> To the extent it is, people are universally guilty of it, unless you can find a clear bright line for which selfish(/rational)

We all ingest some level of arsenic, and are "universally" exposed to radioactivity, but just because something is falls on a continuous spectrum, doesn't mean all levels are equal, there is a point where it becomes too much. That point will not be the same for everyone, but it exists.

> Is it some number of hops from the person who dies that makes the difference?

Not according to the Nuremberg trials.

▲

tptacek 2 days ago | parent [-]

Right, so if that's something you believe, regarding Nuremberg, then you're basically acknowledging my point.

▲

overfeed a day ago | parent [-]

No, because you're insinuating that since we're all responsible for some micromorts[1], somehow our culpability is the same as those who are some responsible for hundreds or thousands of morts[0], which is equating across 10 orders of magnitude in risk to human lives.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort

2. Is that what you call 10^6 micromorts?

	▲	tptacek a day ago \| parent [-]
		That's not actually what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that we make specific choices that have material mortality costs to the world, not that simply by taking up space in our living room we're responsible for some number of nanomorts or whatever. Speeding on the road isn't the most important of those choices, but it's usefully easy to reason about, so start there. If you want to get closer to the culpability that a PE firm has, think about all the ways in which we deliberately benefit from global inequality. All of this can be (is!) bad. But it's not violence in any meaningful sense of the term.