge amount of people to go up to Canada and try to shut down that monster oil machine the American military would be there in a split second, not to mention all of the legal trouble you'd have to deal with, hell they might even send you to Guantanamo Bay.

The only change I see is in mass consciousness and that is not going to happen anytime soon; someone should really spike a corporate meeting with acid. So, until then the elite might as well keep looking for their next Earth because they have no plan of slowing down the destruction of this one. There is nothing you can do unless you're the next genius engineer but just wait for the Sun to implode and get a couple hits of something to experience what nature wants us to truly be.

Life is risk and fortune favors the bold. Presently not one of the dweebs in DC would have the balls to sail to the New World on the Mayflower. The milksops should stick to what they're good at: whining about the fat in school lunches. Everything else they should leave the hell alone, even for a year.


Rachel Carson? Bad, bad example. By lying about the risks and consequences of using DDT, which caused it to be banned, Carson and the then-head of the EPA are guilty of 30-plus years of eco-genocide.

>> ^legacy0100:
I say These catastrophic incidents happened because of greed and narrow self interest, but not because taking risk is bad.


I think that she is right to a point, but that she missed the structural distinction between accountable and unaccountable risk.

Large companies, like BP don't take reasonable risks, they have rooms full of lawyers vetting every detail of their day to day business, because if they don't cover their ass, then they will have to pay for it in court.

The issue with the oil spill is that it's an unsolvable problem, and so will not be solved, and will, as history has shown, not end up being , by and large, BP's responsibility.

It's not that we reward people for taking risks in general, but that we, in essence, hold harmless those who take risks so stupid that they can not be mitigated.